Download PDF
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: normal"><b><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">REPRESENTATION</span></u></b><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">:<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Dr E.S.C. Obiorah Esq.with Mrs I. Igbokwe, Ogbuodudu Esq., C. A. Mouzoba Esq. for the Claimants.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">P.U.P. Onuorah Esq. with Mrs F.C. Ezenniaka, P.O. Okanni Esq. for the 1<sup>st</sup> to 4<sup>th</sup> Defendants.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The 5<sup>th</sup>, 6<sup>th</sup>, 7<sup>th</sup> 8<sup>th</sup> and 9<sup>th</sup> Defendants did not defend the Suit.<b><o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center;line-height:normal"><b><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center;line-height:normal"><b><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On the 15<sup>th</sup> day of May, 2011 the Claimants commenced this suit by a Writ of Summons and theylater filed a further Amended Statement of Facts dated 20/06/2012 on 25/06/2012. The Claimants claimed their reliefs against the Defendants who were originally eleven (11) in number but then reduced to nine (9) in the course of the proceedings. The Court struck out the Bureau of Public Service Reforms and the Claimants withdrew their claims against the National Pension Commission, which was also struck out from the suit.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The case proceeded to hearing wherein the Claimants called two (2) witnesses, CW1 and CW2. They equally tendered 35 documents admitted by the court as Exhibits A-Z and AA-CC. The Defendants called one witness-Mr Nnubia Calistus, the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant’s Deputy Registrar, DW1. They tendered 8 documents admitted and marked as Exhibits DD-LL by the Court.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><b><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">After the presentation of each of the case for each of the parties they filed their respective final written addresses. The 1<sup>st</sup>-4<sup>th</sup> Defendants (the Defendants) filed their final written address dated 11<sup>th</sup> day of November, 2016 on the same date. The learned Claimants’ counsel filed his own final written address dated 4<sup>th</sup> December, 2016 on 5<sup>th</sup> December, 2016. Learned counsel to the parties adopted their respective written addresses on 13<sup>th</sup> December, 2016. In his final written address, the learned Defendants’ counsel formulated and argued the following issues for the Court’s determination:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l3 level1 lfo11"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">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:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Whether or not the Claimants’ employment was rightly severed/terminated through the rightful channel and by the rightful authority of the 1<sup>st</sup> – 4<sup>th</sup> Defendants?<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l3 level1 lfo11"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">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:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Whether the Claimants’ are entitled to their severance benefits based on CONTISS (Consolidated Tertiary Institution Salary Structure)?<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l3 level1 lfo11"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">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:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Whether the case before the Honourable Court will be properly determined without the necessary parties (Bureau of Public Service Reforms and the Defendant (The National Pension Commission)?<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l3 level1 lfo11"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">4.<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:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Whether the Claimants’<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On the first issue the learned Defendant’s counsel submitted that from the totality of evidence of parties and the documents before the court, the claimants employment with the Federal College of Education (Technical) Umunze were rightly severed and in accordance with due process and under the enabling Laws, Regulations and Directions. That it is the case of the CW1 in paragraph 18 of his further and better written statement on oath dated the 25<sup>th</sup>day of April 2012 that the 1<sup>st</sup>and 3<sup>rd</sup>Defendants violated the Government directives by severing them without authorization from any of the other Defendants especially the Governing Council. Learned counsel referred the Court to Exhibit E wherein it is clear that the said exhibit was signed by R.N. Anarado, who is the Registrar/Secretary to the Governing Council. Also Exhibit LL shows clearly that the severance document was signed by Chief Bernard A. Ezeh who was the Chairman of the Governing Council of the Federal College of Education (Technical) Umunze, at that time.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">He submitted further that DW1, Mr. Callistus Nnubia, in paragraphs 1, 18, 12, 11 and 13 of his written deposition on oath which was re-sworn on the 3<sup>rd</sup>day of July 2012 testified in paragraph 1 that he is the Deputy Registrar of the Federal College of Education (Technical) Umunze (the 1<sup>st</sup>Defendant). And that the 1<sup>st</sup>Defendant acted in accordance with the criteria set out by the (former) 7<sup>th</sup>defendant (i.e the Bureau of Public Service Reforms) in the Guideline for Staff Severance in the Public Service. A careful perusal of Exhibit HH dated 6/2/07 in its second paragraph reads:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">As you have submitted the detailed list of those personnel to be severed, you are to get your Council’s approval and straight ahead implement the clean-up.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">That, also the opening paragraph of Exhibit “GG” which is dated 2<sup>nd</sup>February, 2007 reads:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">Kindly refer to the attached Bureau of Public Service Reforms publication of Thursday 1<sup>st</sup> February, 2007. You are required to take expeditious action to implement the basic staff clean-up (staff severance) as part of your reform programme.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">To the learned counsel, all the above pieces of evidence and documents of the defendants witness were neither challenged nor controverted by the claimants and they go to show that the 1<sup>st</sup>– 4<sup>th</sup> Defendants acted wholly on the instructions and directives of the 7<sup>th</sup> Defendant as regards severance of staff. They also go to prove that staff severance extended to the year 2007.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">That, DW1 also tendered exhibit KK which is dated Feb. 2007 (Guideline for Staff Severance in Public Service). The said date on the Guideline shows that the severance exercise did not end in 2006 but had been a continuous process in the public service since middle of the year 2005 and was meant to eliminate inadequate, redundant or undesirable staff who normally should not have remained in service if organizations were properly managed as modern, efficient and dynamic system ought to be. Furthermore, according to the said Guideline, criteria like outsourced, abolished cadres, monetized, inefficiency, etc., were included. To counsel, this is evident from the cross examination of CW1, Mr. Samuel Nwankwo, on 15<sup>th</sup>of May 2013, wherein he gave a direct and unequivocal evidence that the workers severed included outsourced, abolished, and monetized. His evidence is as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:1.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-1.0in; line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Question: Do you know that workers to be severed included outsourced, abolished, monetized, poor work history?<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Answer: Some of these things were included.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Continuing,counsel stated that it is trite lawthat when a claimant is stating that his employment is wrongfully terminated, the onus is on the claimant to prove the terms of the agreement breached. He referred to the case of<b><i>Nigeria Airways Limited vs Taiwo Okuntubo (2002) 15NWLR (pt. 790) p. 376.</i></b> That the Claimants have not stated any provision of the Federal Civil Service Rules which governs their employment with the 1<sup>st</sup>– 4<sup>th</sup>defendant and upon which the alleged wrongful termination was based. The claimants’ case on the above mentioned issue was baseless. He also referred to the case of <b><i>Kabelemetal Nig. Ltd vs Ativie (2002) 10 NWLR (pt. 775) page 253.<o:p></o:p></i></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">That attached to Exhibit LL is a Disengagement list with reasons for disengagement. It is very clear from the list that the severed staff had disciplinary cases of either warning, queries, suspension or both.That CW1 confirmed this in his testimonies under cross-examination. His evidence:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> Question: Were you given queries by that College?<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> Answer: Yes.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">He then submitted that the claimants were rightfully severed. That again it is also manifest that the severance was done by the rightful authority and through the rightful channel. Thus the Claimants are not entitled to their full salary from May 1, 2007 till date, since they have been rightly severed by the 1<sup>st</sup>– 4<sup>th</sup> Defendants. He urged the court to resolve this issue in favour of the 1<sup>st</sup>– 4<sup>th</sup> Defendants and accordingly dismiss the Claimants’ suit with heavy cost in favour of the defendants.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On issue 2 the learned Defendants counsel stated that the claimants have been paid all their severance benefits because they are not entitled to be paid under CONTISS. That under cross-examination on the 15<sup>th</sup>day of May 2013, the 1<sup>st</sup> Claimant admitted that he was paid the sum of N2,700,000 (Two Million and Seven Hundred Thousand Naira) only. According to him:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> Question: Do you know how to calculate your retirement benefit?<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> Answer: No, I do not know.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Question: How did you know that the money given to you was not correct?<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:1.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-1.0in; line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Answer: How I know was the paper given to me by the Accountant General of Federation has stated my entitlement and it was not what was paid to me. The paper was presented to the court and it was rejected by the defendants. The amount paid to me was about N2.7 million. I am telling the truth about my not remembering the exact amount on the paper.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> <o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">Question: Did you collect the money paid for the retirement?<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Answer: Yes I did.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Question: Were you forced to collect the money?<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Answer: Not all of us collected. But some people were recalled and they paid back.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Counsel continued that it is clear that there is no evidence to support the allegation of the Claimants that they have not been paid their full severance benefit. The claimants attempted to smuggle in a document purported to be a slip of what they ought to be paid and it was rightly rejected by this Honourable Court. The defendant did what was required of them and tendered documents to show that the Claimants are not entitled to be paid under CONTISS. Exhibit EE is “An Implementation of Consolidated Federal Government Salary Structure for 2007.” Paragraph 2.2.2 reads:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">The current nominal roll, based on actual current staffing levels as of January 1, 2007, must be used for the purposes of preparing personnel cost estimates. Any employees who have been identified for disengagement as part of the ON GOING public Service Reform programme MUST NOT BE INCLUDED IN THIS SUBMISSION.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Again Exhibit FF went ahead to prove that the Claimants are entitled to be paid their severance benefits based on the old salary scales (Under HATISS). It reads as follows in paragraph 8:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">The attention of Chief Executives of parastatals is however drawn to the need for strict adherence to the Generic Guidelines for Reforms in the compilation of names of staff to be disengaged and to obtain the approval of the Board or the Minister supervising the parastatal (in the absence of a board). All severance benefits calculation are to be based on the old salary scales and not the new consolidated salary structure</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Furthermore, paragraph 18 of Exhibit KK states that:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">“The severance package to be enjoyed by officers affected by this exercise consists of the following:<o:p></o:p></span></i></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; line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">i. Gratuity as earned<o:p></o:p></span></i></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; line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">ii. Pension for the first year<o:p></o:p></span></i></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; line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">iii. 10% of Gratuity<o:p></o:p></span></i></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; line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">iv. 10% of 1<sup>st</sup> year’s pension<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:1.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">v. Repatriation allowance (to enable the officer transport himself/herself to his/her place of origin).<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">The above payments shall be made by the Accountant-General from the special provision in the government’s appropriation for reforms</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Counsel continued that, firstly, it is evident from Exhibit JJ which is a Retiree’s Severance Pay Slip of Orji, Martina Amauchechukwu (The third claimant in this suit) that the claimants have been paid all her severance benefits. This retiree pay slip emanated from the office of the Accountant-General of the Federation and bears their official stamp too. It includes the following:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> BANK DIAMOND BANK<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> GRATUITY 524,368.00<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> 10% OF Gratuity: 52,436.8<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> Pension: 157,310.40<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> 10% of Pension 15,731.04<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> Repatriation: 83,000.00<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> Employee Pension Contr: 143,181.12<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> Gross Payable: 976,027.36<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> Net payable 976,027.36<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">That the 3<sup>rd</sup>Claimant also signed and thumb printed on the said Exhibit JJ which shows that she has received her severance benefits. The same severance slip was given to all the claimants and they all collected their money without complaint.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Secondly, it is also evident from paragraph 18 of the Exhibit KK that the severance benefit SHALL be made by the Accountant-General from the special provision in the government’s appropriation for Reforms and not the 1<sup>st</sup>– 4<sup>th</sup> Defendants as claimed by the claimants.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">He then submitted that the claimants are not entitled to be paid severance benefits based on CONTISS and as a result they have been paid all their severance benefits. He urgedthe Court to resolve the issue in favour of the Defendants and accordingly, dismiss the Claimants’ suit with heavy cost in favour of the defendants.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On issue No. 3 learned counsel submitted that it is trite that a necessary party to a proceeding is the partly whose presence is essential for the effectual and complete determination of the claim before the court. It is a party in the absence of whom the whole claim cannot be effectually and completely determined. He referred to<b><i>Nwankwo V. Ecumenical Dev. Co society (2002) 1 NWLR part 749 page 513 at 520; N.N.N. Ltd V Ademola (1997) 6 NWLR, pt 507 pg. 76.</i></b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">That the Claimants’ case is that the Defendants unlawfully & unjustifiably failed/refused to accept and revalidate the Claimants certificates of participation in the pre-retirement training for the purposes of receiving their full severance benefits and or to enroll them into the pension programme. Counsel submitted that it is not the duty of the 1<sup>st</sup>– 4<sup>th</sup> Defendants to revalidate the certificates of participation in the pre-retirement training of the claimants rather this is the duty of the BUREAU OF PUBLIC SERVICE REFORM who were the body responsible for the severance exercise.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">That Exhibit E which is a document titled ‘Public Service Reforms, Basic Personnel Clean up (staff severance) in Federal Government Parastatals)” and dated the 23<sup>rd</sup>April, 2007 was tendered in court by the claimants witness, CW1. It is seen from the said Exhibit E that the 1<sup>st</sup>– 4<sup>th</sup> Defendants especially the 1<sup>st</sup>& 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendants were acting based on the directive of Federal Government through the Bureau for Public Service Reforms. The opening paragraph of the said Exhibit E reads:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">In compliance with the directive of the Federal Government through the Bureau of Public Service Reforms, the Governing Council has approved the immediate severance of all College Personnel earlier recommended for severance by the College Reform Implementation Committee.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The Claimants therefore should be able at this juncture to answer the question as to “whose duty it is to validate their certificate of participation in the preretirement training?<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Counsel further submitted that it is the duty of theNATIONAL PENSION COMMISSION (former 9<sup>th</sup> Defendant), to enroll the defendants into the pension programme and not the duty of the 1<sup>st</sup>– 4<sup>th</sup> Defendants. To counsel this is manifest from the evidence of CW1 under cross examination by J.I. Umoelin Esq. (the counsel to the (former) 9<sup>th</sup> Defendant). According to him:<i><o:p></o:p></i></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> Question: You know the 9<sup>th</sup> Defendant in this suit<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> Answer: Yes<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Question: What is your relationship with the National Pension Commission?<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:1.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-1.0in; line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Answer: They are supposed to pay our pension. The 9<sup>th</sup> Defendant does not pay our monthly emolument. The 9<sup>th</sup> Defendant is not my employer</span></i><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Learned counsel continued that it obvious from the evidence of the Claimants’ witness under cross examination above that the 1<sup>st</sup> – 4<sup>th</sup>Defendantsare neither responsible for enrolling the claimants into the pension programme nor responsible for paying their pension. It was shocking that the Claimants’ counsel on the 19<sup>th</sup>of October, 2016 sought to strike out the case against the 9<sup>th</sup> Defendant (i.e., the National Pension Commission).<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">That it is trite law that no cause or matter shall be defeated by reason of misjoinder or non joinder of any party, referring to<b><i>Okwu V. Umeh & Ors (2016) ISCNJ 129 at 150.</i></b> It is also trite law that where the nature of the evidence before the court is such that the case of the parties before it can be determined in the absence of those not joined, it can proceed to do so. However where it will not be right and the court cannot properly determine the issue before it, in the absence of the parties whose participation in the proceeding is essential for the proper, effectual and complete determination of the issues before it, it becomes necessary to insist on the Joinder of such necessary parties, relying on the case of<b><i>AYORINDE vs ONI (2000) 3 NWLR (PT 649) 349.<o:p></o:p></i></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">He urgedthe Court to resolve this issue in favour of the 1<sup>st</sup>– 4<sup>th</sup> Defendants and accordingly dismiss the Claimants’ suit with heavy cost in favour of the defendants.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On the 4<sup>th</sup> Issue, whether the Claimants’ are entitled to damages, learned counsel stated that it is trite law that once a finding is made by the trial court that an employment has statutory flavor, and the termination was wrongly made and void, the only consequential order that can follow such finding is the reinstatement of the employee. He referredthe Court to <b><i>Balogun V University of Abuja (2002) 13 NWLR Pt 783 pg. 42.</i></b> In such cases, the only logical order that can follow is an order for reinstatement. That emphasis is there placed on the word “WRONGLY’. That the employment of the claimants in this case was not wrongly terminated but was rightfully terminated by the rightful authority and through the rightful channel.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">That again it seems that the claimants are speaking from both sides of the mouth because they are claiming for damages of N10,000,000.00 (Ten Million Naira) for and at the same time asking the court to compel the defendants to pay the entire remunerations of the Claimants as staff of the college and it is trite that a court cannot award both damages and reinstatement for wrongful termination of employment. He referred to<b><i>Kabelmetal Nig. Ltd V. Ativie (2002) 100 NWLR (pt. 777) page 251</i></b>.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">In conclusion, counsel stated that it is manifest from the evidence before the court that the claimants failed woefully to prove their claim against the 1<sup>st</sup>– 4<sup>th</sup> Defendants and indeed against all the Defendants so as to entitle them to any of the reliefs sought in his claim.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Accordingly he urged the Court to dismiss the Claimants’ claim and award heavy cost against the Claimants and in favour of the 1<sup>st</sup>– 4<sup>th</sup>Defendants.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On his part, the learned Claimants’ counsel formulated and argued the following issues for the court’s determination:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l9 level1 lfo12"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">i.<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:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Whether the Claimants’ employment was rightly severed/terminated? <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l9 level1 lfo12"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">ii.<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:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Whether the Claimants are entitled to have their severance benefits based on CONTISS and the 15% increase in salary?<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l7 level1 lfo13"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">ii.<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:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Whether the Claimants are entitled to the reliefs sought in this action?<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: normal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On his own part, learned Claimant’s counselsubmitted that the severance/termination of the Claimants’ employment on April 23, 2007 was wrongful and violated the law and the agreement governing the Claimants’ employment with the 1<sup>st</sup>Defendant. He gave three reasons.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Firstly, that the Claimants’ employment was terminated for NO CAUSE and without the mandatory one month or three months’ NOTICE in writing. That Section 15(2) of the Federal Colleges of Education Act, CAP. F8 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004, as amended (herein referred to as the “Law”) which governs the Claimants’ employment, provides thus: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">Subject to the provisions of this Act, the remuneration, tenure of office and conditions of service of the employees of the Council shall be determined by the Council in consultation with the Federal Civil Service Commission</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">That pursuant to their powers under section 15 of the Law, the 1<sup>st</sup>and 2<sup>nd</sup>Defendants offered employment to the Claimants, as shown in Exhibits ‘A’, ‘J1-J77’ & K1-K29’, with the express provision that the employment can only be terminated upon one month prior notice. Exhibits ‘J1-J77 states thus:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">That unless you are dismissed, the college may at any time for good cause, terminate your employment by one month’s notice in writing or by a payment of one month’s salary in lieu of notice…</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">In the instant matter, by the letters of severance, dated 23/04/2007, as shown in Exhibits ‘P1-P103’; the 1<sup>st</sup>– 4<sup>th</sup>Defendants terminated the Claimants’ employment on 30/04/2007, less than 7 days’ notice, without stating any cause, much less ‘good cause’. The Claimants pleaded in paragraph 18 of their Further Amended Statement of Facts that the required one month or threemonths’ notice was not given to them before the termination of their employment. The Defendants admitted this fact. That in <b><i>P.H.C.N. Plc v. Offoelo (2013) 3 N.W.L.R. (Pt.1344) 380, 408, r. 14</i></b>, the Supreme Court, addressing the effect of lack of notice, held thus:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">Proper communication of a message in law has its importance. Where there is failure to communicate (a break in communication or lack of communication) the whole purpose of the message is completely defeated. If any step or action is taken by the issuing authority inspite of the fact of non-communication (non-service), the step or action taken goes to naught and amounts to a nullity in law. I am as well unable to agree with the learned trial Judge, as did also by the learned Justices of the court below, that the failure of the appellant to give appropriate notice would not affect the validity of the respondent’s retirement. This would appear to me to be a cloistered kind of legal reasoning by the learned trial Judge which I am not ready to accept.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">To learned counsel, it is therefore clear that failure to comply with the required notices rendered the purported termination of the Claimants’ employment null and void. Since the Claimants’ employment has statutory flavor as it was governed by law, the remedy is re-instatement of the Claimants into their employment because the purported termination was illegal, invalid and void. In <b><i>P.H.C.N. Plc v. Offoelo (2013) 4 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1344) 380, 410, R. 9</i></b>, the Supreme Court held that:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">Where the terms and conditions of a contract of service are created by statute (as in the instant case), same must be complied with when the contract is being brought to an end. If there is failure to act in the right direction, the court would declare the termination as null and void and pronounce the employment as valid and subsisting.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Secondly, that the Claimants did not fall within the criteria or category for severance as stipulated in exhibit ‘D’ or even Exhibit ‘KK’. Exhibit ‘D’ – Generic Guidelines for the Reform of Parastatals – clearly set out the persons which fall under the criteria for severance. Paragraph 5. 1(a)i-vii of Exhibit ‘d’ provides thus:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">….In determining the personnel to be exited, the following criteria earlier approved by the President for MDAs shall be applied:<o:p></o:p></span></i></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; line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">(i) Officers appointed without due authorization;<o:p></o:p></span></i></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; line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">(ii) Officers with cases of serious misconduct;<o:p></o:p></span></i></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; line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">(iii) Officers that are medically unfit;<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:1.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">(iv) Staff in jobs which services are monetized, outsourced or abolished (cleaners, drivers, cooks, security men, messengers, etc.):<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:1.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">(v) Staff that have become redundant due to the scrapping or restructuring of their organization/department;<o:p></o:p></span></i></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; line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">(vi) Officers without entry qualification or mandatory skills for their jobs;<o:p></o:p></span></i></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; line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">(vii) Officers wishing to proceed on voluntary retirement.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">According to learned counsel, there is no single evidence that the Claimants fall within any of the afore-listed criteria. In paragraph 21 of the Further Amended Statement of Facts, the Claimants stated clearly that they did not fall within the guidelines for severance. CW1 and CW2 gave un-contradicted testimonies in support of the said pleaded fact. Even the severance letters (Exhibits P1-P103) issued to the Claimants by the 1<sup>st</sup>– 4<sup>th</sup>Defendants did not disclose any reason for the said severance.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">That in paragraphs 3.6 and 3.9 of the 1<sup>st</sup>– 4<sup>th</sup>Defendants’ Final Written Address, counsel argued that severance exercise is <i>“meant to eliminate inadequate, redundant or undesirable staff who normally should not have remained in service if organizations were properly managed as modern, efficient and dynamic system ought to be. Also according to the said guideline, criteria like outsource, abolished cadres, monetized, inefficiency etc. were included.”</i> That counsel relied heavily on the 1<sup>st</sup>– 4<sup>th</sup>Defendants’ own ipse dixit, self-serving Exhibit LL as their evidence for terminating the Claimants. Yet, the said 1<sup>st</sup>– 4<sup>th</sup>Defendants failed woefully to prove that any of the Claimants fall within any of the criteria set out in the Guidelines, whether Exhibit D or the Defendants’ own Exhibit KK. The mere fact that the 1<sup>st</sup>– 4<sup>th</sup>Defendants on their own assigned such words and phrases like ‘queries and warning’ and ‘queries and suspension’ against any of the Claimants’ name in the same Defendants’ own Exhibit LL is not the same as proof in law and does not substitute proof. Besides, query, warning or suspension is not included in the criteria set out in Exhibit ‘D’ or Exhibit KK for severance of staff. In any event, even if the Defendants were to prove that all the Claimants actually each had query, warning or suspension, it is common sense that mere query, warning or even suspension cannot amount to ‘serious misconduct’ required under paragraph 5(a)(ii) of exhibit D. However, none of the Defendants ever alleged any misconduct against any of the Claimants and none alleged that any of the Claimants’ job was monetized, outsourced or abolished. He referred to Defendants’ Exhibit ‘KK’. He then asked the question “Why then were the Claimants’ employment severed or terminated?”and answered“NO REASON whatsoever”.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">That in order to drive the point deeper home that the Claimants were not included in the severance exercise, many of the Claimants were promoted in December 2006 and the said promotions took effect from March 1, 2007, as shown in Exhibits‘01-062’.For instance, the promotion of the 3<sup>rd</sup>Claimant – Mrs. Martina A. Orji (No. 25 in table 2 in paragraph 1 of the ‘Further Amended Statement of Facts) – took effect from March 1, 2007. Similarly, Mr. Linus Nwankwo (No. 7 in Claimants’ Table 1), Mr. Gabriel Onuchukwu (No. 32 in Claimants’ Table 2), Mrs Deborah A. Ike (no. 64 in Claimants’ Table 3), Mr. Emmanuel Ifezue (No. 79 in Claimants’ Table 3), Mrs Christiana U. Eyibe (No. 81 in Claimants’ Table 3), Mr. Godwin Ogbonnaya (No. 83 in Claimants’ Table 3), Ms. Joy Uzoma Ilo (No. 97 in Claimants’ Table 3,). Ms. Constance Okoye (No. 112 in Claimants’ Table 3) and Ms. Adaora Nwafor (No. 117 in Claimants’ Table 3), all have their promotion take effect from March 1, 2007. Names of all these persons whose promotions were to take effect on March 1, 2007 were included by the 1<sup>st</sup>– 4<sup>th</sup>Defendants in their Exhibit LL, dated October 30, 2006, showing how spurious the said exhibit is, counsel opined.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">He further stated that it is therefore clear from the evidence before this Honourable Court that the Claimants did not fall within and could not have been within the categories or criteria set in Exhibit ‘D’ or ‘KK’ for severance exercise. The consequence is that the severance or termination of their employment is wrongful and should be reversed. The main remedy is re-instatement as the Claimants’ employment has statutory flavor.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Thirdly, the severance exercise ended on 31/12/2006 and never related to the Claimants. Arguing this reason, learned counsel stated that paragraph 5.1(e) of exhibit ‘D’ – Generic Guidelines For the Reform of Parastatals – clearly provides that “<i>The implementation is expected to be completed by the end of the year 2006”</i>. To emphasize that Exhibit ‘D’ was the relevant Guidelines, when the Bureau of Public Service reforms (BPSR) invited the 1<sup>st</sup>– 4<sup>th</sup>Defendants during the hearing of the Claimants’ grievances, by a letter (Exhibit Q), titled ‘Invitation To Sittings of the Committee on Severance Appeals/Petitions From Parastatals’, dated August 13, 2007, the Bureau compelled the 1<sup>st</sup>– 4<sup>th</sup>Defendants to bring Exhibit ‘G’. In Exhibit ‘Q’, the Bureau reminded the 1<sup>st</sup>– 4<sup>th</sup>Defendants thus:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">Please come along with, <b>without failure</b>, the following, which the Committee believes will assist in carrying out the exercise:-<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:1.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">a. Full severance list with a clear indication of the criterion for severance in each case as <b>outlined</b> in paragraph 5.1(a)(i-iv of the <b>Generic Guidelines for The Reform of Parastatals</b>;<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:1.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">b. Personal files of severed staff containing documentary evidences supporting their severance and any other documents you consider will assist the Committee in carrying out its assignment;<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:1.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">c. Conclusions of your Reform Implementation Committee (RIC) upon which your severance list was determined as required by paragraph 5 of the <b>Generic Guidelines for The Reform of Parastatals</b>; and <o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:1.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">d. Any other documents you consider germane to the efficient conduct of this exercise.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">I am to also request you to not only honour this schedule, but to also, <b>unfailingly</b>, come in person or be ably represented as indefinite, doubtful or unsatisfactory defence of any case may not be resolved in you favour.</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> (Emphasis in the original).<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Learned counsel stated that it is clear from Exhibit ‘Q’ that it is the Generic Guidelines for The Reform of Parastatals (Exhibit ‘D’) that governs the Claimants’ severance. This explains why the National Pension Commission (PENCOM) refused to verify and enroll the Claimants into their pension scheme on 30/08/2008 at Awka, and even drove the Claimants away. On May 15, 2013, CW1 testified thus under cross-examination:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">I was at Awka Enrollment exercise. I was not enrolled. I was not enrolled because when we were directed to enrollment at Awka, we were told by the PENCOM that downsizing or severance ended December 2006 and there was no authorization by 2007 when we were severed. And that the pre-retirement certificate I was given was fake and that I was not entitled to be enrolled because as at that time I was still a staff of the college since there was no authorization for my severance, hence the refusal to enroll me as my severance was bearing 2007</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">This powerful testimony of the CW1 was fully corroborated by CW2 and was not controverted by the defendants’ witness. In fact, during cross-examination, the Defendants’ DW1 admitted virtually the entire evidence of CW1 and CW2 that the severance exercise ended on 31/12/2006. In his own words, during cross-examination on 11/10/2016, DW1 said:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">I have seen the document dated 3/9/2008. It is my report. I accept that the fact of the severance exercise was to end by 31<sup>st</sup>December, 2006 was written in the report by me. The report was submitted to the Registrar of the 1<sup>st</sup>Defendant institution…<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">…it is possible that your assertion to me that I reported the fact of the team’s noticing of discrepancies to the 1<sup>st</sup>– 4<sup>th</sup>defendants is correct. I will need to refresh my memory. I did report to the 1<sup>st</sup>– 4<sup>th</sup>defendants that the Team also noted the discrepancies in the dates of the certificates presented by the claimants.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Continuing counsel stated that it is therefore preposterous and unconscionable for the 1<sup>st</sup>– 4<sup>th</sup>Defendants to smuggle-in Exhibit KK as the Guidelines used in severing the Claimants’ employment, instead of Exhibit D. What makes the Defendants unconscionability more egregious in tendering Exhibit KK before this Honourable Court is that all the documents the 1<sup>st</sup>– 4<sup>th</sup>Defendants tendered to support their severance of the Claimants pre-dated the said exhibit KK. This unsigned Exhibit KK shows at its page 10 to have been made on February 19, 2007. However, the defendants’ Exhibit LL, which contains the list of the alleged severed staff, was made on October 30, 2006; Exhibit GG was made on February 2, 2007; Exhibit EE was made on January 31, 2007 and Exhibit HH was made on February 6, 2007. Each of these documents were made before 19/02/2007 when Exhibit KK was allegedly produced. The 1<sup>st</sup>– 4<sup>th</sup>Defendants have not shown who made the said Exhibit KK and how they got it. More spurious is that the 1<sup>st</sup>–4<sup>th</sup>Defendants failed to explain the reason their Exhibit LL, which contains the list of the alleged severed staff, was made on 30/10/2006, while the severance or termination letters of the Claimants were made on 23/04/2007, when the severance exercise was ended on 31/12/2006?<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The only reasonable conclusion from the evidence before this Honourable Court is that on April 23, 2007, when the 1<sup>st</sup>– 4<sup>th</sup>Defendants attempted to severe the employment of the Claimants, the severance exercise had ended and the 1<sup>st</sup>– 4<sup>th</sup>Defendants were not authorized to engage in such severance of the Claimants. This was the undisputed conclusion arrived at by the National Pension Commission (PENCOM), as ably shown by the Claimants through their pleadings and the undisputed evidence of CW1 and CW2.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">That the law is trite that once an employer proffers a reason for terminating the employment of his employee, he is obliged to satisfactorily prove the said reason as the onus is on him in that regard, otherwise the termination/dismissal would constitute a wrongful termination/dismissal. He referred to the case of<b><i>I.H.A.B.U.H.M.B. v. Anyip (2011) 12 N.W.L.R. [Pt. 1260] 1,19,R.4, SC.</i></b> This burden of proof is even more imperative on the employer where the employment has statutory flavor, as in the instant matter. In this latter case, the employer is not only compelled to give reason for terminating the employment, he is obliged to prove the said reason, and must further prove that the termination was in accordance with the statute and regulations governing the employment. He referred to<b><i>F.M.C., Ido-Ekiti v. Olajide (2011) 11 N.W.L.R. [Pt. 1258] 256, 284, R.4; F.M.C., Ido-Ekiti v. Alabi (2012) 2 N.W.L.R. [Pt. 1285] 411, 463, R. 13.</i></b> In the instant case, the Defendants stated that the Claimants were severed because they fall within the categories of people to be severed in Exhibit KK. In Exhibits P1-P103, the 1<sup>st</sup>– 4<sup>th</sup>Defendants simply state thus: <i>“In compliance with the directives of the Federal Government through the Bureau of Public Service Reforms, the Governing Council has approved the immediate severance of all College Personnel earlier recommended for severance by the College Reform Implementation Committee.”</i> The Defendants could not establish which ‘directives of the Federal Government’ they were complying with. They did not even inform the Claimants that they were allegedly among ‘all College Personnel earlier recommended for severance by the College Reform Implementation Committee’. They did not even explain the reason the Claimants’ names should be among the alleged ‘personnel’. Besides, the law is clear that for the defendants to terminate the Claimants’ employment, they must act within the law. In <b><i>P.H.M.B. v. Ejitagha (200) 11 (2000) 11 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 677) 154, 163,</i></b> the Apex Court said:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","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;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">It is well settled that a public body invested with statutory power such as those conferred upon the corporation must take care not to exceed or abuse its power. It must keep within the limits of the authority committed to it. It must act in good faith. And it must act reasonably</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">In the instant case, the Defendants purported to severe or terminate the Claimants’ employment by disregarding all the statutory procedures laid down by their own Law and regulations, including the requirement of giving Notice to the Claimants and the provisions of Exhibit ‘D’. <b><i>In P.H.C.N. Pls. v. Offoelo (2013)</i></b>, <b><i>supra</i></b>, <b><i>at 380,410, R.9</i></b>, the Supreme Court held that:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">Where the terms and conditions of a contract of service are created by statute (as in the instant case), same must be complied with when the contract is being brought to an end. If there is failure to act in the right direction, the court would declare the termination as null and void and pronounce the employment as valid and subsisting.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">As the Defendants clearly failed to act in accordance with their own Law and Regulations, which created the terms and conditions of the Claimants’ employment, in terminating the said employment, this Honourable court should declare the termination null and void and pronounce the Claimants’ employment to be valid and subsisting with attending benefits and remunerations.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On the second issue for determination, which is whether the claimants are entitled to have their severance benefits based on CONTISS and the 15% increase in salary, learned counsel stated that the Claimants’ employment was terminated on April 23, 2007 and their severance benefits were computed under HATISS. However, their salaries from January 1, 2007 till April 30, 2007 were paid under CONTISS (Consolidated Tertiary Institutions salary Structure). During cross-examination on 15/05/2013 CW1 testified that his salary grade was “CONTISS 12/6.” The Certificates of Service (Exhibits ‘M1-71’ & ‘M72-89’) issued by the 1<sup>st</sup>– 4<sup>th</sup>Defendants to all the Claimants expressly stipulate that their ‘Salary Grade’ is ‘CONTISS, as they claimed in paragraph 21 of their Joint Amended Statement of Defence that they calculated the Claimants’ severance package based on the obsolete HATISS, though HATISS salary structure was scrapped out in 2006. According to the 1<sup>st</sup>– 4<sup>th</sup>Defendants, they were acting on the instruction of the 5<sup>th</sup>Defendant, contained in exhibit ‘EE’. Yet, nowhere in Exhibit ‘EE’ was it stated that the Claimants’ severance package should be calculated under HATISS. In fact, the said Exhibit ‘EE” re-emphasized that CONTISS took effect from January 1, 2007. Even if the said Exhibit ‘EE’ instructed the 1<sup>st</sup>– 4<sup>th</sup>Defendants to calculate the Claimants’ severance benefits on HATISS, such instruction is totally wrong and unconscionable. This is one of the reasons the 5<sup>th</sup>Defendant was sued in this action for the Honourable Court to properly pronounce on their actions with regard to the Claimants and correct their errors.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The Claimants are also entitled to the 15% increase in salary, which took effect from January 1, 2007.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On the 3<sup>rd</sup> Issue, which is whether the Claimants are entitled to the reliefs sought in this action, learned counsel stated that the Claimants are entitled to the payment of the outstanding balance of N58,160,646.19 computed under HATISS plus the extra difference between CONTISS and HATISS and the 15% increase in salary. That the 1<sup>st</sup> – 4<sup>th</sup> Defendants expressly admitted in paragraph 21 of their Joint Amended statement of Defence that that <i>the Claimants’ severance benefit was computed under HATISS in 2006, </i>though the Claimants were purportedly severed April 30, 2007. The Claimants’ retiree Severance Pay Slips - Exhibits L1-102 – are the said severance benefits that were computed under HATISS. It is exactly what is in Exhibits L1-L102 that is shown in the Claimants’ table 1, 2 & 3 in paragraph 1 of the Further amended Statement of Fact.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">After the Accountant General of the Federation (8<sup>th</sup> Defendant) calculated the Claimants severance benefits under HATISS, it sent the Access Bank check for <b>N72,162,797.34</b> to the 1<sup>st</sup> – 4<sup>th</sup> Defendants for the payment of the Claimants’ severance benefits. The certified true copy of the said Access Bank check is part of Exhibits ‘L1-L102’.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">That when the 1<sup>st</sup> – 4<sup>th</sup> Defendants received the said Access Bank check for <b>N72,162,797.34 </b>and the Claimants’ Exhibits ‘L1-L102’, they unconscionably reduced the amount due to each Claimant as shown in pay slips (Exhibits ‘L1-L102’). They paid the Claimants the total of <b>N32,885.761.79</b> and kept the difference of <b>N58,160,646.19</b> to themselves. The 1<sup>st</sup> – 4<sup>th</sup> Defendants have not accounted for the said balance of <b>N58,160,646.19.</b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">In addition to the said <b>N58,160,644.19</b> calculated under HATISS, the Claimants are still entitled to an upgrade of the amount to meet the CONTISS structure. Exhibit R-R1, the Circular on the Consolidated Tertiary Institutions Salary Structure (CONTISS), dated January 18, 2007, contains the Conversion Table from HATISS to CONTISS.The Claimants are also entitled to have the 15% salary increase factored into the severance benefits since the salary increase took effect on January 1, 2007, as shown by the Defendants’ Exhibit ‘EE’, long before the Claimants were alleged severed.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">That, the Claimants are also entitled to the sum of <b>N10,000,000.00 </b>General damages. The primary object of an award of damages is to compensate the plaintiff for the harm done to him. It is also to punish the defendant for his conduct in inflicting the harm to the plaintiff. The law on award of general damages is clear. In <b><i><u>Unipetrol (Nig.) Plc. V. Adireje (W.A.) Ltd</u> (2005) 14 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 946) 563, 632 – 633,</i></b> the Court held that:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">General damages are such that <b>the law will presume to be the direct, natural and probable results of the acts complained of. </b>It need not be proved strictly unlike special damages. There is no parameter or yard-stick for a court to use in awarding general damages except of course the presumption of ordinary expectation of a reasonable man…… Let me emphasize here, that it is not unusual or abnormal for a trial court to award general damages even where it awarded special damages in as much as there is slightest evidence showing that the party so claiming suffered some damages.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The Claimants are entitled to interest on their unpaid benefits at the rate of 25% per annum till judgment is given and thereafter 16% per annum on the judgment debt until the same is fully satisfied and paid. The Honourable court would take judicial notice of the devaluation of the Naira. In 2007, the rate of Naira per US Dollar was N110. Now, the rate is N450 per US Dollar. There is therefore need to award interest to attempt to meet the flux of depreciation in Naira.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">ALTERNATIVELY, the Claimants are entitled to an Order of re-instatement to their employment. The 1<sup>st</sup> – 4<sup>th</sup> Defendants’ counsel is right in his submission at paragraph 6.1 of the <u>Final Written Address of the 1<sup>st</sup> – 4<sup>th</sup> Defendants</u> that once the Honourable Court determines that the termination of the Claimants’ employment is wrongful, because the employment has statutory flavor, the Honourable Court should order a re-instatement of the Claimants. It is the law that once the termination of the employment is not in accordance with statutory regulations that govern the employment, as in the instant case, the Court should declare the termination null and void; the only inference of that declaration is that the employment is deemed to be continuous. It will be as if there had never been a termination. An order of re-instatement will therefore be the only logical order to follow. He referred to<b><i>Al<u>hassan v. A.B.U., Zaria</u> (2011) 11 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1258)256, 286, R.5.</i></b>In <b><i>FMC, Ido-Ekiti vs Olajide (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1258) 256, </i></b>following a long line of cases, the Appellate Court held that the plaintiff whose employment with statutory flavor was wrongfully terminated, apart from reinstatement, is also entitled to all his salaries and allowances as if he never left the employment. In this <b><i><u>Olajide’s case </u> (supra),</i></b> Uwa, J.C.A., said:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">The respondent’s appointment was wrong and improper, his termination is protected by law, the effect is that, it is like the respondent had never left office and would naturally be entitled to all his salaries and allowances.</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">In the instant matter, the Claimants are seeking several reliefs, including re-instatement, payment of all salaries and remunerations, damages etc, as shown in paragraph 36 of their further Amended Statement of Facts. As the termination of their employment with statutory flavor violates the statutory conditions of their employment<u> as stated in the Defendants’ Law and regulations, the Claimants are entitled to all the reliefs sought in this matter.</u>(Underlining provided by counsel).<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:center; text-indent:-.5in;line-height:normal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">In conclusion learned counsel urged the Court to grant their reliefs as stated in their Further Amended Statement of Facts and re-instate them into their employment with all the attendant rights and privileges as if they were never severed.In the alternative, the Claimants pray to be paid all the compensations and outstanding severance benefits as claimed.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">I have carefully considered the processes filed, the evidence led as well as the arguments and submissions of the parties in this case. The issues for the court’s determination are as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo14"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">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:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Whether or not the employment of each of the Claimants was rightly severed/terminated through the rightful channel and by the rightful authority of the Defendants?<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo14"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">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:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Whether the Claimants’ are each entitled to have their severance benefits calculated based on CONTISS and 15% increase in salary?<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo14"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">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:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Whether the Claimants’ are entitled to the reliefs sought?<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Before going into the determination of the issues for determination let me give a brief summary of the facts of the case. According to the Claimants they are employees of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant. That the employment was laced with statutory flavour as it is governed by the Federal Colleges of Education Act, Cap. F8, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 and the Federal Civil Service Rules. The terms of employment of each of the Claimants provided that the employment would only be terminated for good cause by one month’s (or three months’) notice or payment of salary in lieu of notice depending on the level of each Claimant’s position. That by letters dated 23/04/2007, the Defendants purported to terminate the Claimants’ employment with the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant for no cause and without the mandatory period of notice. The said letters of termination stated that the claimants’ employments were severed as a result of the approval of the Governing Council given for the severance of those already recommended to be severed by the College’s Reform Implementation Committee. The Claimants further alleged that as at the time they were severed, i.e., 23/04/2007, there was no ongoing severance exercise. According to the Claimants’ this is because the exercise had ended by December, 2006. Furthermore, the Claimants did not fall into the categories of the employees whose employment should be severed under the relevant guidelines, especially Exhibit D. The Claimants also alleged that the Defendants failed to pay the Claimants their monthly salaries before retirement as well as their severance benefits, till date.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The Claimants further contended that their severance package should be calculated based on CONTISS, the extant salary structure at the time of the alleged termination, 2007, as against the HATISS, which had been stopped. The Claimants maintained that they were being owed some balance under the severance pay calculated and remitted to the Defendants by the 8<sup>th</sup> Defendant as well as the upgrade of the payments from HATISS to CONTISS with the 15% increase, since they were severed/terminated under HATISS.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On their part, the Defendants denied the Claimants’ claims, argued that they were properly severed/terminated and that they were not entitled to be paid their severance benefits under CONTISS or any of their reliefs.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Turning to the first issue for determination by the Court, the Claimants’ case is that they were not properly severed or terminated by the Defendants. The reasons here are in three classes.These are:- that the Defendants did not terminate the employment of the Claimants’ for good cause or following the stipulated contractual period of notice before termination; that the claimants did not belong to the categories of persons to be terminated; and that severance exercise ended by December, 2006 and therefore did not extend to 2007 when the claimants were severed/terminated. The question here is what is the duty of the Claimants with regards to the proof of their claim of wrongful severance/termination? In the case of MR. BENEDICT CHIDOBEM AJUZI v. FIRST BANK OF NIGERIA PLCCITATION: (2016) LPELR-CA/OW/265/2011, the Court of Appeal, <i>per OHO, J.C.A., pp. 33-34, Paras. C-E,</i> puts it succinctly thus:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">Therefore, where an employee alleges wrongful termination or dismissal, the onus will usually be on him to prove wrongful termination or dismissal as the case may be. To do just this, the apex Court in the case of MOROHUNFOLA vs. KWARA STATE COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY (1990) 4 NWLR (PT. 145) 506 AT 519 stated that in case of wrongful or unlawful termination of employment, the Plaintiff must begin first by specifically pleading the following: 1. That he is employed by the Defendant 2. The terms and conditions of his appointment including duration and termination. 3. Who can appoint and remove him 4. The circumstances under which his appointment can be terminated and 5. That his appointment can only be terminated by a person or authority other than the Defendant. In addition, it is also important to plead all relevant materials and facts upon which to hinge the Plaintiff's claim to sustain his allegations of wrongful or unlawful termination of employment. Having done this, the Plaintiff is next required to call credible evidence in proof of the pleaded facts. In the case of AMODU vs. AMODE (1990) 5 NWLR (PT. 150) 356 AT 370, the Supreme Court, per AGBAJE, JSC had this to say on the subject: <o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:1.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">Since it is the Plaintiff's case, that his dismissal by the Defendants is not in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract of service, between them it is for the Plaintiff to plead and prove the conditions of service regulating the contract of service in question. It is also for the Plaintiff to plead and prove in what way the conditions of employment gave his employers a restricted right of dismissal over him. <o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">This dictum of the Court of Appeal sets the position which the Claimants must take in proof of their claim. It is their duty to plead and lead evidence on the existence of the employment relationship between them and the Defendants, as well as the terms and conditions of the employment relationship which governs that relationship. They must further plead and prove the way and manner that employment relationship was wrongfully terminated by the Defendants. The Claimants have placed before the court the various contracts of employment evidencing the employment relationship between each of the Claimants and the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant Institution. The learned Claimants’ counsel referred to the condition stipulated in the said employment contracts which related to notice of one month (in some cases three months) before the employment could be terminated and for good cause. The learned counsel for the Claimants did not place before the court the entire terms and conditions of the employment relationship. In fact the learned claimants’ counsel only submitted that the employment relationship between the 1<sup>st</sup> defendant institution and the claimants was one with statutory flavour. In proof of that he cited the provisions of Section 15(2) of the Federal Colleges of Education Act, Cap F8, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004. The said section 15(2) provides that the remuneration, tenure of office and conditions of service of the employees of the Council shall be determined by the Governing Councilof the Institution in consultation with the Federal Civil Service Commission. He then proceeded to state that the Claimants were offered employment pursuant to the said Section 15 of the Act with the condition as to termination of the employment with the necessary period of notice. The question here is whether the Claimants have shown that the employment contract was indeed one with statutory flavour. In the case cited and relied upon by the learned Claimants’ counsel, <b><i>P.H.C.N. vs Offoelo (2013) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1344) p. 380, </i></b>the Supreme Court has provided the guidelines which must be followed in determining whether a contract of employment is one with statutory flavour. It stated at pages 424-425 paras C-D and E-F respectively, per Akhaas, JSC, as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">A contract of employment is said to have statutory flavour where such a contract is governed by provision of a statute, regulations or conditions of employment derived from either statute or regulations…In the instant case, exhibit ‘A’ contained the terms and conditions of employment of the respondent and it was made pursuant to paragraph 9 of Part III of the Schedule to the National Electric Power Authority Act, Cap.256, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990…Consequently, the employment had statutory flavour and the employer would not be allowed to whimsically determine the employment. The employer must comply with the laid down rules; otherwise the action taken to determine the employment would be declared a nullity. <b>Eperokun v. University of Lagos (1986) 4 NWLR (Pt. 34) 162; Olaniyan v. University of Lagos (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 9) 509; Federal Civil Service Commission v. Laoye (1989) 2 NWLR (Pt. 106) 652; Fakuade v. O.A.U.T.H.M.B. (1993) 5 NWLR (Pt. 291) 47.</b></span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">From this decision of the Supreme Court the Claimants must show that the employment contract is governed by the provisions of a statute, regulations or that the Conditions of Service governing the employment relationship were derived from statute. In this case the statute referred to by the learned Claimants’ counsel, i.e., section 15(2) of the Federal Colleges of Education Act, Cap F8, Laws of the Federation, 2004, only stated the tenure, remuneration and conditions of service of employees of the College would be determined by the Governing Council. There is no direct provision on the terms and conditions of the Claimants employment provided for in the said law. There is also no Terms and Conditions governing the employment relationship between the Claimants and the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendants placed before the Court for it to determine if they have been made subject to any statutory provision which would have conferred statutory flavour on the employment of the Claimants. It is therefore difficult to say that the employment of the Claimants was covered with statutory flavour as the learned claimants’ counsel submitted. The relationship can therefore only be considered on the basis of master and servant relationship. This I so find and hold.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Furthermore, the case of the Claimants’ is confined to the failure of the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendants to provide ‘cause’ or ‘reason’ for and comply with length of notice in severing/terminating the Claimants’ employment as stipulated in the letters of employment, Exhibits A, J1-J77 & K1-K29. An example of the said term in the letter of appointment states that:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">…unless you are dismissed, the College may at any time for good cause, terminate your employment by one month’s notice in writing or by a payment of one month’s salary in lieu of notice.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On this score of severance/termination without good cause or proper length of notice, it is quite clear that Exhibits P1-P103 terminated the employment of each of the claimants’ by letter dated 23<sup>rd</sup> April, 2007 to be effective on the 30<sup>th</sup> of April, 2007. This a clear breach of the condition which stipulates a notice of at least one month or payment of salary in lieu of notice before the termination of the employment. However, the 1<sup>st</sup> to 4<sup>th</sup> Defendants have argued that the termination in this case was based on the public sector reform which was guided by the contents of Public Service Reforms Guidelines, 2006, Exhibit D, and Guidelines for Staff Severance in the Public Service issued by Bureau of Public Service Reforms, The Presidency, Abuja, (BPSR) dated February, 2007, Exhibit KK. The defendants also set up their own Reform Implementation Committee which submitted a report of its work, tendered and admitted as Exhibit LL. To the defendants, the severance was properly done by the proper authority, i.e., the Governing Council of the College.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Having considered the evidence led as well as the arguments and submissions of counsel on the first issue for determination, it is quite clear to me that the Claimants’ had the onus of showing that the termination of their employment through the alleged severance was wrongful. The discharge of this onus was to be attained through the pleading and tendering of the Conditions of Service governing the employment relationship generally or where they are directly provided in a statute for the Court to take judicial notice of it. See <b><i>PHCN vs Offoelo, supra, p. 407, paras E-F.</i></b> See also </span><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri">BUKAR MODU AJI v. CHAD BASIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANOR (2015) LPELR-SC.71/2005.</span></i></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri"> The Claimants did not do that. The court therefore has to consider what is before it on the basis of the state of the pleading and evidence. The Claimants were basically severed pursuant to the policy of public sector reforms undertaken by the Federal Government through the BPSR. The BPSR published the guidelines for the severance which have been tendered as Exhibits D and KK. The question is whether the Claimants were severed in accordance with the stipulated guidelines. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri">The Claimants have advanced the argument that the severance was improper because it did not comply with the requirement of notice or good cause. Here, the guidelines have not provided for any particular length of notice to be given before a staff was severed. Therefore since the severance was predicated on the BPSR document the Claimants cannot justify the insistence on compliance with any length of notice.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri">The Claimants have equally maintained that ‘no good cause’ was offered as a reason for the severance by the Defendants in this case. I think here since the Claimants were not able to tender the terms and conditions governing the employment relationship between the Claimants and the Defendants there is no basis for the Court to determine what amounts to ‘good cause’as defined therein, which would have justified the severance/termination. But then the BPSR document itself provides the guidance on the criteria to be used in severing/terminating the employees in question. Both parties have agreed that the criteria outlined in the BPSR document, Exhibits D and KK, have provided the basis for the severance/termination exercise. The criteria stipulated in both exhibits are as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri"> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l14 level1 lfo15"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">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:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Officers appointed without due authorization;<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l14 level1 lfo15"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">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:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Officers with cases of misconduct;<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l14 level1 lfo15"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">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:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Officers that are medically unfit;<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l14 level1 lfo15"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">4.<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:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Staff in jobs which services are monetized, outsourced or abolished (cleaners, drivers, cooks, security men, messengers, etc.);<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l14 level1 lfo15"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">5.<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:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Staff that have become redundant due to the scrapping or restructuring of their organization/department;<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l14 level1 lfo15"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">6.<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:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Officers without entry qualification or mandatory skills for their jobs;<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l14 level1 lfo15"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">7.<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:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Officers wishing to proceed on voluntary retirement.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">It is the claimants’ argument that there is no evidence before the court to show that the claimants fell within any of the above-stated categories. Although the claimants’ argued that their evidence in this regard was not challenged by the defendants, it has to be pointed out that the defendants did place before the court Exhibit LL which they argued justified the severance as having complied with the laid down criteria by BPSR documents, Exhibits D and KK. The said Exhibit LL is a document made by the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant, addressed to the 5<sup>th</sup> Defendant and is dated 30<sup>th</sup> October, 2006. It is titled “Submission of the Report Implementation Committee”. It also has adisengagement list, Appendix 1 attached to it. There is a list of 181 staff that were to be disengaged from the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant institution in line with the public sector reform policy. Although the staff as listed for disengagement were from various departments, there is a common thread which runs through all of them. This is the general reference to the fact that they are all officers with disciplinary cases. The problem here though is that the said officers were only listed as having had ‘queries’ ‘warnings’ and ‘suspension’ and the claimants have argued that ‘queries’ and ‘warnings’ were not on the list of criteria to be used in severing the employees contained in Exhibits D and KK. However, during cross examination by the 1<sup>st</sup> to 4<sup>th</sup> Defendants’ counsel, CW1 testified that the claimants severed included those who belonged to the category of workers that were outsourced, abolished and monetized. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The question here is whether the severance of the claimants who have had disciplinary issues which culminated in queries and warnings was in compliance with the criteria stipulated in Exhibits D and KK. Under the criteria listed there is reference to ‘officers with cases of misconduct’. The claimants have not denied that they were either queried, suspendedor warned in the course of their employment. In fact under cross examination by the 1<sup>st</sup> to 4<sup>th</sup> defendants counsel CW1 admitted to having received queries from the 1<sup>st</sup> defendant. Weighing up all the pieces of evidence in this case as well as the authorities, it seems to me that the issue of misconduct of an employee is generally tied to the loss of confidence by the employer in the employee to the extent that the employer no longer feels comfortable to continue to work with the employee in question. In other words, what constitutes misconduct, is that conduct of an employee which makes the employer to lose confidence in him. The learned author, <b>Femi Aborishade (2015), </b>in his book titled <i>‘Determination of Contract of Employment in Nigeria, South Africa, Zimbabwe’ published by Humanitas Consult Ltd & Centre for Labour Studies (CLS), Ibadan, </i>wrote on the same point at pages 153-154 as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">The Court of Appeal has held that any conduct or misconduct, which makes the employer to lose confidence in the employee, can be categorized as gross misconduct. In OSAGIE V. NNB PLC (2012) 246 AT 280-281 PARAS H-B (incomplete citation), the Court of Appeal held:<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">Various acts may give rise to a dismissal, for example, willful disobedience to lawful or reasonable orders, misconduct of the master’s business, neglect, incompetence and other conduct incompatible with the faithful discharge of the servant’s duty to his master-see Co-operative & Commerce Bank Nigeria Ltd v. Nwankwo (supra). See also Nwobosi v. A.C.B. Ltd. (1985) 6 NWLR Pt. 404) 658, where Iguh, JSC stated as follows at p. 686:<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:1.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">In the present case, the appellant was in willful disobedience of the lawful and reasonable order of his employers. It is a conduct of such grave and weighty character as to undermine the relationship of confidence, which should exist between an employer and an employee. He was therefore guilty of gross misconduct and was liable to dismissal without notice and without wages…</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">In the instant case, the guidelines for severance, Exhibits D and KK have both provided for situations in which the employees in public service were to be severed. These included those staff with cases of misconduct. The defendants in this case set up the implementation committee which worked on the files of the mentioned employees which included the claimants and came up with those who have had disciplinary issues that revolved around queries, suspensions and warnings. The only reasonable conclusion to draw here is that these officers had been found to have engaged in acts which the employer felt were weighty enough as not to have confidence to continue to work with them. In other words, it is my humble view, which I so hold, that the officers, who were having disciplinary issues, properly fitted into the category of ‘officers with cases of misconduct’ which needed to be severed in accordance with the criteria set out in Exhibits D and KK.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The 3<sup>rd</sup> point made by the learned Claimants’ counsel in arguing that the claimants were not properly severed/terminated is that the severance exercise ended on 31/12/2006. Therefore the severance of the Claimants in April, 2007 was not properly done as the exercise had finished at the end of December, 2006. Learned counsel relied on paragraph 5.1(e) of Exhibit D which states in full as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif""> (e) Implementation <o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">Once approved, the Blueprint shall be implemented by the SCR, through the Ministries’ PRCCs. The implementation is expected to be completed by the end of the year 2006.</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The defendants on their own part submitted that the severance exercise extended to 2007, referring the court to evidence of DW1 and Exhibits HH, GG and KK. Having considered the arguments and submissions of counsel as well as the evidence before the court, let me point out that the submission of learned counsel that the exercise ended in December, 2006 is not well founded. To start with the assumption is predicated on the provision in paragraph 5.1(e) of Exhibit D which I have reproduced in full a while ago. The words used in that document are plain and should be given their plain meaning. The provision does not say with any exactitude that the Severance exercise was going to end in December 2006. Rather it stated that the severance exercise was being expected to be completed by the end of the year 2006. The operative wordsused there are “expected to be completed”. The dictionary meaning of the word “expected” which is the past tense of “expect” is “to think of something as likely to happen or come”. See <b><i>Chambers 21<sup>st</sup> Century Dictionary, Revised Edition, (2007) page 459.</i></b>The document set the date as the likely date for the exercise to be completed. There is no clear and definite statement that the severance was ending in 2006 or that there was not going to be any further extension.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Therefore, the contents of Exhibits HH, GG and KK show clearly that the exercise had not ended by the end of December, 2006 but ratherit had been extended to the year 2007. This I so find and hold.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On the whole, the first issue is resolved against the claimants as I hold that the severance/termination of their employment by the defendants was proper.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">I now move to the 2<sup>nd</sup> issue for determination which is whether the Claimants’ are each entitled to have their severance benefits calculated based on CONTISS and 15% increase in salary? The case of the Claimants is that although their employment was terminatedon 23<sup>rd</sup> April, 2007, they were paid their severance benefits under Harmonized Tertiary Institutions Salary Structure (HATISS). This is wrong as they should have had the benefits calculated and paid under the Consolidated Tertiary Institutions Salary Structure (CONTISS). That even though the defendant relied on Exhibit EE to calculate the Severance benefits under HATISS, there is no directive anywhere in the said exhibit wherein the Claimants were to be paid under HATISS. Claimants’ argued further that even if there was such a directive it was not right for the Defendants to have based the calculation on HATISS instead of CONTISS.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The Defendants on their part have argued that their decision to calculate the claimants’ benefits under HATISS was based on the provision of Paragraph 2.2.2 of Exhibit EE. The said Exhibit EE is titled ‘Implementation of Consolidated Federal Government Salary Structure for 2007.’ Paragraph 2.2.2 thereof reads:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">The current nominal roll, based on actual current staffing levels as of January 1, 2007, must be used for the purposes of preparing personnel cost estimates. Any employees who have been identified for disengagement as part of the ON GOING public Service Reform programme MUST NOT BE INCLUDED IN THIS SUBMISSION.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Defendants further submitted that Exhibit FF went ahead to prove that the Claimants are entitled to be paid their severance benefits based on the old salary scales (Under HATISS). It reads as follows in paragraph 8:<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;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">The attention of Chief Executives of parastatals is however drawn to the need for strict adherence to the Generic Guidelines for Reforms in the compilation of names of staff to be disengaged and to obtain the approval of the Board or the Minister supervising the parastatal (in the absence of a board). All severance benefits calculation are to be based on the old salary scales and not the new consolidated salary structure</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The two pieces of evidence pleaded and tendered by the Defendants go a long way in my humble view in showing that the Claimants in this case were to have their benefits calculated under HATISS instead of CONTISS. Exhibit FF clearly stated that the staff earmarked for disengagement should have their severance benefits calculated based on the old salary scale and not the new consolidated salary scale. The Claimants have argued that they have been paid their salaries from January, 2007 to when they were severed in April, 2007, under CONTISS, they are entitled to be paid the severance benefits under the same CONTISS and not the old one, HATISS. However the Claimants have drawn the court’s attention to the justification for that. It is perhaps necessary to point out that Exhibit LL, dated 30<sup>th</sup> October, 2006, was the basis for the severance exercise by the Defendants. These were the persons that the Defendants had earmarked as far back as October 2006 for the exercise. Therefore, the severance exercise of the Claimants had commenced even as they had began to earn the CONTISS between January, 2007 and April 2007. In the circumstance the claimants have not justified why the severance benefit should be calculated and paid based on CONTISS. I so hold as the issue is resolved against the claimants.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The third issue is whether the Claimants are entitled to the reliefs sought in this suit? The Claimants have argued that they are entitled to the payment of an outstanding balance of N58,160,646.19. The Claimants submitted that the defendants had calculated the severance benefits under HATISS in 2006 and the amount so calculated was forwarded to 8<sup>th</sup> defendant who sent a Cheque of N72,162,797.34 for the payment of same. The Claimants then argued that they are entitled to the balance between the HATISS paid and the CONTISS which they claim. The Defendants denied all this. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">I have already held that the Claimants were not entitled to have their severance calculated under CONTISS. Therefore what now remains to be determined is whether they are entitled to any <b><o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><!--[if gte vml 1]><v:shapetype id="_x0000_t75" coordsize="21600,21600" o:spt="75" o:preferrelative="t" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" filled="f" stroked="f"> <v:stroke joinstyle="miter"/> <v:formulas> <v:f eqn="if lineDrawn pixelLineWidth 0"/> <v:f eqn="sum @0 1 0"/> <v:f eqn="sum 0 0 @1"/> <v:f eqn="prod @2 1 2"/> <v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelWidth"/> <v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelHeight"/> <v:f eqn="sum @0 0 1"/> <v:f eqn="prod @6 1 2"/> <v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelWidth"/> <v:f eqn="sum @8 21600 0"/> <v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelHeight"/> <v:f eqn="sum @10 21600 0"/> </v:formulas> <v:path o:extrusionok="f" gradientshapeok="t" o:connecttype="rect"/> <o:lock v:ext="edit" aspectratio="t"/> </v:shapetype><v:shape id="Picture_x0020_1" o:spid="_x0000_i1025" type="#_x0000_t75" alt="8768B9D7" style='width:467.25pt;height:643.5pt;visibility:visible; mso-wrap-style:square'> <v:imagedata src="file:///C:\Users\Ajax\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image001.png" o:title="8768B9D7"/> </v:shape><![endif]--><!--[if !vml]--><img width="623" height="858" src="file:///C:/Users/Ajax/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image002.jpg" alt="8768B9D7" v:shapes="Picture_x0020_1"><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p>