Download PDF
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height: 115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">REPRESENTATION:<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Bookman Old Style","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">V. E. OBI-IJOMA (MRS) FOR THE CLAIMANT<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">L. B. SHOPEYIN, ESQ; FOR THE DEFENDANT<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center;line-height:normal"><b><span style="font-size:4.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:22.0pt;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center;line-height:normal"><b><span style="font-size:4.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:22.0pt;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center;line-height:normal"><b><span style="font-size:4.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:22.0pt;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center;line-height:normal"><b><span style="font-size:4.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:22.0pt;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center;line-height:normal"><b><span style="font-size:4.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:22.0pt;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center"><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:22.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Bookman Old Style","serif"">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">This suit was commenced by the Claimant against the Defendant by way of Originating Summons filed at the Registry of the High Court of Lagos State. However, it was later transferred from the High Court of Lagos State to the National Industrial Court of Nigeria pursuant to an order granted by Hon Justice O. A. Taiwo (Mrs), dated 13<sup>th</sup> day of November, 2012 on the basis of an application for transfer premised on Sections 254A, 254C, 257 and 272 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), the National Industrial Court Act, 2006 and National Industrial Court Rules, 2007. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">By mutual consent of the parties, and in furtherance of an order of this Court made on 11/11/2013, all processes filed in the High Court of Lagos State (former Court) including the pleadings of the parties, were deemed as regularly filed in this Court. It is to be noted that while the case was pending at High Court of Lagos State the Originating Summons with which the suit was commenced was jettisoned, and the parties were ordered to file their pleadings.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">Hearing proper commenced in this matter on 13<sup>th</sup> February, 2014 when Claimant, who testified in person as CW1 was fielded in proof of his case. CW1 swore on oath with the Holy Quran and stated that he is Chief Isiaka Olaseni Abiodun Wahab, a pensioner. CW1 told the Court that he swore to a witness statement on oath at High Court of Lagos State, Badagry Division. The witness statement on oath was filed 29<sup>th</sup> March, 2011. The witness statement on oath was tendered as exhibit; same was admitted in evidence and marked Exhibit CW1<sup>1</sup> – to CW1<sup>1D</sup>. Subsequently, a bundle of documents was tendered in evidence and admitted in evidence as follows: Exhibit CW1<sup>2 </sup>– CW1<sup>2(a)</sup>; Exhibit CW1<sup>3</sup>; Exhibit CW1<sup>4</sup>; Exhibits CW1<sup>5</sup>; Exhibit CW1<sup>6</sup>; Exhibit CW1<sup>7</sup>; Exhibit CW1<sup>8 </sup>– CW1<sup>8(b)</sup>; Exhibit CW1<sup>9 </sup>– CW1<sup>9C</sup>; Exhibit CW1<sup>10</sup>; Exhibit CW1<sup>11 </sup>– CW1<sup>11(a)</sup>; Exhibit CW1<sup>12</sup>; Exhibit CW1<sup>12 </sup>– CW1<sup>13(a)</sup>; Exhibit CW1<sup>14 </sup>– CW1<sup>14(a)</sup>; Exhibit CW1<sup>15</sup>; Exhibit CW1<sup>16</sup>; Exhibit CW1<sup>17</sup>; Exhibit CW1<sup>18</sup> and Exhibit CW1<sup>19 </sup>– CW1<sup>19(a)</sup>. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">Having tendered the above documents in evidence, the Claimant prayed the Court to grant all the reliefs contained in his originating processes. The Court was urged to order the payment of his entitlements. At that point, examination in chief of the Claimant was brought to an end. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">On 2<sup>nd</sup> May, 2014, the Defendant’s counsel cross examined CW1. During cross examination, CW1 stated that he retired from the service of the Defendant around 20<sup>th</sup> August, 2008, which according to him, was supposed to be the effective date of his retirement. CW1 further testified under cross examination that he gave notice of retirement to the Defendant on 31<sup>st</sup> May, 2007 and that this action was filed sometimes in 2010. The witness stated that his notice of retirement was dated 31<sup>st</sup> May, 2007. The witness also stated that he was a senior officer of the Defendant before his retirement. .<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">On resumption of cross examination on the 1<sup>st</sup> day of December, 2014, a document was tendered through CW1 and was admitted in evidence and marked as Exhibit CW120 – CW120(A). The witness was thereafter discharged. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">The Defendant opened its defence on 24<sup>th</sup> June, 2015, when one, Semawon Akinyanmi of Ijanikin, Lagos State testified as DW1 having sworn on oath with the Holy Bible. He stated that he works in the Legal Unit of the Defendant. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">The witness answered myriads of questions put to him and tendered his witness statement on oath made on 5<sup>th</sup> April, 2011 in evidence. The witness statement on oath of DW1 was admitted in evidence and marked Exhibit DW1 – DW1<sup>J</sup>. Further to DW1’s testimony, other documents were admitted in evidence, which include Exhibit DW1<sup>AA </sup>– DW1<sup>AA36</sup>; Exhibit DW1<sup>AA37</sup>; Exhibit DW1<sup>AA38 </sup>– DW1<sup>AA42</sup>; Exhibit DW1<sup>AA43 </sup>– DW1<sup>AA44</sup>; Exhibit DW1<sup>AA45</sup>; Exhibit DW1<sup>AA46</sup>; Exhibit DW1<sup>AA47</sup>; Exhibit DW1<sup>AA48</sup>; Exhibit DW1<sup>AA49</sup>; Exhibit DW1<sup>AA50 </sup>– Exhibit DW1<sup>AA58</sup>; Exhibit DW1<sup>AA59</sup>; Exhibit DW1<sup>AA60</sup>; Exhibit DW1<sup>AA61 </sup>– DW1<sup>AA64</sup>; Exhibit DW1<sup>AA65 </sup>– DW1<sup>AA66</sup>; Exhibit DW1<sup>AA67 </sup>– DW1<sup>AA70</sup>; Exhibit DW1<sup>AA71 </sup>– DW1<sup>AA73</sup>; Exhibit DW1<sup>AA74 </sup>– DW1<sup>AA75</sup>; Exhibit DW1<sup>AA76</sup>; Exhibit DW1<sup>AA59</sup>; Exhibit DW1<sup>AA60</sup>; Exhibit DW1<sup>AA61 </sup>– DW1<sup>AA64</sup>; Exhibit DW1<sup>AA65 </sup>– DW1<sup>AA66</sup>; Exhibit DW1<sup>AA67 </sup>– DW1<sup>AA70</sup>; Exhibit DW1<sup>AA77</sup>; Exhibit DW1<sup>AA78 </sup>– DW1<sup>AA79</sup>; Exhibit DW1<sup>AA80</sup>; Exhibit DW1<sup>AA81 </sup>– DW1<sup>AA82</sup>; Exhibit DW1<sup>AA83</sup>; Exhibit DW1<sup>AA84</sup>; Exhibit DW1<sup>AA85</sup>; Exhibit DW1<sup>AA86 </sup>– DW1<sup>AA88</sup>; Exhibit DW1<sup>AA89 </sup>– DW1<sup>AA92 </sup>and Exhibit DW1<sup>BB </sup>– DW1<sup>BB23</sup>. Subsequently, the case was adjourned for cross examination of DW1.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">On resumption of hearing DW1 responded to questions put to him by learned counsel for the Claimant. DW1 was thereafter discharged as there was no re-examination. Consequently, the parties were ordered to file their final written addresses. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">It is important to mention that the final written addresses filed by the parties were adopted on the 2<sup>nd</sup> of March, 2016. Upon an application made by learned counsel for the Defendant, the Court granted an order deeming the Defendant’s final written address filed out of time as properly filed and served. Consequent upon this, counsel for the Defendant adopted his final written address which was dated 30/11/2015 and filed on 01/02/2016. Learned counsel adopted same as his submission in defence of the Claimant’s action. He urged the Court to dismiss the Claimant’s claim with substantial cost in favour of the Defendant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">Oh his part, learned counsel for the Claimant sought leave of the Court to withdraw its earlier final written address dated 01/02/2016. This process was therefore struck out by the Court, after which learned counsel for the Claimant adopted and relied on the final written address dated 22/02/2016. Learned counsel for the Claimant urged the Court to grant the reliefs sought by the Claimant in his statement of facts. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">On the 9<sup>th</sup> of June, 2016, learned counsel for the Defendant adopted the reply on points of law dated 22/03/2016. The Court was called upon to dismiss this action with substantial cost in favour of the Defendant. The case was adjourned for judgment, and that the date would be communicated to the parties.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">I will now proceed to review the submissions made by the parties in the final written addresses. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">In the Defendant’s final written address settled by L. B. Shopeyin, Esq., three (3) issues were distilled for the determination of the case as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:76.85pt;margin-bottom: 0in;margin-left:1.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">“1. Whether the Claimant not having exhausted the internal remedy of the Defendant, this action is competent?<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:76.85pt;margin-bottom: 0in;margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:76.85pt;margin-bottom: 0in;margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""> ALTERNATIVELY TO ISSUE 1<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:76.85pt;margin-bottom: 0in;margin-left:1.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">2. Whether the Claimant from the evidence before the Court discharged the burden of proof on him and is entitled to succeed on (sic) his claims in this action?<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:76.85pt;margin-bottom: 0in;margin-left:1.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:76.85pt;margin-bottom: 0in;margin-left:1.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">3. Whether the Defendant from the evidence led intended to defraud or unjustly withheld the Claimant’s gratuity and pension and is liable to the Claimant in his claims in this action?”</span></b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">ARGUMENT OF THE ISSUES<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">Issue one:<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">Whether the Claimant not having exhausted the internal remedy of the Defendant, this action is competent?<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""> </span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">Issue one was argued in alternative to issues 2 and 3 and it challenges the competence of the action of the Claimant due to the Claimant’s failure to exhaust the internal remedy of the Defendant before instituting the action <i>a fortiori </i>the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain same. It was submitted on behalf of the Defendant that where the competency of an action is challenged on the premise that the condition precedent before the institution of the action was not complied with, it will amount to the fact that the case is not proper before the Court, and thus, affect the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the case. Learned counsel for the Defendant relied on <b>AJAO v. SONOLA [1973] 5 SC 119 at 123</b>. On the authority of <b>MADUKOLU v. NKEMDILIM [1962] ANLR (Pt. 4) </b>587, counsel posited that the law is trite that before a court of law can exercise jurisdiction on a matter, the subject matter of the action must be within the power of the Court and all the conditions precedent before the jurisdiction of the court can be invoked, must be satisfied and fulfilled. Counsel also referred to <b>SKEN CONSULT v. UKEY [1981] 1 SC 6; GAMBARI v. GAMBARI [1991] NWLR (Pt. 152) 150; FRED EGBE v. ADEFARASIN [1987] 1 NWLR (Pt. 47) 1; EGBE v. ALHAJI ALHAJI [1990] 1 NWLR (Pt. 128) 546.<o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">Counsel contended further that the incompetence of the action of the Claimant robs the Court of its jurisdiction and that the Court has a duty to determine same <i>in limine</i>. It is the position of counsel to the Defendant that once an issue which affects the jurisdiction of the Court as a threshold issue is raised, such must be determined by the Court before any other step in the proceedings is taken. He relied on <b>SANI v. OKENE LOCAL GOVERNMENT TRADITIONAL COUNCIL [2008] 5-6 SC 131; ELABANJO v. DAWODU [2006] 6-7 SC 24 at 33-38; NDAEYO v. OGUNNAYA [1977] 1 SC 11; OLOBA v. AKEREJA [1988] 7 SC 1; JERIC NIGERIA LTD. v. UNION BANK OF NIGERIA PLC [2000] 12 SC (Pt. II) 133; ADEYOMI v. OPEYORI [1976] 9-10 SC 31. </b>In view of the foregoing, counsel for the Defendant urged this Honourable Court to determine issue one before any other issue or claim of the Claimant in this action. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">It was subsequently submitted for the Defendant that the Claimant did not comply with the Rules and Regulations of the Defendant and the LASU Law before instituting his action. The Defendant argued that under LASU Laws there are hierarchies within the structure of the Defendant system that an aggrieved person must exhaust before seeking judicial remedies. The Defendant’s argument in this regard is that in the event of a dispute arising from or relating to any financial matter, the aggrieved party must first refer the dispute to the Bursar, being the Chief Financial Officer of the Defendant. Where the party is not satisfied with the decision of the Bursar, an appeal is to be made to the Vice Chancellor, and subsequently to the Governing Council of the Defendant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">It was submitted that in the instance case, the Claimant did not make any complaint to the Bursar but was busy casting aspersions on the personality of the Bursar. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">Learned counsel for the Defendant then contended that the Bursar did not take a formal decision that the Claimant appealed against to the Vice Chancellor. It was also pointed out that in like manner, the Vice Chancellor did not also take any decision which the Claimant is dissatisfied with and which can be appealed against to the Governing Council of the Defendant. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">The Defendant submitted further that the Claimant by the Defendant’s Rules and Regulations first ought to complain to the Bursar, if he is not satisfied with the Bursar’s decision he should then have appealed against same to the Vice Chancellor, then to the Management and lastly to the Governing Council of the Defendant before the Claimant could approach the Court. Learned counsel for the Defendant contended that asking the Claimant to exhaust the internal remedy of the Defendant which by Law has authority over what transpired cannot be regarded as unconstitutional or to mean that the Claimant has been denied access to the Court. Counsel urged the Court to hold that the Court is deprived of jurisdiction and therefore resolve the issue in favour of the Defendant. The Court was urged to strike out the case for want of jurisdiction. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">Issue Two:<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">Whether the Claimant from the evidence before the Court discharged the burden of proof on him and is entitled to succeed on his claims in this action? <o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""> </span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">The Defendant in issue two contended that the Claimant’s reliefs in his action are declaratory in nature. It was further argued that it is the nature of the claim and the relief sought that determines the burden or onus of proof imposed on a party. It was the position of the counsel for the Defendant that the claims of the Claimant are rooted in both civil and criminal law. In fortifying his argument, counsel for the Defendant relied on the cases of <b>BARCLAYS BANK v. ASHIRU [1978] 6-7 SC, 99 at 130-131; IBENEWEKA v. EGBUNA & ANOR. [1964] WLR 219 at 224 </b>to the effect that a claim for declaratory relief is discretionary in nature which is granted at the discretion of the Court and not as a matter of course. Counsel stated that recourse must be made to <b>section 131 of the Evidence Act, 2011, </b>which generally stipulates that burden of proof lies on a person who asserts the existence or nonexistence of a fact. In support of this proposition, learned counsel cited the cases of <b>ABIMBOLA v. ABATAN [2000] FWLR (Pt. 46) 989; OKHUAROBO v. EGHAREVBA [2002] 5 SC (Pt. 1) 141; ITAUMA v. EKPEME [2000] FWLR (Pt. 16) 2809; KYARI v. ALKALI [2001] FWLR (Pt. 60) 1481 at 1484</b>. Counsel to the Defendant consequently relied on <b>section 133 (2) of the Evidence Act, 2011 and AROMIRE v. AWOYEMI [1972] 2 SC 1; ADELEKE v. IYANDA [2001] FWLR 1580 at 1582 </b>to the effect that onus of proof is not always static, but shifts. As regards the criminal claim that the Defendant is liable for a crime under the Pension Law, counsel relied on <b>sections 135 (1) & (2) and 139 of the Evidence Act, 2011</b>. He contended that where there is a commission of crime in a civil case, the standard of proof required is proof beyond reasonable doubt. He relied on <b>SHELL BP v. OLANREWAJU [2008] ALL FWLR (Pt. 458) 208. <o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">For the purpose of clarity the Defendant examined in a chronological manner, the reliefs sought by the Claimant and the evidence led to check if they are truly established. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">Reliefs (a) and part of (g) (The duration of the Claimant’s accumulated annual/terminal leave and payment of salary and interest for the period 21/8/2008 – 7/10/2008.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">With regards to the above, the Defendant’s counsel submitted that the Claimant failed to discharge the burden of proof placed on him by law in leading credible, cogent and direct evidence on this point as against the Defendant who led quality evidence in support of his defence to the Claimant’s action. It was submitted for the Defendant that parties are bound by their pleadings and all facts or evidence contrary to pleadings or any part of the evidence not supported by pleadings goes to no effect. He relied on <b>GEAORGE & ORS. v. DOMINION FLOUR MILLS [1968] ANLR 71 at 77; OGIDAN v. OLIHA [1986] NWLR (Pt. 91) 78. <o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">The Defendant stated that the 420 days accumulated leave applied for by the Claimant was granted through the Defendant’s letter dated 17/7/2007 (Exhibit B) contrary to the Claimant’s contention of 18/7/2007 and same ended on 7/10/2008 instead of 20/8/2008 as claimed by the Defendant. Exhibit B herein was also tendered by the Defendant as Exhibit DW1<sup>AA84</sup>. It was contended that the Claimant did not lead any evidence to show that he disputed his period of 420 days accumulated leave with the Defendant. According to the Defendant, accumulated leave under the Conditions of service guiding its Senior Staff is one dated June, 2008 tendered as Exhibit G by the Claimant, which applied to the contract between it and the Claimant cannot be monetized but must be taken as part of terminal leave. It was also the case of the Defendant that the Claimant was specifically notified by its letter dated 6/3/2007 before his retirement. Counsel submitted that the admission by the Claimant in his letter dated 15/5/2007, that is, Exhibits C1-C2 & E1-E3 relieves the Defendant of any burden of proof on the ground that what is admitted need not be proved. He relied on <b>section 20 of Evidence Act, 2011 </b>and the cases of<b> AKINIWO v. NSIRIM [2008] FWLR (Pt. 410) at 610 particularly at 663; BALOGUN v. LABIRAN [1988] 6 SCNJ 71 </b>and<b> NWUKO v. UNION BANK OF NIGERIA [2009] FWLR (Pt. 499) 537</b>.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">On the authority of <b>Section 128 (1) Evidence Act, 2011; FORTUNE INTERNATIONAL BANK v. PEGASUS [2004] 1 SCNLR (Pt. 11) 164; BUNGE v. GOV. OF RIVERS STATE [2006] 12 NWLR (Pt. 995) 573 at 616-617</b>, counsel stated that where there is a conflict between a written document and an oral evidence, the oral evidence will not be used to contradict, alter or vary the contents of the written document, where the document is clear and unambiguous. The Defendant argued that all the doubts created by the Claimant in respect of his accumulated leave or that he is entitled to the salary of 48 days and interest is extinguished by Exhibit DW1<sup>AA76</sup>, Exhibit DW1<sup>AA74</sup> and Exhibits DW1<sup>AA78-79</sup>. Thus, counsel prayed the Court that the Claimant must fail based on the above contention for failing to lead credible evidence that his terminal leave did not commence on 31/5/2007 and that he is short paid for 48 days. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">Reliefs: (b), (c) & part of (g) (The scheme under which the Claimant is to be paid his gratuity and pension)<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">The Defendant submitted that this is the crux of the Claimant’s case. Counsel stated that paragraph 30 of the Claimant’s claim, alleges that the contributory scheme under the Pension Law did not start in Lagos State earlier than March, 2010, and that since his voluntary retirement commenced on 21/8/2008 after the expiration of his terminal leave, he is qualified to be paid his terminal benefits under the old scheme of pay as you go. On this, the Defendant joined issued with the Claimant and led evidence that it adopted the Pension Law which came into effect in Lagos State on 19/3/2007 on 1/6/2007. It was submitted that since the law had become operative before the Claimant retired, it was applicable to him. The Defendant contended that the fact is confirmed by the Defendant’s decision extract dated 15/6/2009, the Legal advice of the Solicitor General of Lagos State dated 30/7/2009, Lagos State Pension Commission Letter dated 14/6/2010 and the Defendant’s letter dated 24/6/2010 tendered as Exhibit DW1<sup>AA </sup>respectively. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">Counsel for the Defendant submitted that a look at the Pension Law revealed its commencement date to be 19<sup>th</sup> March, 2007 and that the Contributory Scheme is created under <b>section 1 (1) </b>to replace the old pay as you go system. Counsel also stated that <b>section 1 (2) </b>of the Pension Law applies to all pensionable employees of the public service including tertiary institutions owned by the State of which the Defendant is one except those exempted under section 13 (1). Learned counsel stated that <b>section 2 </b>corrects the problem in the old system to establish a set of rules and regulations for the administration of payment of retirement benefits in the State and ensure that people who leave the public service are paid their terminal benefits as and when due. The Defendant submitted that the Court in interpreting this Law must adopt the interpretation that will bring out the objectives of the Law stated above. He relied on <b>UTOMUDO v. MILITARY GOVERNOR OF BENDEL STATE & ORS [2014] 5-6 SC (Pt. II) at 51 para. 35. <o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">Counsel also stated that it is not in all cases that words in a statute will be given their ordinary or literal meaning but at times they are given other meanings or given their statutory or judicial definition which may supersede the ordinary meaning. He contended that where the interpretation of statute will lead to absurdity, other interpretations other than their ordinary or literal meaning that will bring out the real purpose or objective of the Law should be adopted. He cited <b>OYENIYI v. BUKOYE [2013] ALL FWLR (Pt. 694) 64 at 102 – 103 paras. H-A; ARDO v. NYAKO [2014] 10 NWLR (Pt. 1416) 591. </b>Counsel stated that the Claimant who argued that he is exempted under <b>section 13 (1) of the Pension Law </b>failed to lead evidence in support of his claim and he did not contest his retirement date with the Defendant but confirmed it. It was also argued for the Defendant that the Pension Law had commenced in the Defendant as at the date of the Claimant’s retirement, hence, he comes under the Law and his gratuity and benefits are payable under the Law. The Defendant further stated that the Claimant’s benefits have been calculated but that the Claimant is yet to notify the Defendant of the Pension Fund Administrator (PFA) of his choice. <b><o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">The Defendant stated that by the combined effect of Exhibit DW1<sup>AA93, </sup>Exhibit DW1<sup>AA95</sup> and Exhibit DW1<sup>AA95-98</sup> the Claimant is covered by the Lagos State Pension Law and that he is not exempted under <b>section 13(1) of the Pension Act </b>as claimed by him. It was submitted by the Defendant that should the Court overrule him and hold that the Pension Law does not apply to the Claimant, such interpretation would defeat the objective of the Law. In other words, learned counsel contended that it is in line with the literal interpretation of the Pension Law to hold that it applies to the Claimant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">Relief (d) (Commission of a crime under section 65-66 of the pension law).<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">It is the case of the Defendant that the Claimant failed woefully to lead any evidence to establish that the Defendant committed any crime neither did he prove his allegation of crime beyond any reasonable doubt as required by law. It was further submitted that the Claimant has failed to show that the Defendant did not exercise reasonable diligence in handling his case<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""> According to the Defendant, for the Claimant to discharge the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt, he has a duty to place before the court all relevant evidence. Furthermore, counsel argued that proof beyond reasonable doubt will not be achieved where there is unexplained material contradiction in the evidence of the witness. It was submitted for the Defendant that the opinion of the Lagos State Pension Commission expressed in its letter dated 14/6/2010 relied upon by the Defendant in its letter dated 24/6/2010, shows clearly that the Defendant neither had the intention to defraud the Claimant nor knowledge that a crime had been committed in relation to the pension of the Claimant. The attention of the Court was drawn to Exhibit DW1AA80 which shows that the Claimant’s benefits have been calculated, and the letters dated 21/1/2009 and 3/4/2008 requesting the Claimant to appoint a Pension Fund Administrator of his choice. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">Relief (f) part of (g) and (h): (Special, general damages and exemplary damages)<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">It was also submitted for the Defendant that it was not in breach or violation of the Pension Law. On the special and exemplary damages, the Defendant contended that for the Claimant to succeed on it, he must specifically prove that he is entitled to it and that the Defendant was influenced by malice and hatred to continuously deny him the payment of his gratuity and pension. Counsel stated that the contention of the Claimant on the award of damages is not supported by evidence. Learned counsel for the Defendant posited further that damages claimed must not be too remote but must be the natural consequence of and connected to the breach or must flow naturally from the act complained of. He relied on <b>HADLEY v. BAXENDALE [1854] 9 EXCH. 341; ATTIVE v. KABEL METAL (NIG.) LTD. [2008] FWLR (Pt. 430) 66; SHENA SECURITIES COMPANY LTD. v. AFROPAK [2008] FWLR (Pt. 426) 1827. </b>It is also argued for the Defendant that special and general damages must be proved based on facts, while special damages must be specifically proved. Counsel cited <b>ONYIORAH v. ONYIORAH [2008] FWLR (Pt. 397) 152. </b>To the Defendant, he contended that the essence of award of damages is not to enrich a party but to restore him to the position he will have been if there has been no breach. It is stated that items in <b>paragraph 36 (d), (g) and (h) </b>do not flow from the breach and they are not within the contemplation of the parties. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">Learned counsel stated that the purported invoice No. 03374 dated 15/08/2008 showed that same was issued before the Claimant voluntarily retired from the Defendant. It was therefore submitted that the invoice raises the possibility that the Claimant was engaged in another employment while he was still in the services of the Defendant. This, according to the Defendant, is contrary to its Rules and regulations as contained in Chapter 1, paragraph 21 of Exhibit G and also the 5<sup>th</sup> Schedule to the Constitution. In all, it is submitted for the Defendant that the Claimant’s evidence is at variance with his pleading and failed to discharge the burden of proof placed on him by Law. Counsel urged this Court to hold that the Claimant is not entitled to the reliefs sought and his case be dismissed.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">Issue three:<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">Whether the Defendant from the evidence led intended to defraud or unjustly withheld the claimant’s gratuity and pension and is liable to the Claimant in his claims in this action?<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""> </span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">Learned counsel for the Defendant adopted the arguments canvassed while arguing Issues 1 and 2 above. Learned counsel argued that if the Court resolves issue two against the Defendant and hold that the Claimant has discharged the burden of proof placed on him under <b>sections 133 (2), 135 (1) & (2) and 139 of the Evidence Act, </b>then, the Defendant has no counter-claim and has no burden of proof placed on him.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">The Defendant also submitted that it did not commit any offence under the Pension Law. And that the Claimant has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it deliberately denied him his gratuity and pension. Hence, it is contended that the Defendant cannot be liable in damages to the Claimant. Learned counsel for the Defendant submitted that the Defendant has not committed any offence under the Pension Law and that the Claimant has not proved the commission of any such crime by the Defendant. In view of this, learned counsel argued that the Defendant is not liable in damages to the Claimant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">The totality of the arguments canvassed on behalf of the Defendant is that the action of the Claimant is incompetent as the condition precedent to its commencement was not fulfilled; and that the Claimant has failed to prove his case. The Court was urged to dismiss the action in its entirety.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">In the Claimant’s final written address dated 22<sup>nd</sup> February, 2016, and settled by Oludare Fasae Esq., the Claimant donated succinctly eight (8) issues for determination by the Court as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:76.85pt;margin-bottom: 0in;margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">“1. Whether the pre-retirement terminal leave of the Claimant started on 31<sup>st</sup> May, 2007 and ended on 20<sup>th</sup> August, 2008 or started on 18<sup>th</sup> July, 2007 and ended on 8<sup>th</sup> October, 2008?<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:76.85pt;margin-bottom: 0in;margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:76.85pt;margin-bottom: 0in;margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">2. Whether the Claimant should be paid his retirement benefits on the basis of the new pension scheme or on the basis of the exemption in Section 13 (1), (3) (4) and (5) of the Lagos State Pension Reform Law 2007?<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:76.85pt;margin-bottom: 0in;margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:76.85pt;margin-bottom: 0in;margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">3. Whether or not it was right of the Defendant to have retained till date the amount deducted from the Claimant’s emolument as retirement savings between 1<sup>st</sup> June, 2007 and 20<sup>th</sup> August, 2008 and refused to pay same to the Claimant in spite of section 13 (3) of the Lagos State Pension Reform Law, 2007?<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:76.85pt;margin-bottom: 0in;margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:76.85pt;margin-bottom: 0in;margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">4. Whether or not the Defendant has discharged enough duty of care to the Claimant by not paying his retirement benefits for over 7 (seven) years after his retirement, considering the totality of the facts of this case?<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:76.85pt;margin-bottom: 0in;margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:76.85pt;margin-bottom: 0in;margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">5. Whether or not the Claimant is entitled to liquidated or special damages for the income or profit he would have made from his ice-block business and other investments if his gratuity had been paid immediately after his retirement on 8<sup>th</sup> October, 2008, the effective date of his retirement or as may be decided by the honourable court?<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:76.85pt;margin-bottom: 0in;margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:76.85pt;margin-bottom: 0in;margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">6. Whether it was just and/or equitable for the Defendant to have retained to date the retirement benefits of the Claimant from 8<sup>th</sup> October, 2008 and deductions unlawfully made from his salary between 1<sup>st</sup> June, 2007 and 20<sup>th</sup> August, 2008?<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:76.85pt;margin-bottom: 0in;margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:76.85pt;margin-bottom: 0in;margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">7. Whether or not the Claimant is entitled to compensation by way of general and exemplary damages for all the undeserved hardships, inconveniences, forbearances and sufferings for almost eight years that his retirement benefit has been willfully and unlawfully detained by the Defendant? <o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:76.85pt;margin-bottom: 0in;margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:76.85pt;margin-bottom: 0in;margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">8. Whether or not the Defendant has committed any infringement on the Pension Reform Act 2004 and/or Lagos State Pension Reform Law of 2007?”</span></b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%; font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""> <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">ARGUMENT OF THE ISSUES DISTILLED BY THE CLAIMANT<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">Issue one:<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">It is the case of the Claimant that he ought to have started his 420 days pre-retirement leave on 31<sup>st</sup> May, 2007 but the approval of same was not conveyed or written until 17<sup>th</sup> July, 2007, which made him work up to 17<sup>th</sup> July, 2007. That is, he worked 48 days after he should have started the leave. Claimant contended that if he had started the leave on 31<sup>st</sup> May, 2007, it would have ended on 20<sup>th</sup> August, 2008. Counsel in his argument stated that it was normal for the Claimant to start the leave on 18<sup>th</sup> July, 2007, since the memorandum conveying its approval was delivered to him on 17<sup>th</sup> July, 2007 and to end same on 7<sup>th</sup> October, 2008. Counsel urged this Court to hold that the Claimant’s leave started on 18<sup>th</sup> July, 2007 and ended on 7<sup>th</sup> October, 2008 and relied on <b>Exhibit CW<sup>6 </sup>and section 123 of the Evidence Act, 2011. </b>It is submitted that the Claimant deserves to be remunerated for the period he worked for up to 7<sup>th</sup> October, 2008. Counsel urged the Court to so hold.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">Issue two:<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">Counsel for the Claimant argued that the Lagos State Pension Reform Law 2007 created two situations. <b>Section 1 </b>establishes a contributory pension scheme for all employees in the public service of Lagos State and defines the category of employees covered therein. On the other hand, <b>section 13 </b>provides for exemption from the scheme. Going by the commencement of the Law, Claimant argued that he is correct in his interpretation of the Law whilst the Defendant’s position in <b>Exhibit CW<sup>8</sup> </b>is a complete departure from the Law. Counsel stated that flaws in <b>Exhibit CW<sup>8</sup> </b>were articulated in <b>Exhibits CW<sup>8, 10, 12, 13, 14</sup></b> and <b>CW<sup>16</sup>.</b> Counsel posited that <b>Exhibit CW<sup>3</sup> </b>is a confirmation that the Claimant was promoted to the post of Chief Executive Officer (Administration) on 1<sup>st</sup> October, 1996 and not on April, 2002 as stated in <b>Exhibit CW<sup>8</sup></b>. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">It was submitted for the Claimant that this Court should state unequivocally that the relevant law to the suit of the Claimant is the Lagos State Pension Reform Law 2007 and not the Pension Reform Act, 2004 on which the Defendant relied in issuing <b>Exhibit CW<sup>8</sup>.</b> It was also submitted that the conclusion of <b>Exhibit CW<sup>20</sup> </b>which was tendered by the Defendant through the Claimant during cross examination is not the true statement of the Law but a personal opinion of the author. He stated that the Civil Service Rules is alien to the Nigerian University System and the Defendant. And that the document regulating the employment of staff of the Defendant is its approved Conditions of Service. On this point, learned counsel relied on the case of <b>MWANA v. UBN PLC [2003] 28 WRN 142 at 150. <o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">While relying on the authority of BUHARI v. OBASANJO (No. 1) [2003] 47 WRN 44 at 47-49, </span></b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">learned counsel for the Claimant submitted that<sup> </sup>where the words of a statute are clear, they should be given their natural, literal and grammatical meanings. Counsel also referred to <b>EJUETAMI v. OLAIYA [2002] WRN Vol. 9 1 at 5; DR. C. C. v. UDE [2002] WRN Vol. 37, 101-114 at 110. </b>In view of these, counsel prayed this Court to grant the reliefs of the Claimant and argued that the whole of his case is rested squarely on the correct interpretation of <b>section 13 </b>of the Law and that the retirement benefits of the Claimant should be calculated on the <b>PAY AS YOU GO </b>system under the old pension scheme.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""> <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">Issue three:<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">Counsel submitted that in view of <b>section 13 (5) </b>of the Law, the Defendant owes a duty to pay the Claimant his pension and other retirement benefits as and when due. He argued that once the duty is breached, the injury done is not only financial but psychologically traumatic and the Claimant deserves to be compensated for the breach.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">Issue four:<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">It was submitted that payment of pension and gratuity to the Claimant is statutory because he had put in a total of 31 years before his voluntary retirement from the services of the Defendant. It is argued that the behavior of the Defendant is oppressive, arbitrary and unlawful for not paying the Claimant’s retirement benefits for over seven (7) years. Counsel is of the view that for the Claimant to be asked to open a Retirement Savings Account as a condition precedent to the payment of his retirement benefit is tantamount to re-writing the Law. It is posited that this is absurd and inconsistent with the provision of the Law and that the Claimant is entitled to exemplary damages. He relied on <b>COMPLETE COMM. LTD. v. ONOH [1998] 5 NWLR (Pt. 549) 221; UNION BANK OF NIGERIA LTD v. OREDEIN [1992] 6 NWLR (Pt. 247) 355.</b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">Issue five:<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">Learned counsel stated that the doctrine of <b><i>Ubi jus ibi remedium </i></b>is applicable to the case of the Claimant for the Defendant’s unjust infliction of injury on the Claimant by denying him his post-retirement primary means of livelihood. Thus, it is argued that the Claimant deserves to be compensated for the undeserved pains, agonies, traumatic experiences he suffered as a result of non-payment of his retirement benefits for over 7 years in spite of several demands as contained in <b>Exhibits CW<sup>9, 10, 12 and 14</sup>. </b>Counsel submitted that the agents of the Defendant were nonchalant and outrageously scandalous with the primary purpose of taking undue advantage of holding on to the money and deriving interest therefrom. Counsel stated that <b>Exhibit CW<sup>11</sup> </b>shows the loss of N135,000.00 daily by the Claimant as a result of the behavior of the Defendant. The Claimant argued that <b>section 13 (3) </b>of the Law is very clear and that all monies deducted from the Claimant’s personal emolument should have been refunded to him latest on 7<sup>th</sup> November, 2008 in conformity with the Law. He referred this Court to the cases of <b>COMPLETE COMM. LTD. v. ONOH [1998] 5 NWLR (Pt. 549) 197 at 221; ONAGORUWA v. IGP [1991] 5 NWLR (Pt. 193) 593.</b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">Issue six:<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">It was submitted here that it was neither just nor equitable for the Defendant to have withheld, detained or retained to date the retirement benefits of the Claimant from 20<sup>th</sup> August, 2008 or 8<sup>th</sup> October, 2008 without paying any amount to him for over 7 years. He argued that in defiance to <b>section 13 (3) </b>of the Law, the Defendant should be answerable for infringing the provisions of the Law.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">Issue seven:<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">Counsel submitted here that by all the exhibits tendered by the Claimant, it shows that the Claimant did everything possible to convince the Defendant to do the right thing according to Law but it chooses to ignore the Law and act according to its whims and caprices. Therefore, the Claimant stated that he is entitled to the award of general and exemplary damages bearing in mind that the act of the Defendant was inhuman and deliberately designed to frustrate and destabilize the Claimant for no just cause. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">Issue eight:<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">Learned counsel for the Claimant referred this Honourable Court to the provisions of <b>sections 62, 65 and 66 of the Lagos State Pension Reform Law, 2007</b>. The Court is requested to give effect to these provisions in relation to the conduct of the Defendant in this case. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">In conclusion, the Claimant prayed this Court to grant all the reliefs being sought by the Claimant for being meritorious, genuine and reasonable. Furthermore, counsel urged the Court to order that the following officers of the Defendant (Mr. Oluwatoyin Oshun, the then Registrar and Mrs. Olapeju A. Awoliyi, the then Bursar) of the Defendant, be brought to book for their flagrant disobedience, deliberate manipulation, misinterpretation and misapplication of some provisions of the Pension Reform Law 2007. It is also the prayer of the Claimant that the Court should direct the Defendant to pay to the Claimant all the monies accruable to him as a result of his suit.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">At this juncture, it is apt for me to give some attention to the reply on points of law filed by the Defendant in response to the Claimant’s final written address. The said reply is dated and filed on 22<sup>nd</sup> March, 2016. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">It is a trite law that there is no obligation on a party to file a reply except where it is necessary to react to novel or new issues raised by the adverse party in his reply. Hence, the essence of a reply on point of law is to deal with new issues raised in a party’s address. In support of this proposition, I place reliance on the decision of the apex Court in <b>SALIHU v. WASIU [2016] LPELR-26062 </b>that:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:76.85pt;margin-bottom: 0in;margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">“…A reply brief is filed only in response to new argument of the respondent on law that has newly been raised by the respondent but was not touched by the Appellant. A reply brief is to deal with a new issue of law or arguments raised in an objection in the respondent’s brief which was not covered by the appellant’s brief. Where there has been no such new issue or point of law, a reply brief or argument is most unnecessary and anyone filed in that respect is liable to being discountenanced or ignored by the Court. As a reply brief has been held not to be a repair kit to put rightly any lacuna or error in the appellant’s brief of argument.”<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">See also <b>DR. AUGUSTINE N. MOZIE & ORS. v. CHIKE MBAMALU & ORS. [2006] 12 SCM 11 (Pt. 1) 306 at 320; OSUJI v. EKEOCHA [2009] 10 SCM 72 at 88</b>.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">I hold the view that a reply brief is not to tell further story or give new narration of the facts of the case, it is strictly to deal with novel issue so raised. On this note, I see no need for the reply on points of law filed by the Defendant. It is essentially a reiteration of what had been extensively argued in the Defendant’s voluminous final written address. I however concede that the Claimant was unnecessarily verbose and extensive in his final written address. I shall therefore discountenance the reply on points of law filed by the Defendant on the 22<sup>nd</sup> of March, 2016. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">It is now appropriate for this Court to consider the issues raised by counsel on each side of the divide with a view to arriving at a just decision. However, I need to observe that the three issues formulated by the Defendant are more suitable for a determination of this case. In this vein, I will adopt the said issues as the bases to determine this case. I therefore jettison the eight issues formulated for determination by the Claimant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">Let me start with issue one submitted for determination by the Defendant. The pertinent question is whether the Claimant actually failed to satisfy the conditions precedent before he instituted this action. I totally concur with the Defendant that an action is incompetent where the plaintiff or claimant as in this case fails to satisfy the condition precedent before commencing the action. See the case of <b>MADUKOLU V. NKEMDILIM</b> (supra). This is a principle that is well settled and accepted under our jurisprudence. But in the instant case, I found no reason why I should accept the submission of learned counsel that the Claimant did not exhaust internal remedies as required under the Defendant’s rules and regulations. The reason for this line of thinking is simple. The Defendant did not place before this Court any such rule or regulation specifying the steps an aggrieved party like the Claimant must take before recourse might be had to court action. The mere words or assertions of the Defendant do not in any way support a finding that such rule or regulation exists.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">What is more, I have painstakingly gone through Exhibits CW<sup>19</sup> and Exhibits DW1<sup>AA</sup> (Conditions of service of the Defendant), but I found no provision, rule, regulation or term prescribing the steps to be followed by an aggrieved employee of the Defendant before seeking judicial remedies. It is the duty of the party who asserts the existence of such rule or term of employment to place same before the Court. It is also an immutable principle that each case is decided on the basis of its peculiar facts and evidence adduced by the parties. See the Supreme Court decision in <b>PAUL ONYIA v. THE STATE [2008] 7-12 SC 120 where it was held </b>that cases are decided on their facts and that <i>ratio-decidendi</i> is based on the facts of the case before the Court. Thus, no court of law in Nigeria can determine a case outside the facts of the case. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">In any case, I found evidence of exchange of correspondence between the parties. The Defendant the Defendant reacted to some of the letters. Exhibit CW<sup>9</sup> is a letter dated 28<sup>th</sup> April, 2009 addressed to the Registrar of the Defendant in respect of the Claimant’s grouse. In like manner, Exhibit CW<sup>10</sup> is another letter written to the Registrar of the Defendant, same was dated 1<sup>st</sup> June, 2009. Added to these are Exhibits CW<sup>12</sup> (written by the Claimant to the Vice Chancellor of the Defendant on 26<sup>th</sup> January, 2010); Exhibit CW<sup>13</sup> (written to the Pro-Chancellor and Chairman of Council of the Defendant on 27<sup>th</sup> January, 2010); Exhibit CW<sup>15</sup> (a letter written by the Defendant to the Claimant on 13<sup>th</sup> May, 2010 informing him that his erstwhile letters were receiving attention); Exhibit CW<sup>16</sup> (written to the Registrar of the Defendant on 13<sup>th</sup> September, 2010. There are other exhibits which point to the fact that the Claimant at various times expressed his displeasure with the way and manner the matter of his terminal benefits including his pensions were being handled by the Defendant. There are pieces of credible evidence confirming that he requested the Defendant to resolve the issue in his favour.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">In the face of these unchallenged credible evidence, I cannot in good conscience agree with the Defendant that the Claimant did not appeal to different authorities within the structure of the Defendant to resolve his matter. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">It is crystal clear, like I have said that the Defendant did not draw the attention of the Court to any term or condition of the contract of employment stating that the Claimant must follow prescribed steps in seeking to have the dispute resolved. Furthermore, there is evidence that the Claimant consistently appealed to different organs of the Defendant for a resolution of the issue of his pension. For these reasons, I hereby find that the submission of learned counsel that the Claimant failed to seek internal remedies before commencing this action is untenable and misleading. I hereby resolve issue number one against the Defendant. I hold that this action is competent. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">On issue two formulated by the Defendant, it was submitted for the Defendant that the claims of the Claimant are declaratory in nature, same being rooted in civil and criminal law. It is also contended that the relief is discretionary in which the Court must exercise caution. In another breath, it was argued for the Defendant that the standard of proof required where a crime is alleged in civil action is proof beyond reasonable doubt and that the Claimant has failed to proof the crime as expected of him. Whereas on his own the Claimant stated that the Defendant is obligated to paying his pension and other retirement benefits. He argued that once there is an infraction of the duty to pay in view of <b>section 13 (5) of the Lagos State Pension Law Reform, 2007, </b>the injury done is deserving of attracting compensation to the Claimant. The Claimant also posited that the Defendant’s act of refusal to pay his retirement benefit is oppressive, arbitrary and unlawful and in contrary to <b>section 13 (3)</b> of the Law, the Defendant should be answerable.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">A declaratory relief is a discretionary remedy which is generally exercised with caution. For a declaration to be made, the plaintiff must establish that he is entitled to the relief claimed which must be lawful, constitutional and not be inequitable for the Court to grant. See <b>ABAYE v. OFILI [1986] 1 S.C 231</b>. In this instance, it is expedient for the Court to make findings into whether the Claimant established his entitlement to all the reliefs sought in his claim. It is to be noted that it is not in dispute that the Claimant worked for the Defendant and that he voluntarily retired. It is also not in dispute that the Claimant being a pensionable employee was and is still entitled to receive his terminal benefits including his pension. The significant area of tension or disagreement between the Claimant and his former employer relates to the mode of payment.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">It is the case of the Claimant that he is entitled to receive his pension under the ‘pay as you go’ mode of payment that was applicable before the advent of the Pension Law of Lagos State. His position is that he is exempted from the Law under reference by virtue of Section 13(1) of the said Law. The Defendant on the other hand maintains that the Pension Law of Lagos State applied to the Claimant because it had become operative as at the time he voluntarily retired from its service. It further maintains that the entitlements of the Claimant have been calculated and a request sent to him to appoint a PFA of his choice through which his pension would be paid. It is therefore crystal clear that a resolution of this area of tension depends on the meaning the Court gives to section 13(1) of the Pension Law of Lagos State.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">It does not harm at this juncture to interpret the provision that has been the subject of controversy between the parties. Section 13 (1) of the Pension Law of Lagos State provides thus:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">“Notwithstanding the provisions of Sub-section (2) of section (1) of this Law, any employee who at the commencement of this Law is entitled to retirement benefits under any pension scheme existing before the commencement of this Law but has 3 or less years to retire voluntarily or statutorily shall be exempted from the scheme”.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">It is a well settled canon of interpretation that where the words used in a statute or any enactment are plain and unambiguous, they must be given their plain and ordinary meaning except where doing so will result in absurdity. A careful reading of this provision shows clearly that it is plain and bears no ambiguity. It is therefore left for the Court to give the wording of the statute its ordinary meaning.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">Flowing from the above, it is clear that any employee in the public service of Lagos State (including staff of the Defendant) are exempted from the Law where such employee at the commencement of the Pension Law has three years or less to retire voluntarily or statutorily. It is not in contention that this Pension Reform Law, 2007 of Lagos State became operative in April 2007. By its own admission through Exhibit DW1AA84, the Defendant put the Claimant’s effective date of voluntary retirement at 21<sup>st</sup> August, 2008. In other words, the Claimant voluntarily retired from the service of the Defendant with effect from 21<sup>st</sup> August, 2008.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">As I have noted above, the Law came into force in April 2007 while the Contributory Pension Scheme which the Law established commenced on 1<sup>st</sup> June, 2007. So whichever way you look at, the Claimant retired less than 3 years from the time the Pension Law became operative. In fact, the period between April 2007 to 21<sup>st</sup> August, 2008 is just about 1 (one) year plus about 5 months. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">The effect of the above analysis is that the Pension Reform Law of Lagos State, 2007 does not apply to the Claimant who voluntarily retired less than 3 years from its commencement. In this respect, the letter from the Solicitor General of Lagos State dated 30<sup>th</sup> July, 2009 [DW1BB14] is quite misleading by ascribing age limit to the category of employees who are qualified to be exempted from the application of the Law.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">There is nothing in the Law to suggest that an employee who intended to voluntary retire must have attained the age of 57 before he could be exempted from the Pension Scheme introduced by the Law. I am therefore of the firm conviction that Exhibit [DW1BB14 is not only misleading but equally perverse. It is accordingly jettisoned. I therefore find and hold that the Pension Reform Law of Lagos State 2007 is not applicable to the Claimant. The implication of this is that the Claimant is entitled to be paid his pension and other terminal benefits under the pension scheme that was applicable immediately before the Pension Reform Law of Lagos State which became operative in April 2007. This is my finding. For this reason, I answer issue No. 2 formulated by the Defendant in the affirmative. I hold that the Claimant has proved that the Pension Reform Law 2007 is not applicable to the Claimant. I further find that the Claimant is to be paid his pension and other retirement entitlements under the “Pay As You Go” scheme.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">I now turn to the issue of the terminal benefits of the Claimant. Let me start by voicing my disapproval of the Claim of the Claimant that the effective date of his 420 days pre-retirement leave should have commenced on 18<sup>th</sup> July, 2007 to terminate on 7<sup>th</sup> October, 2008 is untenable considering the contents of Exhibit CW16 titled “Re: APPLICATION FOR 420 DAYS ACCUMULATED ANNUAL LEAVE”. This document provides in part as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">“I write to convey the approval of the Vice Chancellor for you to proceed on your 420 days accumulated leave with retrospective effect from 31<sup>st</sup> May, 2007. The leave will expire on 20<sup>th</sup> August, 2008, all regular public holidays inclusive”. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">In the face of the part of Exhibit CW16 that I have just quoted, the oral testimony of the Claimant that he should have commenced his 420 days accumulated leave on 17<sup>th</sup> July, 2007 to end on 7<sup>th</sup> October, 2008 is untenable. Oral evidence cannot be accepted to contradict or alter documentary evidence. In any case, documentary evidence is the best form of evidence. I hereby find based on the evidence before me that the voluntary retirement of the Claimant from the Defendant took effect from 21<sup>st</sup> August, 2008. I therefore reject the argument of the Claimant to the contrary. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">One other issue that cannot escape my attention is the allegation of crime leveled against the Defendant by the Claimant. It is alleged that the Defendant acted with the intent to defraud the Claimant by detaining his retirement benefits. I agree with the Defendant that once an allegation of crime is alleged in the course of civil proceedings, it must be proved beyond any reasonable doubt. In the instant case, the Claimant did not offer or produce any material evidence in proof of his allegation of crime against the Defendant. Thus, I am of the informed view that the allegation has not been made out or substantiated. See <b>AKINKUGBE v. E. H. (NIG.) LTD. [2008] 12 NWLR (Pt. 1098) 375 SC; IKOKU v. ONI [1967] 1 ALL NLR 194; SOFEKUN v. AKINYEMI & ORS. [1980] 5 SC 1; OKUARUMO v. OBABOKOR [1966] NMLR 47. </b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">On the strength of the above authorities, I find that the Claimant has failed to substantiate or proof the allegation that the Defendant has committed any offence or crime. Issue No. 3 is accordingly resolved in favour of the Defendant but against the Claimant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">On the issue of special damages, I agree with learned counsel for the Defendant that special damages are not for the asking, but must be specifically particularized and proved. It is clear that the Claimant did not particularize the special damages he is claiming. It is also true as asserted by the defence that the Claimant has failed to prove that he is entitled to special damages. In view of this, the claim for special damages is hereby refused.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">However, I am convinced that the Claimant is entitled to be paid general and exemplary damages. It is highly regrettable that an employee who served diligently and elected to retire has been unable to collect his retirement benefits for no just cause. It is in evidence that the Claimant made appeals to concerned authorities to have the matter resolved. The truth of the matter is that he has been made to go through tremendous hardship for no just cause. It is a shame that a retiree often referred to as a senior citizen could be treated in this shabby manner. It is uncalled for. I commend the Claimant for keeping faith with the judicial system. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">It is trite that exemplary damages may be warded where the conduct of the Defendant is outrageous, wanton, vindictive or oppressive. Such damages may be awarded principally in order to vindicate and strengthen the position of the law but not merely to compensate the Claimant. See the Supreme Court case of <b>ODIBA v. AZEGE (1998) LPELR-2215 (SC).</b> I am of the candid view that the conduct of the Defendant in detaining the terminal benefits of the Claimant up till now is surely oppressive, outrageous and wanton. See also <b>AGI v. FIRST CITY MONUMENT BANK PLC (2013) LPELR-2070 (CA).</b> <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">Having said that, I award the sum of Seven Million Naira [N7,000,000.00] exemplary damages in favour of the Claimant against the Defendant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">In sum total, I hereby declare that:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:37.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-19.0pt;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Bookman Old Style";mso-bidi-font-family:"Bookman Old Style"">1.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%; font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">The Pension Reform Law of Lagos State 2007 and the Pension Reform Act 2004 LFN do not apply to the Claimant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:37.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-19.0pt;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Bookman Old Style";mso-bidi-font-family:"Bookman Old Style"">2.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%; font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">The Defendant shall pay to the Claimant his pension and other retirement benefits under the “Pay As You Go” system.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:37.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-19.0pt;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Bookman Old Style";mso-bidi-font-family:"Bookman Old Style"">3.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%; font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">It was wrong for the Defendant to have detained up till date, the amount compulsorily deducted from the Claimant’s monthly personal emolument under the new Lagos State Pension Reform Law 2007 between 1<sup>st</sup> June 2007 to 20<sup>th</sup> August, 2008.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">I hereby order that the Defendant shall pay to the Claimant the followings:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:39.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-21.0pt;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Bookman Old Style";mso-bidi-font-family:"Bookman Old Style"">(a)<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">His gratuity less N2 million (being the cost of the cold room;<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:39.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-21.0pt;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Bookman Old Style";mso-bidi-font-family:"Bookman Old Style"">(b)<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">The accumulated but unpaid pension of the Claimant from 21<sup>st</sup> August, 2008 till date;<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:39.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-21.0pt;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Bookman Old Style";mso-bidi-font-family:"Bookman Old Style"">(c)<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">The amount illegally deducted as savings under the pension scheme established pursuant to the Pension Reform Law of Lagos State between 1<sup>st</sup> June 2007 to 20<sup>th</sup> August, 2008;<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:39.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-21.0pt;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Bookman Old Style";mso-bidi-font-family:"Bookman Old Style"">(d)<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">Seven Million Naira exemplary damages.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:39.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-21.0pt;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Bookman Old Style";mso-bidi-font-family:"Bookman Old Style"">(e)<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">10% post judgment interest rate until the final payment of all the amounts awarded in favour of the Claimant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">The Defendant shall pay all the monetary sums awarded in favour of the Claimant within 30 days from the date of this judgment. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">Judgment is entered accordingly.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Bookman Old Style","serif"">…………..……………………………………<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center;line-height:normal"><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"">Hon. Justice B. A. Adejumo, OFR<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Bookman Old Style","serif"">President,<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Bookman Old Style","serif"">National Industrial Court of Nigeria<o:p></o:p></span></p>