Download PDF
Representation: L.U.N. Nwakaeti with Greg Okemili, Hope Ukeagbu, Sidney Agbor, A.C. Nwalozie for the Claimant Chief E.O. Onyema for the 1st 2nd and 5th Defendants JUDGMENT The 1st to 5th Claimants commenced this action by way of complaint filed on the 14th day of September 2015. Pursuant to an order of court made on the 9th day of November 2015 joining the 6th and 7th Claimants as co-Claimants, the Claimants on the 1st day of December 2015 filed a complaint wherein they claimed against the Defendants the following reliefs: a. An order of the honourable court directing the Defendants to pay to each of the Claimants through their counsel L.U.N. Nwakaeti and Associates, the sum of Sixteen Million Eight Hundred and Seventy Eight Thousand One Hundred and Four Naira only (N16,878,104.00) representing each Claimants cumulative gratuity/severance and emoluments for the months of March to June 2015. b. 10% Monthly interest of the above sum for each of the Claimants for the month of June 2015. c. 15% monthly interest on the above sum for each of the Claimants from the month of July 2015 until judgment is delivered and the liquidation thereof. OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE d. Payment by the Defendants to each of the Claimants the sum of Sixteen Million Eight Hundred and Seventy Eight Thousand One Hundred and Four Naira only (N16,878,104.00) representing each Claimant’s cumulative gratuity/severance and emoluments for the month of March to June 2015 before the period allowed for entering appearance to this suit whereupon this suit shall terminate. The Claimants filed a Statement of Facts, List of Witnesses, Witness’ deposition on oath, List of Documents and Copies of Documents to be relied upon. The 3rd and 4th Defendants entered appearance and filed a Statement of Defence along with other accompanying processes on the 9th day of November 2015. The 1st, 2nd, and 5th Defendants filed their Statement of Defence along with other accompanying processes dated 30th November 2015 and filed on the 2nd December 2015. Pleadings were duly regularized. Hearing commenced on 11th February 2016. Parties called two witnesses each. The 1st Claimant testified as CW1 while one Bruno Kizito Ajaelu, a subpoenaed witness from the Revenue Mobilization Allocation and Fiscal Commission, who described himself as the State co-ordinator in charge of Imo State, testified as CW2. One Mr. Uchenna A. Mgbenani testified for the 1st, 2nd and 5th Defendants as DW1 while one Onwuneme Chamberlain Uchenna testified for the 3rd and 4th Defendants as DW2. Hearing ended on 9th November 2016. Parties were ordered to file their final written addresses in accordance with the Rules of Court. The 1st, 2nd and 5th Defendants filed their Final Written Address on the 30th day of January 2017. The 3rd and 4th Defendants’ Final Written Address was filed on the 6th day of March 2017. The Claimant’s Final Written Address was filed on 23rd March 2017. The addresses were duly regularized on the 7th day of March 2017. Parties adopted their respective Final Written Addresses on the 7th day of April 2017. In the 1st, 2nd and 5th Defendants’ Final Address, counsel identified 2 issues for determination namely: a. Which remuneration package is applicable to the Claimants in this suit – the 2007 Remuneration Package or the 2009 Reviewed Remuneration Package? b. Whether the Claimants have proved entitlement to the Reliefs claimed in this Suit. On issue 1, counsel argued that although it is agreed that the Claimants served as Legislators in the Imo State House of Assembly from June 2011 – May 2015, their outstanding entitlements are to be paid in accordance with the Revenue Mobilization Allocation and Fiscal Commission (RMAFC) 2009 package and not the RMAFC 2007 package. Counsel argued that what was in question is which package is the extant remuneration package between the RMAFC 2007 (EXHIBIT C9) and the RMAFC 2009 (EXHIBIT C10). He posited, citing Sections 124(1), 153(1)(n) & (2) and Part I 3rd Schedule to the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the Revenue Mobilization Allocation and Fiscal Commission Act, Cap. R7 Vol. 14 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004, that it is not in dispute that the salaries, remuneration and entitlements due and payable to the Claimants as members of the House of Assembly of a State shall be prescribed by the House of Assembly but such salaries and remunerations shall not exceed that fixed and determined by the Revenue Mobilization Allocation and Fiscal Commission (RMAFC). Counsel also submitted that it is not in dispute that the 2009 Package (EXHIBIT C10) came into force in July 2009 and that the Claimants became members of the Imo State House of Assembly in June 2011 thus it is clear that even before the Claimants became members of the House of Assembly, Exhibit C10 had come into force. He urged the court to resolve Issue No 1 by holding that the extant Remuneration Package applicable to the Claimants is RMAFC 2009 (Exhibit C10) and not RMAFC 2007 (Exhibit C9). On Issue 2 the 1st, 2nd and 5th Defendants argued that the Claimants made claims to include payment of work allegedly done in June 2011 while evidence on record shows that the Claimants were elected into the House of Assembly for a tenure of 4 years which commenced in June 2011 to elapsed in May 2015. They argued that claims to any emoluments or entitlements for the month of June 2015 was baseless and urged the court to discountenance such claims. They also submitted that severance allowances pursuant to the extant remuneration package, Exhibit C10 is calculated at 200% of annual basic salary and not by 300% as claimed by the Claimants. They argued that according to S.124 (1) of the 1999 Constitution, it is not for the Claimants to prescribe what they should be paid and that the limitation on what the House of Assembly may prescribe as payable is that it should not exceed the amount determined by the RMAFC and that it may be less. They submitted that whatever the House of Assembly prescribes is what the Claimants are entitled to under the constitution provided that that amount does not exceed the amount already determined by the RMAFC. They posited that in the instant case, the remuneration of the Claimants is governed by EXHIBIT C10 moreover as the same has not been shown to be in excess of the amount prescribed by the RMAFC is any Remuneration package. They further submitted that whether the 2007 package or the 2009 package is the extant RMAFC Remuneration Package, the point remains that under the Constitution, there is no obligation that the Claimant must be paid what is stated in the RMAFC package and that the Constitution only requires that what the House of Assembly prescribes for payment must not exceed the amount determined by RMAFC at each point in time. Counsel argued, citing the cases of OLOWU vs. ABOLORE (1993) 6 SCNJ (Pt. 1) 1 @ 19 – 20; IBRAHIM vs. JUDICIAL SERVICE COMMITTEE KADUNA STATE (1998) 64 LRCN 5044 @ 5075 – 5076; AROMOLORAN vs. AGORO (2015) 239 LRCN 79 @ 104 that the provisions of S. 124 (1) of the 1999 Constitution is clear and unambiguous and should be given its ordinary meaning. With respect to claims for Legislative Allowance, Security vote and Committee Allowance, counsel submitted that none of these head of claims is provided for under the extant Remuneration Package EXHIBIT C10. He went on that the bank schedules purporting to show previous payment of such allowances to the Claimants in the past is immaterial and that such payments are outside the provisions of the applicable law. Counsel posited that such payments are clearly illegal or at best, ex-gracia payments. i.e. the payment of which is not a legal obligation. He urged the court to hold that the Claimants are not entitled to the payment of legislative allowance, security vote and committee allowance as claimed in the suit. With regard to the claims for the payment of interest, the 1st, 2nd and 5th Defendants argued that the amounts being claimed by the Claimants are neither loans nor commercial debts but allowances claimed to be due to the Claimants just like any other person engaged in public service and that there is no law or regulation or agreement stipulating that salaries, emoluments and entitlements of the Claimants should attract interest when they are paid late, neither is there any custom by which public servants are paid their outstanding allowances and/or remunerations with interest. Counsel further argued that on the contrary, DW1’s evidence attested to the fact that as a matter of established practice, Governments at all levels never pay salaries and emoluments with interest. The piece of evidence was neither contradicted nor challenged by the Claimants. According to counsel, the law is settled that interest is not payable by the mere asking for it and that the legal basis for such interest must be pleaded and proved. In AFRIBANK vs. AKWARA (2006) 136 LRCN 1258 @ 1300 the Supreme Court held as follows: “It is now settled that except where parties have agreed on payment of interest it is not right to award interest predating the date of Judgment… there must be express agreement that interest will be charged.†Counsel further argued that in the instant case the Claimants did not offer any evidence to justify their case for post-judgment interest and that even in the case of post judgment interest, the Rules provide that the Court “may order interest… to be paid upon any judgement.†See Order 21 Rule 4 of the National Industrial Court Rules. The use of the expression “may order interest†clearly implies discretion to order or not to order interest having regard to the circumstances disclosed by evidence before the court. See HIMMA MERCHANTS LTD. vs. ALIYU (1994) 5 NWLR (Pt. 347) 667. Counsel submitted that no compelling circumstances have been disclosed to justify the exercise of the discretion of the Court to Order post-judgment interest in this case. In the instant case, even the CW1 himself admitted that the Government was under financial “Crunch†which affected the discharge of its financial obligations. It was counsel’s submission therefore that it would be most inappropriate even in the face of the economic recession which the Court is entitled to take judicial notice of, for the Court or to exercise any discretion in favour of awarding any post-judgment interest whatsoever in the circumstances of this case. He therefore urged the Court to hold that the claims for both pre-judgment interest have not been made out. He urged the court to resolve Issue No.2 in the negative and to hold that the Claimants have not proved entitlement to the reliefs sought in this case. The 3rd and 4th Defendants’ Final Written Address was on all fours with the 1st 2nd and 5th Defendants Final written address. They also raised two issues for determination: a. Which remuneration package is applicable to the Claimants in this suit? Is it the 2007 regulation of the Revenue Mobilization Allocation and Fiscal Commission OR the reviewed remuneration package for political and judicial office holders? (State and local government legislature) volume IV June 2009. b. Whether the claimants have proved their entitlement to the reliefs sought in this suit. On Issue No 1, the 3rd and 4th Defendant agreed that having served as legislators in the Imo State House of Assembly from June 2011 till May 2015, the Claimants are claiming that their outstanding entitlements are to be paid in accordance with the 2007 remuneration package prepared by the Revenue Mobilization Allocation and Fiscal Commission (RMAFC) (“the 2007 packageâ€) EXHIBIT C9 while the defendants are contending that the applicable remuneration package is the Reviewed Remuneration Package for political, public and judicial office holders Vol. IV June 2009. (“The 2009 Packageâ€) EXHIBIT C10. They also agreed that the office of the RMAFC is Constitutionally provided per Section 124(1), 153 (1)(n) & 2 and Part 1 & 3rd schedule to the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and Revenue Mobilization Allocation and Fiscal Commission Act CAP R7 Vol. 14 LFN 2004. They also admitted that EXHIBIT C10 had come into force in July 2009 before the Claimants became the members of the Imo State House of Assembly in June 2011 and that while they were in the House of Assembly, the Claimants received all their entitlements based on the 2009 package EXHIBIT C10 which they did not contest. They therefore urged the court to resolve Issue 1 in favour of the Defendants. On Issue 2, the 3rd and 4th Defendants focused on the reliefs sought by the Claimants. They argued that the Claimants have no basis or right to claim any emolument or entitlement for the month of June, 2015 because their four year tenure at the Imo State House of Assembly commenced in June 2011 and elapsed in May 2015 and they urged the court to discountenance any claim made by the Claimants in respect of the month of June 2015. With respect to claims for severance allowances by the Claimants, 3rd and 4th Defendants’ counsel argued that EXHIBIT C10 (the 2009 package) which is the extant remuneration package stipulates the percentage in which the severance package ought to be calculated which is at 200% of annual basic salary and not 300% as claimed by the Claimants and pointed out that Section 124 (1) of the 1999 Constitution as amended requires that the Claimants’ entitlements may be prescribed by the House of Assembly and not exceeding the amount determined by the RMAFC. Counsel argued that the implication of Section 124 (1) CFRN 1999 (as amended) is that the Claimants have no right to determine what they should be paid and that the House of Assembly may determine or prescribe payment that does not exceed the amount to be determined by the RMAFC. However, counsel referred to evidence adduced by the Defendants in the instant case that what Imo State House of Assembly has prescribed for payment to the claims is the various package contained in the Reviewed Remuneration Package for political and judicial office holders (state and local government legislature) vol. IV June 2009. Counsel cited the case of I.N.B vs. TINUBU (2001) 16 NWLR (Pt 740) 690 and submitted that constitutionally, there is no obligation or law that states that the claimant must be paid what exactly is stated in the RMAFC package only that it should not exceed it. With respect to claims for legislative allowance, security vote and committee allowance counsel submitted that according to pages 30 and 31 of EXHIBIT C10 none of these heads of claim is provided under the extant Remuneration package. They were therefore illegal or ex-gracia payments because they were not provided by the law. In respect of claims to payment of interests, counsel argued that it is trite law that interest could only be sustained when the transaction involved is a loan or commercial transaction or debt, and that there is no law or Act or regulation stating that salaries, emoluments and entitlements should attract interest when they are not paid within time or any Civil Service Rule or Public Servants Law stipulating that outstanding allowances or remuneration of public servants should attract interest. Counsel further argued citing the case of ADEYEMI vs. HAN and BAKES (NIG) LTD (2000) 7 NWLR (Pt. 663) 330, that the mere promise or gratuitous promise to pay the Claimants’ allowances and emoluments which are not governed by law does not attract any interest. According to counsel, no cogent reason had been disclosed by the Claimants to justify the exercise of the discretion of the Court to order post-judgment interest in this case. Counsel submitted that CW1’s testimony on oath attested to the economic meltdown in the country and that once the financial position of the state improves, the Defendant will discharge their financial obligations. Counsel urged the court to discountenance the Claimants' claim of both pre-judgment and post-judgment interest for lack of proof and that the Claimant never pleaded or deposed on oath or neither was there an agreement that interest must be paid or proved by evidence in trial. See the case of AP vs. Aborishade & Anor (2013) LPELR-20362 (CA). Counsel urged the court to resolve Issue No2 in the negative and hold that the Claimants have not established the reliefs sought in this case. Counsel in urging the court to dismiss the suit, submitted that the Claimants had not proved their case on the preponderance of evidence as required by law and therefore are not entitled to grant the reliefs claimed. The Claimants in their Final Written Address brought three issues for determination: a. Which remuneration package is applicable to the Claimants in this suit - the 2007 Remuneration package or the 2009 Reviewed Remuneration Package? b. Whether the Claimants have proved entitlement to the Reliefs claimed in the suit. c. Whether the 1st, 2nd and 5th Defendants did not set out a case different from that of the Claimants and afortiori did not controvert the Claimants case. On Issue 1, the Claimants feel that a resolution can be obtained by taking a look at the evidence adduced by the respective parties and submitted that the Claimants have been able to prove that the 2007 Remuneration package was the extant law applicable during the period they were in office and now. They submitted that the evidence of CW2 which claims that the 2009 package was never operational remained unchallenged during cross examination. They urged the court to take notice that the 2007 Regulation is the only Regulation that has the force of law pursuant to Section 112(2) (a) of the Evidence Act 2011 (as amended) citing the case of AG FEDERATION vs. AG. ABIA STATE (2002) FWLR (Pt 102) 1SC; BENDEL INS. COORP vs. OKAFOR (1993) 4 NWLR (Pt. 289) 617; FAROLY ESTABLISHMENT vs. NNPC (2011) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1241) 457; MUMU vs. AGOR (1993) 8 NWLR (Pt. 313) 573. They urged the court to uphold the principle of law that states that a court of law should take judicial notice of facts of common knowledge and submitted that the fact that the 2007 Regulation of the Commission is the extant document that has the force of law as regards the remuneration of all public officials including the judiciary is one of common knowledge which the court should know citing the case of YINUSA vs. RASAKI ISHOLA (1959) WRNLR 106: MUMU’S CASE SUPRA; DANIEL & ANOR vs. IROERI (1985) I NSCC 628; NIGERIAN BOTTLING COMPANY COY PLC vs. OBOH (2001) FWLR (Pt. 29) 2379; NIRCHANDANI vs. PINHEIRO (2001) FWLR (Pt. 48) 1307, UBA PLC vs. JARGABA (2007) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1045) 247; SODIPO vs. OGIDAN (2008) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1077) 342. On issue 2, the Claimants submitted that they have proved their entitlement to the reliefs claimed in the suit. They posited that they fielded two witnesses CW1 and CW2 who gave evidence to the effect of the entitlement, without a doubt, to the entitlements to the allowances and remuneration as provided and guaranteed under Section III of the 1999 Constitution stressing that this evidence was not controverted or discredited. They further argued that equally not controverted was the entitlements to such remunerations as provided by the 2007 Regulation claimed by the Claimant. Claimant counsel further argued that CW1 was able to prove i. The fact that Claimants are entitled to 300% of their annual basic salary which stood at N1,337,225 x 3 as their gratuity making a total of N4,011,675. ii. Claimants equally showed that they are entitled to three heads of monthly allowances namely; Legislature (N1,000,000), Security vote (N1,666,607.00) and Committee Allowance (N800,000.00). They argued that this piece of evidence was admitted by the 3rd and 4th Defendant who pleaded same in paragraphs 9 & 10 of their statement of defence as well as their witness deposition that the said allowances were agreed upon in the interest of the state to be receivable by the Claimants on monthly basis. Counsel submitted that facts admitted need not be proved and that Claimants in paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 pleaded to the fact that both parties as a form of sacrifice, waived part of their allowances and the other allowances were merged into the above three heads namely; legislature, security vote and committee allowance, and stressed that if this had not been sufficiently proved, what was the effect of the admission made by the Defendants particularly the 3rd and 4th Defendants. Counsel also submitted that they were stopped from leading evidence to the contrary as they sought to do or deny the existence of facts admitted citing BENDEL PILGRIMS WELFARE BOARD vs. IRAWO (1995) 1 NWLR (Pt. 369); MARINDEX TRUST LTD vs. NICMB LTD (2001) FWLR (Pt. 49) 1546; 4 SC (PT 11) 25 S.C. Counsel opined that the evidence of DW2 aided their case because he clearly stated in evidence under cross examination that he did not know anything about finance as his schedule of duty limited him to “General Administration and personnel matters†and that his job specifications relate only to the Government House and does not have anything to do with what happens at the House of Assembly talk more of financial matters therein. According to counsel, DW2 was thoroughly discredited during cross examination. He urged the court to so hold. Counsel went further that the address of counsel cannot take the place of evidence. He urged the court to discountenance the submissions of counsel to the 1st, 2nd and 5th Defendants purporting to give flesh to non-existent skeleton, arguing that no credible evidence was led challenging or controverting the case of the Claimants by DW2 having been discredited during cross examination. He argued that when a party fails to lead evidence to establish his pleadings, the pleadings go to no issue as they are deemed to have been abandoned. On Issue No 3, Counsel submitted that 1st, 2nd and 5th Defendants set out a different case from that contained the Claimants’ Statement of Fact and that no serious challenge was mounted against the Statement of Fact. As far as no counter claim exists, this practice is fatal and clearly shows that the case of the Claimants is established by credible evidence and thereby stands unchallenged. Counsel urged the court to resolve Issues 2 and 3 in favour of the Claimants. According to counsel for the Claimants, the argument that withheld allowances and emoluments of the Claimants cannot attract interest, is unfounded. Withholding such monies is a political ploy by the Defendants to punish the Claimants and such monies are a debt owed to the Claimants hence it attracts interest. Such interest is pleaded with evidence led accordingly. See AFRIBANK vs. AKWARA (2006) 139 LRCN 1258. Counsel submitted that it is at the court’s discretion to order payment of interest in view of the antecedents of the Government of Imo State with respect to treatment of its workers/public officers which the Court is urged to take judicial notice of as a notorious fact. He urged the Court to hold in favour of the Claimants. COURT’S DECISION I have carefully examined the claims of the claimants and I have also heard the submissions of the counsels to the parties in their final written address. In my view, the issue which this court is to determine in this case is whether the Claimants are entitled to the claims they seek in this action. To determine this issue, I will have to briefly review the facts and evidence presented before the court by the parties. CW1 is the 1st Claimant. He testified on behalf of the other Claimants. The case of the Claimants, as stated in their statement of facts and narrated in the evidence of CW1 is that the Claimants were elected members of the Imo State House of Assembly, the 3rd Defendant, between June 2011 and June 2015 where they represented their respective constituencies. Upon the end of their tenure, the Claimants were entitled to severance allowance/gratuity which is calculated at 300% of their annual basic salary. CW1 did a computation of the severance allowance as follows: N1,337,225 x 3 = N4,011,675. CW1 further said the Claimant do also receive legislative allowance of N1,000,000; security vote of N1,666,607; and committee allowance of N800,000 from the beginning of their tenure in June 2011 up to February 2015. These allowances were paid monthly, based on the agreement reached with the Defendants. They were made to forego some allowances to which they were entitled, such as utility, housing, medical, newspaper allowances which were fixed by the Revenue Mobilization Allocation and Fiscal Commission (Hereinafter referred to as RMAFC). As a result, they received less amounts as allowances. About 3 quarters of their due allowances under the 2007 regulation of the RMAFC were subsumed by the Claimants and Defendants into the 3 sub-heads of Security allowance, legislative allowance and committee allowance. This arrangement was accepted by the parties and the Claimants were being paid consistently up to February 2015. CW1 testified that each of the Claimants is entitled to the sum of N16,878,104 which sum is made up of the following items: i. Severance allowance/gratuity = N4,011,675. ii. Legislative allowance for the months of March to June 2015 at N1,000,000 per month = N4,000,000. iii. Security vote for the months of March to June 2015 at N1,666,607 per month = N6,666,428. iv. Committee allowances for the months of March to June 2015 at N800,000 per month = N3,200,000. The 1st Defendant had assured the Claimants in several meetings that their entitlements will be paid the moment the finances of the state improves but the Defendants refused to pay, notwithstanding that the state obtained bailout funds from the Federal Government in August 2015 for the purpose of offsetting salaries and allowances of public officers and workers in the state. When CW1 was cross examined by the counsels to the Defendants, he further told the court that the tenure of the Claimants was for 4 years which started in June 2011 and elapsed on 6th June 2015. He is aware and it is true that salaries and emoluments payable to members of House of Assembly are as fixed by RMAFC. The only remuneration package he knows is the 2007 package which was a legislation. He does not know of any other reviewed package in 2009. A year after they came into office, they heard of a 2009 package being proposed but it was not passed into law. CW1 also said legislative, security, committee allowances are provided in the 2007 package which package provides for severance allowance at 300%. The witness for the 1st, 2nd and 5th Defendants, Uchena A. Mgbenani, who is the Director of Administration and Finance, Government House, Owerri, admitted that the Claimants were members of the Imo State House of Assembly but stated that the Claimants did not work in the month of June 2015 as their tenure expired in the first week of June 2015. The witness testified further that the salaries and allowances payable to members of Houses of Assembly of states is as fixed and determined by the RMAFC which body is constitutionally given that responsibility. The remuneration package made by the RMAFC which was applicable to the Claimants was the 2009 Reviewed Remuneration package for political, public and judicial office holders. This remuneration package came into effect in July 2009 which was before the Claimants were elected as legislators in June 2011. The Claimants are not entitled to any allowance or emolument not provided under the 2009 remuneration package made by the RMAFC. As such, the Claimants are not entitled to legislative allowance, security allowance or committee allowance which they claim. Under the 2009 reviewed remuneration package, the Claimants are entitled to severance gratuity calculated at 200% of their annual basic salary of N1,337,225. The salaries and allowances due to the Claimants are not subject to interest as they are not loans or debts. The Claimants are not entitled to their claims in this suit but they shall be paid whatever they are entitled to under the 2009 reviewed remuneration package as soon as funds are available to the Government for that purpose. Under cross examination, DW1 said he is a Director in Government House and he does not have anything to do with House of Assembly. The witness who testified on behalf of 3rd and 4th Defendants is one Onwuneme Chamberlaine Uchenna. He said he is a Litigation Officer in the Imo State House of Assembly. He said the Claimants were members of the Imo State House of Assembly and they have been receiving their allowances such as legislative allowance, security vote, and committee allowance up to February 2015. The 2nd and 3rd Defendants are even ready to pay the outstanding allowances to the Claimants as soon as the 1st Defendant releases the money to them. The Claimants’ entitlements are those provided in the reviewed remuneration package for political, public and judicial office holders of June 2009 by the RMAFC. The Claimants received legislative allowance, security vote, committee allowance and utility, housing, medical, newspapers and other allowances as fixed by the RMAFC in the reviewed remuneration package 2009. The allowances being claimed by the Claimants were not contemplated in the 2009 reviewed remuneration package. The Claimants are not entitled to allowances under the 2007 remuneration package by RMAFC. The Claimants and the 1st Defendant reached an agreement and merged the whole allowances into legislative, security vote and committee allowances. Each of the Claimants is not entitled to the sum of N16,878,104 or their claim in this suit but they are only entitled to their monthly allowances from March to May and the severance allowance. Under cross examination, DW2 said his schedule does not include finance. The remuneration package used in the House of Assembly is the 2009 reviewed package and that the RMAFC prepares the scheme for payment of salaries and allowances to members of House of Assembly. Before I proceed to determine the issue I have identified for determination in this action, let me observe that during the evidence of CW1 and CW2, the Defendants’ counsels indicated objection to the admissibility of the documents marked Exhibits C8 and C9. Leave was granted to counsels to raise and argue the objection in their final written address. The Defendants’ counsels however did not raise or argue the objections in their final address. This court deems it that the Defendants’ counsels have abandoned their intended objection to the admissibility of the documents. The fact that the Claimants were in office as members of the Imo State House of Assembly in June 2011 for a 4-year tenure is not in dispute in this case. I did set out the reliefs sought by the Claimants in this suit earlier in this judgment. The reliefs can be grouped into two. They are the claim for outstanding allowances and claim for interest. Let me also streamline the positions of the parties in this action. The case of the Claimants is that they have outstanding severance gratuity, legislative allowance, security vote and committee allowance which the Defendants are yet to pay to them. They are entitled to these allowances by virtue of the 2007 package of the RMAFC, although some of their due allowances under the 2007 package were regrouped, by agreement between the Claimants and the Defendants, into Security allowance, legislative allowance and committee allowance and these were paid to them monthly. The Claimants tendered in evidence the schedule of payment of security vote, legislative allowance and committee allowance to them for the month of February 2015. These are Exhibit C8. The position of the 3rd and 4th Defendants is that the Claimants’ entitlements are as provided in the 2009 reviewed remuneration package by the RMAFC by which effect, the Claimants are not entitled to allowances under the 2007 remuneration package. The Claimants and the 1st Defendant made an agreement whereby their entire allowances were merged into legislative allowance, security vote and committee allowance. The Claimants were paid the legislative allowance, security vote, committee allowance and other allowances as fixed in the 2009 remuneration package and they received these allowances up to February 2015. The 3rd to 4th Defendants are even ready to pay the monthly allowances from March to May 2015 and the severance allowance to the Claimants. On their part, the 1st, 2nd and 5th Defendants contend that the RMAFC remuneration package which was applicable to the Claimants was the 2009 Reviewed Remuneration package. The Claimants are not entitled to legislative allowance, security allowance or committee allowances which are not provided in the 2009 remuneration package. The only claim of the Claimants which is provided in the 2009 package is the severance gratuity which is calculated at 200% of their annual basic salary of N1,337,225. From the foregoing, the parties agree that the allowances which the Claimants are entitled are as determined by RMAFC. The Defendants have also admitted that the Claimants are entitled to some allowances but contended that the Claimants’ entitlements is under the 2009 package of RMAFC and not under the 2007 package which the Claimants rely on. Counsels to the Defendants submitted in their respective written addresses that the 2009 Package came into force in July 2009, which was even before the Claimants became members of the House of Assembly. According to learned counsels, the extant remuneration package applicable to the Claimants is the 2009 package and not the 2007 package. In view of this contention by the Defendants and in order to properly determine the claims of the Claimants, it is necessary to resolve the issue which of the remuneration packages was applicable to the Claimants when they were members of the House of Assembly. CW2 is one Bruno Kizito Ajaelu. He is the Imo State coordinator of RMAFC. He came to court on behalf of the Chairman of RMAFC who was subpoenaed to produce the remuneration package which was in force between June 2011 and June 2015. When CW2 produced the document in court on 27/4/2016, he was made, in addition, to give evidence by order of this court. In response to questions put to him by the Claimants’ counsel, CW2 told the court that the remuneration package in use by the RMAFC between 2011 and 2015 was that of 2007. The document was admitted in evidence from CW2 as Exhibit C9. CW2 also said that the remuneration package is still what is in use by RMAFC till date. Under cross examination by defence counsel, CW1 stated that there is the 2009 reviewed package which he brought with him to court as required in the Subpoena. The 2009 remuneration package was tendered through CW2 and was admitted in evidence as Exhibit C10. CW2 further stated that the 2009 remuneration package, Exhibit C10, was never enforced. In response to questions put to the witness by this court to clarify the status of the 2007 and 2009 remuneration packages, CW2 explained that the 2009 review was a review of the 2007 package but since it did not receive the necessary assent, it remained an internal document of the RMAFC. CW2 is an officer from the body constitutionally empowered to determine and fix the salaries and allowances payable to political, public and judicial office holders in Nigeria. He was compelling in his evidence that the remuneration package which was in use since 2007 to date is the 2007 package, which is Exhibit C9. The Defendants who wants the court to believe it was the 2009 package which was used during the tenure of the Claimants between 2011 to 2015 did not adduce any evidence showing payment of any allowance under the package at any time to any political, public or judicial officer nor did they show any proof of the implementation of the 2009 package. The 3rd and 4th Defendants averred that security vote, legislative allowance and committee allowance were paid to the Claimants as allowances under the 2009 package. Exhibit C8 tendered by the Claimant actually shows payment of security vote, legislative allowance and committee allowance to the Claimants for the month of February 2015. I have examined the 2009 package but I find there is nowhere security vote, legislative allowance and committee allowance were included as the allowances payable to members of States Houses of Assembly. There is no evidence from the Defendants to convince me that the 2009 package was the one in effect at the time the Claimants were members of the Imo State House of Assembly. The evidence of CW2 has however cleared the air as to which of the packages ought to be used to determine the Claimants’ claim in this matter. Without further waste of time on this point, I hold that the 2007 package was the one applicable to the Claimants during their tenure as members of the Imo State House of Assembly. In the 2007 remuneration package, the annual basic salary of members of States Houses of Assembly was fixed at N1,337,225. See this on pages viii and 25 of Exhibit C9. For purpose of emphasis, I will list out all the allowances which members of the States House of Assembly are entitled to as determined and fixed by the RMAFC. They are as contained in pages 30 to 40 of Exhibit C9 viz: i. Accommodation- ii. Motor vehicle loan iii. Furniture allowance iv. Ward robe allowance v. vehicle maintenance allowance vi. Entertainment allowance vii. Recess allowance viii. Medical ix. Security x. constituency allowance xi. Special assistant xii. Personal assistant xiii. Domestic staff allowances xiv. Utility allowances xv. Severance gratuity xvi. House maintenance xvii. Newspaper allowance From the statement of facts of the Claimants and the evidence of CW1, the categories of allowances for which they claim payment in this suit are legislative allowance, security vote, committee allowance and severance gratuity. Of these allowances claimed by the Claimants, only severance gratuity is provided in the remuneration package as payable to the Claimants. Legislative allowance, security vote and committee allowance are not contained in the list of allowances which the Claimants were entitled when they were members of the House of Assembly. In Exhibit C9, security is to be provided to all categories of officers in kind by the relevant government security agencies. The effect is that the officers entitled to this item are not paid cash for security. Despite the fact that legislative allowance, security vote and committee allowance were not part of the allowances prescribed by RMAFC in the 2007 package for the Claimants, CW1 however told the court that they were paid these allowances and tendered Exhibit 8 as the evidence of payment of legislative allowance, security vote and committee allowance to the Claimants. CW1 explained that this came about as a result of an agreement between the Claimants and the Defendants where the Claimants’ allowances under the 2007 remuneration package were merged into security allowance, legislative allowance and committee allowance. DW2 confirmed the payment of legislative allowance, security vote and committee allowance to the Claimants but added that even though they were not provided in the remuneration package, there was an agreement between the Claimants and the 1st Defendant for the merger of the allowances of the Claimants into legislative, security vote and committee allowances. It is clear to me that the Claimants were being paid legislative, security vote and committee allowances even though these were not allowances prescribed for them by the RMAFC in the 2007 package. Section 111 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) provides that “a member of the House of Assembly shall receive such salary and other allowances as the Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission may determineâ€. See also Section 32 (d) of Part One of the 2nd Schedule of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) which provides that the power to determine the remuneration appropriate for political office holders, which include legislators, is that of the RMAFC. The import of these provisions of the Constitution is that salaries and allowances which are payable to members of the House of Assembly must be as determined and prescribed by the RMAFC. In my view, members of States House of Assembly cannot be paid any allowance not prescribed for them by the RMAFC. Therefore, any allowance which is not contained or prescribed in Exhibit C9 by the RMAFC cannot be paid to the Claimants. Such allowances as legislative, security vote and committee allowances which were being paid to the Claimants were unlawful allowances. The allowances are contrary to Section 111 of the 1999 Constitution. So also is the agreement had between the Claimants and Defendants for payment of legislative, security vote and committee allowances to the Claimants without them being prescribed by the RMAFC. The admission by the 3rd and 4th Defendants of the payment of these allowances to the Claimants and their readiness to pay the outstanding sum of these allowances to the Claimants has no weight whatsoever in this circumstance. An unlawful or unconstitutional act cannot be corrected by mere agreement of the parties or admission by any of the parties. I cannot therefore assist the Claimants to obtain allowances not lawfully prescribed for them by the body constitutionally empowered to determine their entitlements. I hold that the Claimants are not entitled to the sum they claim for legislative allowance, security vote and committee allowance in this suit. The Claimants are left with their claim for severance gratuity. They each claim the sum of N4,011,675 as severance gratuity. CW1 stated in his evidence that upon the end of their tenure, the Claimants were entitled to severance gratuity which is calculated at 300% of their annual basic salary. Their annual salary was N1,337,225, which when computed at 300%, gives each of them a severance gratuity of N4,011,675. I have mentioned earlier that severance gratuity is one of the allowances prescribed for the Claimants in the 2007 remuneration package. In the 2007 package, annual basic salary of members of House of Assembly is N1,337,225 and 300% of annual basic salary is paid as severance gratuity at the successful completion of tenure. Using this figures, the computation of 300% of N1,337,225 is the sum of N4,011,675. Thus, severance gratuity payable to each of the Claimants is N4,011,675. This is the sum I find each of the Claimants entitled to in this suit. The second leg of the claim is the claim for interest. I have heard the arguments of the parties for and against award of interest. I will not waste time here examining the positions of the parties on the claim. I am inclined to award only post judgment interest on the sum due to the Claimants. Consequently, the Defendants are ordered to pay the sum of N4,011,675.00 (Four Million, Eleven Thousand, Six Hundred and Seventy Five Naira) to each of the Claimants. The sums must be paid to the Claimants within 30 days from today after which the sum will attract 10% annual interest until such a time it is paid to the Claimants. I also award cost of N350,000.00 (Three Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira) in favour of the Claimants. Judgment is entered accordingly. Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe Judge