Download PDF
Representation: Uche Wisdom Durueke, with him, L. U. N. Nwakaeti, and Chinyere Iwunna for the Claimants. Also appearing watching brief, Mrs. C. O. Okoro (Rtd. Solicitor General and Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Justice, Imo State), A. N. Ukwuegbu (Rtd. Deputy Chief Registrar, Imo State Judiciary) A. N. Eluwa (Mrs.), Solicitor General and Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Justice, Imo State. With her, M. I. Marume (Mrs.), Principal State Counsel, G. C. Iheanacho, Principal State Counsel, Osita Chukwuemeka, Senior State Counsel, M. I. Osuji (Mrs.), Senior State Counsel, V. C. Adim, Senior State Counsel, V. S. Akpan (Mrs.), State Counsel and S. C. Udogwu (Mrs.) State Counsel, for the Defendants. JUDGMENT On 24th February 2017, the Claimants filed an Originating Summons by which they sought the determination of the following questions: 1. Whether having regard to the clear provisions of Section 210(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), the pensioners in the public service of Imo State including the 2nd to 4th Claimants, do not have the right to continue to receive their pension. 2. Whether having regard to the clear provisions of Section 210(2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), the Imo State Government has the legal authority or power, either by the 1st Defendant or any of the Defendants to withhold and/or alter the pension or accrued pension of pensioners in the public service of Imo State including the 2nd to 4th Claimants. 3. Whether having regard to a community reading of the clear provisions of Section 210(1), (2) and (4) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), the Imo State Government under the 1st Defendant acted within its legal powers or authority to prepare the Letter/Form addressed to the ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, GOVERNMENT OF IMO STATE and titled “LETTER OF SET OFF IN RESPECT OF MY OUTSTANDING PENSION ARREARSâ€, bearing the individual names of the pensioners in the public service of Imo State including the 2nd to 4th Claimants, which altered or reduced the accrued arrears of pension due to the pensioners by Sixty percent (60%) and to issue the said Letter/Form (which the Government put out for collection and signing as from 12th December 2016) to the pensioners in the public service of Imo State to sign as a condition for being paid their pension. Upon the determination of the above questions, the Claimants sought the following reliefs: 1. A DECLARATION that in view of Section 210(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), the pensioners in the public service of Imo State including the 2nd to 4th Claimants , have a constitutional right to pension. 2. A DECLARATION that the Imo State Government led by the 1st Defendant has no constitutional authority or power, to withhold the pension of pensioners in the public service of Imo State including the 2nd to 4th Claimants, and/or alter the accrued pension of pensioners in the public service of Imo State including the 2nd to 4th Claimants. 3. A DECLARATION that the Imo State Government under the 1st Defendant acted unconstitutionally when it cut or slashed the accrued sums due to the pensioners in the public service of Imo State by sixty percent (60%) vide a letter titled “LETTER OF SET OFF IN RESPECT OF MY OUTSTANDING PENSION ARREARSâ€, prepared by it and addressed to the ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, GOVERNMENT OF IMO STATE, which further stated that the pensioners in the public service of Imo State will forsake any other claims against the State Government. 4. AN ORDER setting aside or nullifying the said Letter/Form prepared by the Imo State Government under the 1st Defendant, addressed to the ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, GOVERNMENT OF IMO STATE and titled “LETTER OF SET OFF IN RESPECT OF OUTSTANDING PENSION ARREARSâ€, which is meant to be signed by every pensioner in the public service of Imo State under the 1st Defendant as the condition for being paid pension and all actions taken by the Defendants pursuant or under it. 5. AN ORDER OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION restraining the Defendants by themselves, their officers, representatives, successors or whatsoever name called from implementing, executing or enforcing the content of the said Letter/Form in any way or manner whatsoever. The Originating Summons was supported by an affidavit of 32 paragraphs deposed to by the 2nd Claimant. He stated that the 1st Claimant is a registered and recognized Trade Union in Nigeria for the promotion and protection of the interest of pensioners in the country, including himself and the other Claimants. The 1st Claimant has state councils with leaders across the country, including Imo State. The deponent explained that he is the Chairman of the Imo State branch of the 1st Claimant while the 3rd Claimant is the State Secretary. The 4th Claimant is an Adviser and representative of the body of retired Permanent Secretaries, which body is part of the 1st Claimant. It was further deposed by the deponent that he is a pensioner in the Public Service of Imo State after having worked in the Ministry of Works and retired in 1997. His appointment and retirement letters were exhibited as Exhibits A and B. The 3rd and 4th Claimants also worked and retired in the Public Service of Imo State and they are members of the 1st Claimant. The 3rd and 4th Claimants also have their appointment and retirement letters which were exhibited as Exhibits D, E, F and G respectively. As retirees from the public service of Imo State, the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Claimants are entitled to pension. The Claimants and other pensioners in the Public Service of Imo State have accrued pensions that the Imo State Government has failed and refused to pay to them. He knows that pension is the right of persons who worked and retired in the public service of the Federation or of a State and having read the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), he discovered that pensioners in the public service of states in the country have right of pension. He also knows that the Defendants are not permitted to withhold or alter the pension of pensioners in the Public Service of Imo State. The 2nd Claimant said on 15th January 2017, he was given a form-like letter prepared by the Government of Imo State bearing his name and addressed to the Accountant General of Imo State. The form was Headed “LETTER OF SET OFF IN RESPECT OF MY OUTSTANDING PENSION ARREARS’’ and had a space for his signature. Acceptance of the terms was a condition for payment of pension to him as a pensioner in the public service of Imo state. The form was exhibited as Exhibit H. He was informed by the 4th Claimant that he was also given the same form but the 3rd Claimant said he was not given when he went to collect it. The form given to the 4th Claimant is Exhibit I. The 2nd Claimant averred that he and many others given the forms refused to sign the form because it altered their accrued pension to their disadvantage by cutting sixty percent (60%) off the sum due to them as pension and also contains that they have waived their right to pursue any other claim against the Imo State Government. The affected pensioners met on 22nd February 2017 at the 1st Defendant’s office where they discussed the subject. Neither the 1st Defendant nor any of the Defendants sought or obtained the Claimants’ consent before making the form. The Imo State Government unilaterally altered to the disadvantage of pensioners in the public service of Imo State, 60% of their accrued pension. Such a reduction of their accrued pension is an infraction of their Constitutional right to pension. On 19th January 2017, members of the 1st Claimant passed a resolution calling on the 1st Defendant to rescind the unilateral decision contained in form but he did not. They consequently approached the Nigerian Bar Association, Owerri branch for legal assistance In the written address in support of the originating summons, learned counsel for the Claimants formulated the following three issues for determination: 1. Whether the pensioners in the public service of Imo State are not entitled to pension as of right pursuant to Section 210(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended). 2. Whether the Government of Imo State under the 1st Defendant as Chief Executive, and/or any of the Defendants has the legal power or authority to withhold the pension due to the pensioners in the public service of Imo State and/or to alter their pension or accrued pension outside the legal regime. 3. Whether the Claimants' action is not a proper case for the honourable Court to restrain the Defendants. Counsel argued the three issues together since the issues overlap each other. Counsel submitted that Section 210(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) guarantees the right of a person in the public service of a State to receive pension or gratuity as regulated by law, and it is an established principle of interpretation of statutes that where the provisions of a statute are clear and unambiguous; they must be construed as to give effect to their ordinary or literal meaning and enforced accordingly. Counsel cited the case of GEORGE MUOGHALU vs. DR CHRIS NGIGE & ORS (2005) 4 NWLR (Pt. 914) 1 at 26 -27 where the Court of Appeal held that the Court mandatorily abides by the literal rule of interpretation where a statute is clear and unambiguous, to discharge its primary duty of discovering the intention of the law-giver. The case of ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION vs. GUARDIAN NEWSPAPERS LTD (1999) 9 NWLR (Pt. 618) 187 was also referred to by Counsel on this point. It is the submission of counsel that Section 210(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) is clear and unambiguous and the literal rule of interpretation should be applied by this Court in its interpretation, if justice and fair hearing are to be achieved in this case; and that the pensioners in the public service of Imo State, including the 2nd to 4th Claimants, in this case have a right to pension. Counsel submitted further that the payment of pension to pensioners of the public service of Imo State is a right that cannot be derogated from except as provided by a competent law, and the pensioners are not paid pension on basis of grace, benevolence or convenience on the part the Governor of Imo State. Counsel contended that in the instant case, there is no known law backing the action of the Imo State Government under the 1st Defendant, and that any law that will regulate pension in Nigeria will be subject to the provisions of sub-section 2 of Section 210 of the 1999 Constitution. Counsel argued that the import of a provision in a statute said to be “subject to†another, means it is subservient to that other provision or statute. Counsel referred to the definition of the phrase “subject to†in the Black's Law Dictionary 6th Edition as meaning “liable, subordinate, subservient, inferior, obedient to, governed or affected by…†Counsel cited the case of OBIONWU & ORS vs. INEC (2014) 13 WRN 113 at 139 – 140 where it was held that the legal consequence of a provision being subject to another is that the one it is made subject to will override the said provision. Flowing from this decision, counsel contended that the legal implication or effect of Section 210 (1) of the Constitution and any other competent law made to regulate pension in the country is that they are subservient to Section 210 (2) of the 1999 Constitution, with the effect that the accrued pension or benefit of pensioners shall not be withheld or altered. It is counsel’s contention that no law can take away the right to pension unless these relevant provisions in the 1999 Constitution (as amended) are amended or expunged. Also, Counsel argued that the pension due to a pensioner, which includes his accrued pension, is covered by the phrase “any benefit†to which a pensioner is entitled to under Section 210(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), and the accrued sums due to the pensioners stated in the said Letter/Form prepared by the Imo State Government is part of the “benefit†which is constitutionally protected. It is counsel’s argument that the word "withheld" whether used as a past tense or past participle connotes to “keep back or refuse to give or refrain from giving something to the person that is due to†and that in the present case, the non-payment of the pension, which is a benefit to the pensioners when due amounts to withholding the said pension, a constitutional infraction that calls for judicial intervention. Similarly, counsel relied on Black's Law Dictionary 6th Edition that defined “alter†– the present tense of the word “altered†as follows: “to make a change in, to modify, to vary in some degree, to change of the elements or ingredients or details without substituting an entirely new thing or destroying the identity of the thing affectedâ€. He submitted that the imposed reduction by 60% of the accrued pension of the pensioners in the State public service by the Imo State Government amounts to an alteration of the pension of the said pensioners, which is a constitutional infraction. It is the contention of counsel that the accumulated pension arose because the Imo State Government failed and/or refused to discharge its financial obligation to the pensioners by paying them as and when due, and the pensioners are victims of the failure and/or refusal of the Imo State Government to live up to its responsibility, which is a case obligation in this case. In the instant case, counsel is of the view that the withholding of pension and reduction of the accrued pension of the members of the 1st Claimant’s union, including that of the 2nd - 4th Claimants for over 12 months by the Imo State Government is to the disadvantage of the pensioners. Counsel cited the case of UGWU vs. ARARUME (2007) WRN 1 at 65 where it was held that when the negative phrase “shall not†is used; it is a form of a command or mandate and implies that something must not be done, and submitted that the word “shall†used in Section 210 (2) of the 1999 connotes imperativeness as it is of a mandatory nature. He submitted that the legal effect of the said actions of the Imo State Government amounts to nullities in law. He urged the court to so hold. See also ONYEMAIZU vs. ORJIAKO (2010) 23 WRN 1 at 16 and ARTHUR NWANKWO vs. UMARU YAR'ADUA (2010) 45 WRN 1 at 21 – 23. Similarly, counsel argued that the Letter/Form prepared by the Government of Imo State and meant to be signed by the Pensioners in the public service of Imo State accepting sixty percent (60%) cut of their accrued pension and forsaking any other claim against the State Government is an imposition by the Imo State Government and is neither backed by any known law nor is it a product of collective bargain, not binding on the pensioners in the public service of Imo State, and cannot be enforced or executed against any of them, including the 2nd - 4th Claimants. According to counsel, the said Letter/Form is a product of abuse of power. Counsel relied on the decision in MACFOY vs. UAC (1962) AC 152 at 160 to submit that one cannot put something on nothing and expect it to stand. Again, counsel submitted that the Government of Imo State with the 1st Defendant as the Chief Executive cannot in law or equity benefit from its unconstitutional act of withholding the pension of the members of the 1st Claimant’s union, including that of the 2nd - 4th Claimants who need special and adequate care and protection. Counsel referred the Court to Section 210(4) of the 1999 Constitution that protects pension from being taxed, the essence of which is to avert any reduction to the pension of pensioners, and to uphold the acts of the Defendants will amount to an approval of constitutional infractions. Counsel urged the court to uphold the provisions of the Section 210 (1) - (4) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), regardless of the purported reason stated in the said Letter/Form by the Government of Imo State, and grant the reliefs being sought by the Claimants. In light of the foregoing, counsel urged the Court to answer the questions in the Originating Summons as follows: 1. That the pensioners in the public service of Imo State have the right to enjoy pension pursuant to Section 210(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended). That the Imo State Government has no legal power or authority to derogate from the above constitutional provision except if it is constitutionally amended or repealed. 2. That the Imo State Government has no legal power or authority to withhold the pension of the pensioners in the public service of Imo State and/or to alter the pension due to them. That withholding of pension and/or altering of pension due to pensioners in the public of service of Imo State amounts to infraction of Section 210 (2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended). 3. That the said Letter/Form prepared by the Imo State Government and released for the pensioners in the public service of Imo State to sign and forfeit sixty percent of the accrued pension due to each of them including the 2nd - 4th Claimants and any other claims against the Imo State Government is a nullity for being an imposition and contrary to the combined spirit and intendment of Section 210 (1), (2) and (4) of the 1999 Constitution. Counsel submitted that the Claimants have made out a case and are therefore entitled to the reliefs being sought. We further submit that the reliefs being sought are matters within the exclusive jurisdiction of this Court to grant in view of Section 254C (1) (k) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended). In conclusion, counsel stated that the Defendants as creations of the said Constitution are to act within the confines of the Constitution. They lack the powers to withhold or alter the pension of the pensioners in the public service of Imo State, and this is an appropriate case for a restraining or injunctive order against the Defendants because the case of the Claimants has merit and the reliefs sought are within the jurisdiction of this Court and ought to be granted. Counsel urged the Court to grant all the prayers of the Claimants. In defence of the claims of the Claimants in their Originating Summons, the Defendants filed a counter affidavit of 33 paragraphs. The counter affidavit was deposed by one Bruno Nwachukwu, a Litigation Officer in the Chambers of the 2nd Defendant. Upon going through the counter affidavit, I found that the depositions in paragraphs 25, 26, 27, 28, 31 and 32 thereof are not statements of facts but arguments, prayers and conclusions. These paragraphs offend Section 115 of the Evidence Act 2011. As a consequence, I hereby strike out the offending paragraphs. The facts averred in the remaining paragraphs of the counter affidavit are mostly repetitions. Cumulatively, the depositions are to the effect that there is no pensioner in the Imo State Public Service but what they have in Imo State is pensioners from the State Civil Service. It was also stated that the employment and retirement of the Claimants are not within the knowledge of the Defendants, thus, Exhibits A to G are not the appointment and retirement letters of the 2nd to 4th Claimants. The deponent averred also that the 1st Claimant is not a registered or recognised Trade Union in Nigeria. The counter affidavit also contain that the 2nd to 4th Claimants and other pensioners from the Public Service of Imo State have no accrued pension which the Government has failed or refused to pay. The pension of the pensioners in Imo State was never reduced by any percent by the Defendants. The 1st Defendant or the Imo State Government did not prepare the said form, Exhibit H, neither did anybody in the Government of Imo State give out such forms to pensioners as a condition to collect pension. The deponent also stated that no form was given to the Claimants to sign as no such form existed. There is no policy of the 1st Defendant and the Government of Imo State which was implemented to alter pensions in Imo State. In the written address in support of the counter affidavit, the learned Solicitor-General submitted raised 4 issues for determination, as follows: 1. Whether a reasonable cause of action has arisen in this case. 2. Whether the Claimants have a locus standi to maintain this action. 3. Whether this suit is appropriate for Originating Summons. 4. Assuming without conceding that this action is properly brought before this Court, whether the Claimants have presented enough materials in proof of this case to entitle them to judgment. Issues 1 and 4 were argued together. Counsel stated that a reasonable cause of action was given judicial interpretation in the case of AKILU vs. FAWEHINMI (NO. 2) (1999) 2 NWLR (Pt. 102) 122 to be every fact necessary for the Plaintiff to be traversed in order to support his right to judgment of the court. It is the argument of counsel that for an action to survive to hearing, the Statement of Claim in an action brought by Writ of Summons; or an affidavit in a matter commenced by Originating Summons, must not be frivolous or speculative for it to be reasonable, and be diligently proven without suppression of facts. Counsel submitted that the Claimants’ claim in paragraph 14 is vague, unsubstantiated, cannot amount to a cause of action; and Paragraph 17 of the said supporting affidavit that flows from paragraph 14 does not help the Claimants. Also, counsel contended that paragraphs 18, 19 and 20 of the supporting affidavit did not indicate the person or office who issued the alleged forms complained of by the Claimants. It is the submission that nothing in Exhibits “H†and Exhibit “I†attached to the originating application, show that they emanated from any of the Defendants or their agents, because they do not bear the name, stamp, seal or even letter head of any of the Defendants. Counsel urged the court to hold that the forms cannot be said to emanate from any of the Defendants and cannot be used in affidavit evidence in a court of record. Again, counsel submitted that the omitted information in paragraphs 14, 17, 18, 19 and 20 are not provided and are purposely concealed because the Claimants know that if the facts were included in the Claimants' case they would be against them. It is counsel’s contention that in paragraph 21 of the supporting affidavit, the 2nd Claimant deposed to the fact that he refused to sign his own form because it altered his accrued pension by cutting 60% of the sum due to him and that the said form stated that he has waived his right to pursue any other claim he has against the Imo State Government. Counsel argued that the said Deponent did not state how he became aware of the contents of the form that was not collected, which he did not collect, and the duration for which the claimed accrued pension was and the exact amount the form cut his pensions to; for him to convince the Court that the alleged form slashed his pension by 60% or any rate at all. Similarly, counsel contended the claimants did not disclose in paragraph 22 of the supporting affidavit, how the 3rd and 4th Claimants saw the form or how many months they were owed pension, how much each amounted to, how it was slashed, how they knew it was the Government of Imo State that made the said form, which office, agents or officials of Government that were issuing the said form and who asked them to sign the form. Counsel relied on Section 168 of the Evidence Act 2011 (as amended), and the case of OKUBULE vs. OYAGBOLA (1990) 4 NWLR (Pt. 147) 723, and submitted that the burden of proving a particular fact is on the party who asserts it with the onus of adducing further evidence on the person who will fail if such evidence was not adduced. It is counsel’s argument that where such party has no fact to prove the assertion, the proper order the Court should make is to dismiss his claim. Furthermore, counsel submitted that in the extant case, the Claimants have not lifted the burden placed on them to substantiate their facts, instead they suppressed facts they are aware of that could have helped in resolution of this case. Counsel urged the Court to hold on the authority of Section 168 of the Evidence Act that the facts withheld by the Claimants would have been against them if provided. Counsel contended that the Claimants’ depositions in paragraphs 23, 24 and 25 of the supporting affidavit are speculative and show that the Claimants’ cause of action is premature, speculative and unreasonable, and other paragraphs of the supporting affidavit do not specifically disclose any triable issue for the Claimants. It is counsel’s submission that a court can only act on what is placed before it and that the Claimants have placed nothing in their case entitling them to their reliefs. Counsel further argued that the forms that are the grouse of the Claimants’ questions in this case have been denounced by the Defendants to be documents prepared by the Claimants for the purpose of securing a cause of action. Similarly, counsel argued that all facts deposed to by the Claimants hinged on the said forms cannot support any case against the Defendants, and urged the court to hold that the said forms did not bring any cause of action against the Defendants. Also, counsel submitted that while it was deposed in paragraph 19 of the Claimants’ Supporting affidavit that it was the officials of the Imo State Government that were issuing the form/letter, no facts were provided as to which officials of the Imo State Government were issuing the forms, or the office where he went to collect the forms; and how he knew that those issuing the forms are officials of Government of Imo State. Relying on the case of GEOSITE SURVEYS (NIG) LTD vs. NWAGBARA (2007) All FWLR (Pt. 386) 742 at 762, where it was held that the court does not make its orders in vain and that the command of the court must not be an impossibility, counsel urged the court to hold that nothing is placed before it to substantiate the claims of the Claimants, refuse to answer the questions raised, and not to grant the reliefs sought. From the foregoing, counsel stated that there is no dispute disclosed between the parties in this case, and urged the Court to hold that it lacks the jurisdiction to entertain this case because the suit is academic, speculative and hypothetical, in line with the case of PLATEAU STATE vs. A.G. FEDERATION (2006) 3 NWLR (Pt. 967) 346 at 430, where it was held that such robs the Court of its jurisdiction. Regarding issue two, counsel submitted that according to the decision in PFIZER SPECIALITIES LTD vs. CHYZOB PHARMACY LTD (2008) All FWLR (Pt. 414) 1455 at 1475-6, locus standi was defined to mean the legal capacity to institute a suit in a court of Law and a person must show sufficient interest to enable him sue in his pleadings, in order to acquire that capacity. See also NYAME vs. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA (2010) FWLR (Pt. 527) 618 at 663. It is the submission of counsel that in determining the locus standi of the Claimant, it is the affidavit evidence in matters brought by Originating Summons that the Court will examine to determine the Claimants locus standi. In support of his submission, counsel referred to the following cases: 1. UBA PLC vs. BTL IND LTD (2006) 19 NWLR (Pt. 1013) 61 at 127 2. A.G. ANAMBRA STATE vs. A.G. FEDERATION (2007) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1047) 4 at 93 PARA G - H. 3. THOMAS vs. OLUFOSOYE (1986) All NLR 261 Counsel adopted his submissions on Issues 1 and 4 and submitted further that the Claimants did not substantiate any of their facts but withheld material facts which made their case to remain unproven. Again, counsel argued that from Sections 132, 133 and 136 of the Evidence Act 2011, the Claimants having not proved their standing to sue, the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the action and same will be fatal to the Claimants. See RTEAN vs. NURTW (1992) 2 NWLR (Pt. 224) 381 at 391. Counsel contended that from the facts deposed to by the Claimants, nothing shows that any cause of action has arisen, and the Claimants have suffered no wrong that warrants the Court's intervention. Also, counsel submitted that each of the pensioners are distinct and what one suffered is different from what the other suffered, and the Claimants cannot jointly bring their action because they lack the locus standi to bring same on behalf of the pensioners. Counsel urged the Court to hold that this Suit is fundamentally defective by reason of lack of locus standi and dismiss same accordingly in the spirit of FIRST BANK NIG LTD vs. KHALADU (1993) 9 NWLR (Pt 315) 44. With respect to issue three, counsel submitted that the question posed in the present case is academic and speculative and ought to be dismissed. See BADEJO vs. FEDERAL MINISTER OF EDUCATION (1996) 8 NWLR (Pt. 464) 15. Counsel submitted further that the questions in this suit cannot be resolved by affidavit evidence especially when nothing shows that any of the Claimants collected the alleged letter/form. It is the argument of counsel that the issues to be determined are highly contentious, and there is need to call oral evidence to resolve them. Counsel urged the court to hold that this suit cannot be resolved by affidavit evidence, resolve this issue in favour of the Defendants and dismiss this case for being grossly incompetent. The Claimants filed a further affidavit of 22 paragraphs on 12th May 2017. It was deposed by the 2nd Claimant. He maintained that the 1st Claimant is a registered Trade Union pursuant to the Trade Unions Act and he is the Chairman of the Imo State chapter of the 1st Claimant. He also maintained that the Claimants retired from the public service of Imo State and they are pensioners who were issued pension Identity Card by the Imo State Government. The Form, Exhibit H, was made and circulated by the Imo State Government through its officers and agents who include Mr. Njoku, a payroll officer and Mrs. Chinyere Uwandu who is the Chairman, local Government Pensions Board. He also averred that some pensioners who signed the form out of financial pressure include Mr. Ayadioha Aloysius, Oshionya Iheshualu, and Ndupu Felix Chukwudifu. These persons were issued cheques after submitting the forms. Copies of the forms signed by these persons and the cheques issued to them were submitted to the 1st Defendant. These copies are exhibited as Exhibits FF1-2, GG1-2 and HH1-2. In January 2017, he read the Imo State Official Press Release published in the Weekend Nigeria Horn of 6-8 January 2017 and the White Paper of 9-10 January 2017 where the Imo State Government was quoted as saying: “It is important to state that pensioners were at liberty to sign or not to sign the forms to that effectâ€. The Imo State Government was further reported in The White Paper to have stated in the press release as follows: “the Government did not hide its position on the issue which had a very wide publicity. The Government took extra step to issue forms that pensioners who had agreed to the terms of payment should sign.†Copies of the publications were annexed to the further affidavit as Exhibits II and JJ. In the reply on points of law by the learned counsel for the claimants, counsel referred to Paragraphs 8, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17 and 18 of the further and better affidavit and Exhibits BB, CC, DD, FF1-2, GG1-2, HH1-2, II and JJ and submitted that the Exhibits II and JJ being the press release by the Imo State Government puts to rest the issue of the author and/or existence of the Form headed “Letter of set off in respect of my outstanding Pension arrears†. According to counsel, it is an admission against interest. He cited the case of ALHAJI ATIKU ABUBAKAR & ORS vs. ALHAJI UMARU YAR’ADUA & ORS (2009) 5 WRN 1 at 161 where Tobi JSC (as he then was) held as follows: “The interest of the Appellant as averred in the petition is that they were excluded. Therefore evidence to the contrary, as indicated above, is evidence against interest. The Courts of law do not play with evidence against interest. They grab such evidence and use it against the party. The Court of Appeal was not wrong therefore in using the evidence against the Appellants. I too use the evidence against them.†According to counsel, Exhibits FF1-2, GG1-2 and HH1-2 demonstrate clearly that pensioners are paid only when they sign and submit the said letter/form accepting the sixty percent slash. The cheques show that they are Imo State Government Pension payment. Counsel urged the court to discountenance the counter affidavit of Bruno Nwachukwu as there is nothing on record to show that he is of the State Ministry of Justice and is the litigation officer. Also, the deponent did not state the source of his information or the basis for his denials in Paragraph 32 of the counter affidavit which also included legal arguments, prayers, conclusions and objections, thereby contravening the provisions of Section 115 of the Evidence Act 2011. In response to the Defendants’ contention that the Claimants’ suit has not disclosed any cause of action, Counsel for the Claimants submitted that cause of action is not denied merely by reference to a few paragraphs of the pleadings. Rather, the court is to consider the totality of the case presented by the Claimants. Counsel stated that the Claimants have disclosed a cause of action. The crux of the Claimant’s case is the letter/form prepared by and being circulated by the Imo State Government that slashed the pension of pensioners which violates their constitutional right to pension. Counsel went on that the averment by the Defendants in Paragraph 14 of their counter affidavit was an admission of paragraph 15 of the Claimants’ affidavit in support of the Originating summons to the effect that pension is a right of persons who worked and retired in the Public service of the Federation or a State, which Imo state is one. This according to counsel, is an admission against interest which the court is bound to act upon. It is counsel’s further submission that this action can be maintained by the 1st Claimant who is a trade union as shown in its certificate of registration which is exhibited. Counsel made reference to Paragraph 4 of the Defendants’ Counter Affidavit and submitted that the Defendants are not conversant with the constitutional provisions with regard to pension rights. Counsel referred to Sections 210(1) and 318(1) of the constitution which guarantees the right to pension and submitted that every person who has worked and retired in the service of Imo State in any capacity in Imo State is entitled to pension as of right. This fact according to counsel, was deposed to in Paragraph 15 of the Claimants’ Affidavit in support of the Originating Summons and clearly admitted by the Defendants in their averment in Paragraph 14 of their Counter Affidavit. They are therefore estopped from taking any other contrary position. The Defendants are not permitted in law to approbate and reprobate. See SOWEMIMO vs. AWOBAJO (1999) 7 NWLR (Pt. 610) 335 at 354 Paras B-E. As regards whether or not the Claimants have disclosed a cause of action, Counsel urged the court to consider only the Statement of Claim, in this case, the Affidavit in support of the Originating Summons. See OSHOBOJA vs. AMUDA & ORS (1992) 7 SCNJ (Pt. 11) 317 at 326 Paras 5-10. According to counsel, it can be rightly said that the facts if proved, can entitle the Claimants to remedy against the Defendants. The Claimants have therefore disclosed a reasonable cause of action against the Defendants. On the issue of locus standi, counsel relied on the Court of Appeal decision in PFIZER SPECIALITIES LIMITED vs. CHYZOB PHARMACY LIMITED (2008) All FWLR (Pt. 414) 1455 where it was held that where the pleadings of a person discloses a legal interest which is being threatened by the act of another, locus standi is established. According to counsel, the Claimants’ right to their pension is being threatened, and that is sufficient for them to have locus standi. See also THOMAS vs. OLUFOSOYE (1986) All NWLR (PT. 216). Counsel submitted that the Defendants’ challenge of the Claimants’ standing is frivolous and untenable. He urged the court to discountenance same. On the need to call oral evidence, it is counsel’s submission that oral evidence will only be called if there are irreconcilable conflicts of crucial facts, and that is not the case here. Counsel urged the court to hold that a mere sweeping claim is not enough for the Court to call for oral evidence. COURT’S DECISION The Defendants’ counsel has raised some issues of jurisdiction and competence of the suit in counsel’s written address in opposition to the Originating Summons. It is necessary that these issues be examined and resolved before any consideration can be given to the Claimants’ case. In his written address, the Defendants’ counsel raised the issue whether this suit is appropriate for Originating Summons proceedings. Counsel argued that the questions to be answered in this suit cannot be resolved by affidavit evidence so also that the facts are highly contentious and require calling oral evidence to resolve them. Order 3 Rule 3 of the NICN Rules 2017, provides that proceedings which can be commenced by way of Originating Summons are those principally on interpretation of the constitution, enactments, agreements, or any other instrument relating to matters on which this court has jurisdiction. A look at the questions set by the Claimants for determination, the reliefs sought by them and the facts of the case, disclose that this case is mainly to construe the provisions of Section 210 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, and determine whether under the section, pension of retired civil servants can be reduced or altered to their disadvantage. In my view, it is a matter that can be heard by way of Originating Summons. I have also examined the affidavit evidence of the parties. Save for the Defendants’ denial of some facts contained in the Claimants affidavit, I do not see any substantial dispute of facts as to enable this court to convert the proceedings to one under a Complaint or call oral evidence under Order 3, Rule 17 (1), (2) of the Rules. I hold that the initiation of this action by way of Originating Summons is proper. Therefore, this matter shall be heard and determined as Originating Summons proceedings. The Defendants counsel also contended that the Claimants do not have a locus standi to institute the suit. According to counsel, each of the pensioners are distinct and what one suffered is different from what the other suffered, and the Claimants cannot jointly bring their action because they lack the locus standi to bring same on behalf of other pensioners. In his reply on points of law, the learned counsel for the Claimants submitted that the Claimants have shown they have interest in the subject matter of the action and they were personally affected by the acts of the Defendants and thus have the locus standi to institute the suit. The terms locus standi means the right of a party to appear and be heard on the question before the court. The term is usually used in connection with the Claimant who has instituted an action and the question usually is whether in law, he can commence or prosecute the suit he has commenced. See EAST HORIZON GAS CO. LTD vs. EFIOK (2012) All FWLR (Pt. 605) 386 at 395; ADETONA vs. ZENITH INTERNATIONAL BANK PLC (2012) All FWLR (Pt. 611) 1443 at 1465. Locus standi is founded on two main factors. They are the subject matter of the suit and sufficient interest to be shown by the Claimant in the subject matter. There must be the connection between the subject matter of the suit and the Claimant’s interest in the subject matter touching him as a party and giving him the right to sue before the Claimant can be said to have locus standi. Once a party’s standing to sue is challenged, such a party must show that he has sufficient interest in the subject matter of the suit or that his interest therein is likely to be adversely affected. Where such a party cannot show sufficient interest in the subject matter of the suit or in the outcome of the suit or if he has not suffered or does not stand to suffer any injury either by the enforcement, or threatened exercise of some power, authority or right, he is said not to have locus standi in the suit. See METILELU vs. OLOWO-OPEJO (2006) All FWLR (Pt. 337) 418 at 429. Whether or not the Claimants have the locus to institute and maintain this action against the Defendants would depend on the interest in the subject matter or injury they have been able to disclose in the affidavit in support of the summons. The 2nd Claimant, who deposed to the affidavit in support of the Originating Summons, explained in paragraphs 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 12 that the 2nd to 4th Claimants are retirees from the Public Service of Imo State and they are entitled to pension. They are also members and officials of the 1st Claimant who is a registered Trade Union for the protection of the interest of pensioners. Going forward to paragraphs 16 to 25 of the affidavit, the 2nd Claimant stated that the Imo State Government purposed to reduce the pension to which pensioners in Imo State, including the 2nd to 4th Claimants, are entitled through a form issued to them to sign before pension is paid to them. The case which the Claimants have brought before this court is for the court to determine whether the Imo State Government has the vires to so do. From the affidavit of the Claimants, they have shown that the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Claimants have interest in or are entitled to receive pension and they are affected pensioners who were issued the forms. I have no doubt that the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Claimants have interest in the subject matter of the suit. They accordingly have the right to sue for themselves. The Claimants also brought the suit in a representative capacity on behalf of members of the 1st Claimant. The 2nd Claimant, in the affidavit in support of the Originating Summons, described the 1st Claimant as the Trade Union for the protection of interest of pensioners. It is also deposed that all the other Claimants, being pensioners, are members of the 1st Claimant. These facts by the 2nd Claimant takes me to the deposition by the Defendants in their Counter Affidavit, particularly paragraph 7 thereof, where it is contended that the 1st Claimant is not a registered Trade Union nor does it protect the interest of pensioners. The Defendants went further, in the Counter Affidavit, to allege that the Claimants’ Exhibit C is not the certificate of registration of the 1st Claimant. Let me start from the said Exhibit C which the 2nd Claimant referred to in paragraph 4 of his affidavit in support of the Originating Summons and annexed thereto as the registration certificate of the 1st Claimant. The Claimants’ Exhibit C is a certificate of registration of trade union. It contains that the Nigerian Union of Pensioners was registered under the provisions of the Trade Unions Decree as a Trade Union on 15th August 1978. It is clear from Exhibit C that the 1st Claimant was registered under the Trade Unions Act (TUA) and issued a certificate of registration. In addition, it must be mentioned that the registration and operations of trade unions is regulated by the Trade Unions Act. The Nigerian Union of Pensioners, which is the 1st Claimant, is specifically mentioned in item 24 of Part A of the Third Schedule, Trade Unions Act 2004 as one of the Trade Unions affiliated to the Central Labour Organization. I find that the 1st Claimant is a registered Trade Union which is also recognized in the Trade Unions Act. The issue now is whether the 1st Claimant has locus standi to be a Claimant in this action. In item 24, Part B of the third schedule, Trade Unions Act, the 1st Claimant is meant to protect the interest of its members which comprise all pensioners from the civil service, statutory corporations, government-owned companies, and private sector pensioners. The 2nd Claimant has deposed in the supporting affidavit that the pension of members of the 1st Claimant were to be reduced or altered by the Imo State Government through the forms issued to pensioners to sign as condition for payment of pension. The 2nd to 4th Defendants, who are members of the 1st Claimant and were affected by the said reduction in pension, are co-Claimants with the 1st Claimant in a representative capacity for other similarly affected pensioners. I think the 1st Claimant, in such circumstance, has the standing to be a party in this suit on behalf of its members. I find in the result that the Claimants have locus standi to bring and maintain this action. Similar to the above contention is the Defendants’ contention that the Claimants do not have a reasonable cause of action in this case. Counsel contended that the Claimants’ depositions in paragraphs 23, 24 and 25 of the supporting affidavit are speculative and show that the Claimants’ cause of action is premature, speculative and unreasonable, while the other paragraphs of the supporting affidavit do not specifically disclose any triable issue for the Claimants. I will not waste time on this point. Having gone through the affidavit evidence of the Claimants, particularly the paragraphs referred to by the Defendants’ counsel, I do not see any merit in this instant contention of the Defendants. The Defendants’ counsel is also overruled on this point. Besides the issues of law raised by the Defendants’ counsel in the written address, some other issues of facts have been raised in the counter affidavit of the Defendants. One of such issues is the one in paragraphs 5 and 9 of the counter affidavit. Here, the deponent of the counter affidavit, on behalf of the Defendant alleged that the appointments and retirements of the 2nd to 4th Claimants are not to the knowledge of the Defendant. The Defendants didn’t stop there. They also contended that the Claimants’ Exhibits A to G are not the appointment and retirement letters of the 2nd to 4th Claimants. Although the Defendants did not clearly say so, it appears to me that what the Defendants are saying is that the 2nd to 4th Claimants did not work with the Imo State Civil Service or retired therefrom. That position will not be tenable in view of the evidence of their appointment and retirement put forward by the Claimants. The Claimants, in paragraphs 2 and 7 of the affidavit in support of the Originating Summons, deposed to the fact that the 2nd to 4th Defendants worked and retired from the public service of Imo State. They also exhibited their appointment and retirement letters to the affidavit. These are Exhibits A, B, D, E, F and G. I have examined these documents. They are the employment and retirement letters of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Claimants. The documents reveal that these Claimants were appointed and retired from the service of Imo State. Going by the depositions in the affidavit in support of the Originating Summons and the documents exhibited by the Claimants, it is not in doubt that the 2nd to 4th Claimants worked with and retired from the Imo State Civil Service. I have earlier in this judgment, struck out paragraphs 25, 26, 27, 28, 31 and 32 of the Defendants’ Counter Affidavit for being arguments, prayers and conclusions, thereby offending Section 115 of the Evidence Act 2011. In paragraphs 10, 13, 21 and 24 of the counter affidavit, the deponent repeatedly averred that the Claimants and other pensioners from the public service of Imo State do not have accrued pension which the Government of Imo State refused or failed to pay. The deponent merely stressed the allegation without any substance to support it. It is therefore not clear whether what the Defendants mean by the averments is that the Claimants and other pensioners are not entitled to pension. The allegation also appears to mean that the Claimants and other pensioners are not owed pension by the Imo State Government. I have observed earlier that the Claimants have shown that they worked and retired from the Imo State Civil service. By the provisions of the extant pension legislations and the Civil Service Rules applicable in Imo State, the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Claimants as well as civil servants who retire from the Imo State civil service are entitled to be paid pension. The Claimants’ case is that they have accrued pension which have not been paid and it was in the attempt to pay that the Government issued Exhibit H form to be signed by pensioners as a condition to receive or be paid pension. The Claimants have thus shown that they are entitled to pension which have accrued and has not been paid to them. The Defendants who alleged that the Claimants and other pensioners do not have accrued pension failed to show any evidence of payment of pension to all pensioners in Imo State up to the time of this suit. I find that the averments of the Defendants in paragraphs 10, 13, 21 and 24 of the counter affidavit have no import in the Claimants’ case. In paragraphs 15, 16, 18, 19, 21 and 24 of the Defendants’ counter affidavit, the Defendants deny the allegations of the Claimants that a form was issued by the Imo State Government to pensioners with intent to reduce the pension accruing to each of the pensioners by 60%. It was deposed in these paragraphs of the counter affidavit that the 1st Defendant or the Imo State Government did not prepare the said Form, Exhibit H, neither did anybody in the Government of Imo State give out such forms to pensioners as a condition to collect pension. It was also averred that the pension of the pensioners in Imo State was never reduced by any percentage by the Defendants. It is the Claimants allegation that the Government of Imo State issued a form headed “LETTER OF SET OFF IN RESPECT OF MY OUTSTANDING PENSION ARREARS’’, Exhibit H, to pensioners in the state. Acceptance of the terms in the form by signing the form was a condition for payment of pension to pensioner in the public service of Imo State. Many of the pensioners refused to sign the form because it altered their accrued pension to their disadvantage by cutting 60% off the sum due to them as pension and also contain that they have waived their right to pursue any other claim against the Imo State Government. The Claimants exhibited copies of the form which they marked Exhibits H and I. The highlights of the form are these. It is in the nature of an undertaking by individual pensioner and addressed to the 3rd Defendant. The pensioner, who is required to sign the form and affix a passport photograph, undertakes to accept 40% of accumulated arrears of pension owed by the Imo State Government as full and final settlement of all other claims the pensioner may be entitled to make against the Imo State Government in respect of the accumulated pension. The form also contains that the pensioner releases and discharges the Imo State Government and its agents from any liability, actions or claims in respect of the accumulated pension. The implication of the content of the form is clear. The pensioner who signs the form has agreed to accept only 40% of arrears of pension owed by the Imo State Government and forfeit the 60% balance. The Claimants claim that the form was issued to pensioners by the Imo State Government but the Defendants, in their counter affidavit, dispute that claim and contended in paragraph 15 and 18 that the Imo State Government did not prepare such forms nor issue such forms to pensioners as a condition for payment of pension. In counsel’s written address in opposition to the Origination Summons, the learned Solicitor-General urged the court to discountenance Exhibit H. The reason given by counsel for the prayer is that the Claimants have not shown the form emanated from any of the Defendants. Learned Solicitor-General submitted that the Claimants did not indicate the person or office who issued the alleged forms and nothing in Exhibits H and I show that they emanated from any of the Defendants or their agents because the forms do not bear the name, stamp, seal or even letter head of any of the Defendants. It was further submitted that the Claimants did not mention any official of the Government giving out the forms. In response to the Defendants position, the Claimants stated in paragraphs 11, 12, 17, and 18 their further affidavit that the form was made and circulated by the Imo State Government to pensioners through its officers and agents who include Mr. Njoku, a payroll officer and Mrs. Chinyere Uwandu who is the Chairman, Local Government Pensions Board. These officers were the ones giving out the forms. It is further deposed that Imo State Government made press release in the Weekend Nigeria Horn of 6-8 Janaury 2017 and the White Paper of 9-10 January 2017 were the Imo State Government acknowledge issuing the forms to pensioners. The Claimants exhibited certified true copies of the newspapers to their further affidavit. These are Exhibits II and JJ. In the press release of the Imo State Government published in the newspapers, the Government referred to a form it issued to pensioners and those who agreed to the terms of payment of pension are to sign same. Now, if the Defendants in this suit deny that the Imo State Government issued Exhibit H and I form, which form was referred to in the press release? Upon reading the press release by the Imo State Government, it is clear to me that the circumstances leading to this suit is the same circumstance necessitating the making of the press releases by the Imo State Government. I am certain that the form referred to by the Government in the press release is the same form in issue here. In the press release, the Imo State Government admitted issuing the form to pensioners in the state. From the totality of the facts, the Claimants have shown that the form was issued by the Imo State Government and the form was given out to pensioners by servants of the same Government. Going by the content of the form, it is obvious the Imo State Government reduced the amount of pension accruing to pensioners by 60%. To buttress this fact, the Claimant adduced evidence of pensioners who signed the form and had their pension paid but at 40% in accordance with the terms of the form. Exhibits FF1-2, GG1-2 and HH1-2 of the further affidavit of the Claimants are the forms signed by Mr. Ayadioha Aloysius, Oshionya Iheshiulo and Ndupu Felix Chukwudifu respectively agreeing to receive only 40% of their respective accumulated arrears of pension and the cheques issued to them by the Imo State Government containing an amount which is 40% proportion of the pension which accrued to these pensioners. By the terms of the form, 60% was cut off from the pension of Mr. Ayadioha Aloysius, Oshionya Iheshiulo and Ndupu Felix Chukwudifu. In the result, I find that the Imo State Government issued the forms with intent to reduce or alter the pension of retired civil servants. Having resolved the preliminary issues, I will now go into the essence of this suit. I have earlier reproduced the questions the Claimants seek to be determined in the Originating Summons at the beginning of this judgment. I see no need to repeat them here again. In the light of the questions, it is my view that a sole issue will resolve all the questions. The issue is this: Whether the Imo State Government or the 1st Defendant has the legal authority or power to reduce, withhold or alter the pension or any part of it accruing to retired civil servants in the State. Section 210 (1) and (2) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) provides: (1) Subject to the provisions of subsection (2) of this section, the right of a person in the public service of a State to receive pension or gratuity shall be regulated by law. (2) Any benefit to which a person is entitled in accordance with or under such law as is referred to in subsection (1) of this section, shall not be withheld or altered to his disadvantage except to such extent as is permissible under any law, including the Code of Conduct. The above provision of the Constitution is clear and unambiguous. It is to the effect that the right of civil servants in a state to receive pension and gratuity is granted and regulated by law; accordingly, such pension or gratuity accruing to a retired civil servant under the law cannot be withheld or altered to his disadvantage except it is also permitted by law. Let me say that the right of retired civil servants to receive pension is provided in the Pension Act and the Civil Service Rules. These are the laws which entitle a civil servant to pension and also regulate the right to pension. It is already my finding in this judgment that the Imo State Government did issue the form in Exhibit H. The clear intent or purpose of the Imo State Government in the form was to reduce the accrued pension of pensioners in the state by 60% and to coerce the pensioners to accept the 40% offered with an undertaking not to pursue the withheld portion from the State Government. This act of the Imo State Government was to reduce or alter the accrued pension of pensioners in Imo State to their disadvantage. The Imo State Government can only do that if permitted by any law to do so. I do not find any provision in the Pension Reform Act or in the Public Service Rules of Imo State authorising the Imo State Government to issue such forms or reduce accrued pension of pensioners by whatever percentage. The Defendants have not been able to refer this court to any law whereby the State Government was permitted by such law to reduce the pension accruing to retired civil servants in the state. Upon reading the counter affidavit of the Defendants, it became obvious that the Defendants know of the illegality of the reduction of pension of pensioners in the state which is why, instead of defending the action of the State Government; they chose the option of totally denying the existence or issuance of the form. But they were caught in their denial by the public statements issued by the State Government in Exhibits II and JJ. In these newspapers, the State Government made press releases acknowledging issuing forms for pensioners to sign and those who signed were paid their pension. In my view, the Defendants cannot, through the said forms, purport to reduce or alter the pension due to retired civil servants in the state without being authorised by law. The act of the Imo State Government in issuing the forms for the purpose of reducing accrued pension of pensioners in Imo State without being permitted by law is contrary to Sections 210 (1) and (2) of the Constitution. The act is consequentially illegal, unlawful and unconstitutional. In the result, I resolve the issue in this suit in favour of the Claimants. The Claimants’ claim in relief 1 is for a declaration that in view of Section 210 (1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), the pensioners in the public service of Imo State, including the 2nd to 4th Claimants, have a constitutional right to pension. Let me say that it is not the Constitution that provided the right to pension. Section 210 (1) and (2) of the Constitution is clear in that regard. It provided that the right to pension shall be regulated by law. In effect, the constitution recognises that pension right is provided by law. As I have mentioned earlier, the right to pension of retired civil servants is granted in the relevant pension legislations and the Public Service Rules. The provision of Section 210 of the Constitution only protects and guarantees the entitlement to pension, as provided by such law, from being withheld or altered. Therefore, to grant relief 1 will imply that this court is reading into the clear provisions of the Constitution what it did not contain. This court does not have the powers to do so. The right to pension by a civil servant who retires from service is already recognised by law and is constitutionally guaranteed and protected. I need not make a declaration to that effect. With respect to the other reliefs sought by the Claimants, they succeed. Therefore, I make the following declarations and orders: i. It is declared that, in the absence of any law permitting the Imo State Government to reduce, alter or withhold any part of the pension of pensioners in the public service of Imo State, the Imo State Government or any of the Defendants do not have the authority or power to reduce, alter or withhold any part of the pension of any retired civil servant as was purported to have been done in the forms issued by the Imo State Government for that purpose. ii. It is declared that the act of the Imo State Government when it slashed or reduced the accrued pension of the pensioners in Imo State public service by 60% through the said form was unconstitutional, null and void. iii. The said forms issued by the Imo State Government to pensioners of the State’s public service is hereby nullified and set aside. iv. An order of perpetual injunction is hereby made, restraining the Imo State Government and the Defendants from implementing, executing or enforcing the content of the said form. No order as to cost. Judgment is entered accordingly. Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe Judge