Download PDF
The Claimants commenced this action by way of Complaint dated and filed on 29th April 2013 wherein they claimed against the Defendants as follows: (i) The sum of N40,055,454.00 (Forty Million, Fifty Five Thousand, Four Hundred And Fifty-Four Naira), being unpaid severance gratuities, accommodation and security allowances due and payable to the Claimant from the Defendants as members of the Imo State House of Assembly between May 2007 and June 2011, which the Defendants have failed, refused and or neglected to pay despite repeated demands. (ii) Interest on the aforesaid sum at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of the Judgment until the judgment debt is liquidated. The complaint was filed along with an Affidavit in verification of the endorsement therein, the Statement of Facts, Claimants’ List of Witnesses, Sworn Deposition of Claimants’ witness, Claimants’ List of Documents and Copies of Documents to be relied on. The 1st – 4th Defendants filed a Statement of Defence and other accompanying processes. The 5th Defendant who was represented at some point, neither called any witness nor filed any defence to the action. Preliminary applications were taken and resolved, and hearing commenced on the 1st day of December 2014. Hon. Mike Iheanatu the 2nd Claimant, testified for the Claimants as CW1. Onwuneme Chamberlain Uchenna testified for the 1st to 4th Defendants as DW1. Hearing ended on the 27th day of March 2017. Parties were ordered to file their final written addresses in accordance with the Rules of Court. The Defendants’ final address was filed on the 8th day of May 2017 while the Claimants’ final address was filed on 20th day of June 2017. These were duly regularized. Parties adopted their respective written addresses on the 3rd day of July 2017. In their final written address, the 1st – 4th Defendant raised three issues for determination as follows 1. WHETHER EXHIBITS "C & G" TENDERED BY THE CLAIMANT MET THE REQUIREMENT OF THE LAW FOR ITS ADMISSION AS AN EXHIBIT. 2. WHETHER THE CLAIMANT IS ENTITLED TO THE RELIEFS SOUGHT. 3. WHETHER THE FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESS AS FILED IS NOT GROSSLY INCOMPETENT. On issue one, the Defendants objected to the admissibility of EXHIBIT C (Revenue Mobilization and Fiscal Commission) in evidence arguing that the evidence seeking to be tendered is inadmissible because it did not satisfy the prerequisite fulfilment of condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction. See MADUKOLU vs. NKEMDILIM (1962) 2 SCNLR 341. According to the Defendants, the said document, which purports to be a public document of Government transaction, is not on the letter head of the commission nor is it signed by any of the appropriate officers on the face of it, and there was no payment of legal fees as required by Section 111(1) of the Evidence Act 2011. Counsel submitted that Revenue Mobilization and fiscal Commission is a Federal Government Agency deriving its powers and functions from paragraph 32 of Part 1 of the Third Schedule to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended). The Defendants opined that documentation of Government Policies of whatever type is usually gazetted and that correspondences and documents emanating from the Arms of Government are usually on the letter head of the Agency which also indicates their addresses and other important information. The Defendants posited that Exhibit C in issue does not bear such imprimatur of a Government document and that there is nothing like legal department or Head of legal in the Revenue Mobilization and Fiscal Allocation Commission. They further submitted that the document does not bear the signature of the chairman or the secretary of the Commission and that the Head of Legal is not a signatory to the document nor is he the secretary of the Agency or consequently the custodian of the document. The Defendants submitted that the custodian of a document is the only person competent to certify any copy thereof as a true copy of the original in his custody and that the said I. K. NUHU whose name appears on the document as head of legal, did not certify the document at the foot of it as required by the law. See Section 104 of the Evidence Act 2011. The Defendants submitted that the fact that it sets up condition that must be satisfied before a public document is admitted in evidence requires that such conditions must be met and that the stamp of the Commission was not affixed to it and there was no evidence of payment for it. See TABIK INVESTMENT LTD & ANOR VS. GUARANTY TRUST BANK PLC (2011) All FWLR (PT 602) Pg. 1592 at 1603.The Defendants submitted that the document is of doubtful origin and authenticity. Such a document must be produced from proper custody before its genuineness can be presumed, to afford the Court reasonable assurance of its authenticity. Counsel urged the court to reject it in evidence. ON EXHIBIT G (The APPROPRIATION LAW) the Defendants opposed the admissibility of the document contending that The Commission is an autonomous body not subject to direction or control of any other authority or person in the exercise of its powers. The Defendants submitted that appropriation law is a mere proposal subject to the availability of funds and does not create any legal right for which the Claimants can contest. They further argued that unconstitutional legislation cannot be legitimized by collusion of legislators. See ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF ABIA STATE vs. ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION. The Defendants submitted that the salaries, accommodation, gratuity security allowances of the Claimants having been provided for by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and cannot also be provided for by the Claimants in the Appropriation Law arguing that any law that is inconsistent with the provision of the Constitution is to the extent of its inconsistency, unconstitutional, null and void. They went further that one of the grounds by which a Court admits documents as exhibit tendered in Court is that it meets the prerequisite upon fulfilment of any condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction. See MADUKOLU vs. NKEMDILIM (supra). The Defendants sought to stop the Claimants from placing reliance on the legislative Act which is inferior to the provisions of the Constitution in relation to Salaries and Allowances of the Public Office Holders in Nigeria. On Issue One, the Defendants submitted that if at trial an issue is admitted in cross examination, that issue is put beyond the pale of doubt and is deemed admitted. The Defendants also submitted that the Claimants are not entitled to any sum of money claimed and that if at all they are entitled to any sum or sums of money as alleged ,it is not the responsibility of the 1st- 4th Defendants but that of the House of Assembly where they served which is autonomous and controls its budget. See ATTORNEY GENERAL OF LAGOS STATE vs. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION. According to the Defendants, the Remuneration package for Political and Judicial Office Holders in Nigeria Revenue Mobilization Allocation and Fiscal Commission February 2007 VOLUME 11 OF THE REVIEWED REMUNERATION PACKAGE FOR THE LEGISLATURE AT FEDERAL ,STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT LEVELS being relied upon by the claimant does not make any provision for Security Allowance as claimed by the Claimant as seen on page 36 of the document. According to the Defendants, the Claimant's Documentary evidence cannot support oral their evidence. Counsel contended that the Claimants are not entitled to the reliefs sought in the purported VOLUME 11 OF THE REVIEWED REMUNERATION PACKAGE FOR THE LEGISLATURE AT FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT LEVELS in the Revenue Mobilization review circular of 2007 which has been amended. See Table B of 2009 of the Amended Revenue Mobilization review circular amending that of 2007. On the issue of Security, the Defendants submitted that the Claimants are not entitled to any sum of money as security, because security is to be provided in kind, and it was so provided. Counsel referred the court to Page 36 of the amended document of 2009 which states: "This is to be provided to all categories of officers in kind. The relevant Government agencies (police, state security service) shall provide security services to the officers concerned.” According to the Defendants, the 2007 revised allowance for members of the State House of Assembly issued in 2009 made no provision for security at all because all members of the State House of Assembly were provided with police security by the Government. For this reason, the revenue mobilization did not provide any allowance. On the subject of Accommodation, it is the submission of counsel for the Defendants that Accommodations were provided for the Claimants who chose not to live therein, and that the Claimants are not entitled to accommodation allowance. The Defendants submitted further that there was a reduction of accommodation allowance in the 2009 document referred herein. On the subject of Severance Allowance, counsel contended that severance allowance of State House of Assembly was reduced by 100% by the 2009 schedule of remunerations as amended in 2009. Counsel submitted that the evidence seeking to pay the 2nd Defendant gratuity should be discountenanced, in that he is still in service. Gratuity being a lump sum paid to a public office holder upon cessation of his service, is an important form of social security and is in the form of gratitude provided to the public office holders in monetary terms for the service rendered. The 2nd Claimant being still in the service of the Imo State House of Assembly, is therefore not entitled to Gratuity allowance. Besides, according to counsel, severance gratuity of (300%) as provided in 2007 by the Revenue Mobilization Allocation and Fiscal Commission, was reduced to 200% in 2009 by the 2009 Reviewed Remuneration Package for Political, Public and Judicial Office Holders State And Local Government Legislature VOLUME IV a Subsidiary legislation being an instrument issued by Revenue Mobilization Allocation; which according to counsel, has the character of subsidiary legislation, and therefore the court should take judicial notice of it. Counsel stated that the 2007 Remuneration Package stands repealed and is no longer in existence. See SYLVESTER vs. OHIAKWU {2014} 5 NWLR (Pt. 1401) Pg. 467 at 475 RATIO 5. It is counsel’s submission that Sections 70, 84, 111 & 124 as well as paragraph 31 and (32)(d) of the 3rd schedule of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) vested the power in the Revenue Mobilization to regulate the salaries and allowances of the public office holders including Members of the State Houses of Assembly. By way of subsidiary legislation the Commission in the exercise of its powers issued the Revised Remuneration Package for Political, Public and Judicial Officers (States and Local Government Legislation Vol. 4) being a regulation issued in June 2009 which revised the 2007 allowances being relied upon by the Claimant in this case. According to the Defendants, such a regulation or even circular issued by the Revenue Mobilization Allocation and Fiscal Commission pursuant to its constitutional powers qualifies as subsidiary legislation and has the force of law. See the case of N.N.P.C vs. FAMFU OIL LTD (2012) All FWLR (Pt. 635) Pg. 204 (Pt. 215) Ratio 13. See also the case of DIN vs. FED. A. G. (1998) 4 NWLR (Pt. 87) Pg. 147 at 154 Ratio 22 and Section 122 (2) of the Evidence Act 2011. To the Defendants, it is immaterial that the 2009 Reviewed Revenue Mobilization was not tendered in evidence, as the Court can pursuant to Section 122 (2) of the Evidence Act, take judicial notice of it. See ADENE vs. DANTUNBU (1994) 2 NWLR (Pt. 328). As regards the statement of DW1, the Defendants submitted that the House of Assembly is an independent body whose finances are under the consolidated funds and that Section 120 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria vests on the House of Assembly the power to control its finances and even public funds. See Section 90 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended). According to counsel, the Executive has no control over money appropriated for the House of Assembly and therefore cannot be responsible for the payment of House of Assembly Members otherwise it will be in control which runs contrary to the doctrine of separation of powers and incongruous. The Defendants contended that the Claimant has not proved that his case is more probable or likely to be true than that of the Defendant. See MOGAJI vs. ODOFIN BELLO (1978) 3 SC 91. The Defendants further submitted that documentary evidence does not support oral evidence. The evidence is not credible and cogent, therefore the court should not act on it. According to counsel, DW1 did not contradict himself to amount to an admission against self or interest. The evidence of DW1 agrees with the fact that the Claimant is not owed, and therefore not entitled to the purported claims, and if indeed he is owed, it is not any of the Defendants that is responsible for any such payment. On Issue 2, the Defendants submitted that the suit is grossly incompetent as the final written address does not bear the current stamp of the legal practitioner who signed the document and is not licensed to practice law for the period starting from 31st March, 2016 to 31st March, 2017 having not affixed the NBA stamp for the current year, 31st March, 2017 to 31st March, 2018 in line with the provisions of Rule 10 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, 2007. See YAKI vs. BAGUDU (2015) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1491) 288. The Claimants’ final written address dated 19th June 2017 was filed on 20th June 2017. The Claimants replied the objections raised by the 1st– 4th Defendants and raised a sole issue for determination. In response to the Defendants’ objections the Claimants submitted that what governs admissibility of documents is relevance, and that Exhibit C is a public document not because it bears the letter head of the Commission but because it emanates from the Revenue Mobilization Allocation and Fiscal Commission, an official body thereby coming under Section 102 (a) (ii) of the Evidence Act 2011. The Claimants also submitted that Exhibit C was duly signed by 31 commissioners out of 36 members of the Commission and the Secretary of the Commission (Mrs. Elizabeth B. P. Emuren), thereby meeting the required quorum as contemplated by Sections 8 and paragraph 2 of the 2nd Schedule of the Revenue Mobilization, Allocation and Fiscal Commission Act Cap R7 LFN 2004. The Claimants also submitted that Exhibit C was duly certified as a True Copy of the original by the public officer (I. K. Nuhu, Head of Legal) who is in custody of the same as required by Section 104(1) of the Evidence Act 2011 properly identified on the face of Exhibit C as the Certifying Officer and that Exhibit C bears the stamp and seal of the Commission at the food of the document as a Certified True Copy of the public document. The Claimants further submitted that Exhibit C was paid for though the receipt of payment was not tendered before this honourable Court referring the court to the ruling of Justice Rhodes-Vivour in the case of TABIK INVESTMENT LTD vs. G.T.B PLC (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt. 276) 240 and also Section 12 (2) (b) of the National Industrial Court Act 2006 which confers the court with powers to depart from the provisions of the Evidence Act in the interest of Justice. On the admissibility of Exhibit G, the Claimants contended that the Defendants failed to explain to the Court how the Appropriation Law 2011 ran contrary to the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) and that the evidence adduced during cross examination where the witness informed the court that the Security Allowance is captured in the Appropriation Law of Imo State 2011 and not the Revenue Mobilization and Fiscal Commission is in line with the Claimants pleadings. In urging the court to dismiss the objections raised by the Defendants, the Claimants referred the court to the judgement of this court delivered on 23/1/2017 in Suit No NICN/EN/69/2012 between Hon. Barr. Josephat C. Emenaha vs. Imo State Government and 4 Ors. Counsel raised a sole issue in the Final Written Address of the Claimants: The issue is: Whether the Claimants are entitled to the reliefs sought in this suit. According to Counsel for the Claimants, the 1st to 4th Defendants have by their pleadings, admitted the facts contained in paragraphs 1-8 of the Statement of Facts. The 5th Defendant having failed to file pleadings and defend the suit, is deemed to have admitted all the averments pleaded in the Claimants Statement of Facts and the evidence led thereon. Counsel cited the cases of NEPA vs. ADEGBERO (2003) FWLR (Pt. 139) 1556; OGUANUHU vs. CHIEGBOKA (2013) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1351) 588 at 607-608, DIN vs. AFRICAN NEWSPAPERS (1990) 3 NWLR (Pt. 139) 392; UMENWA vs. UMENWA (1987) 4 NWLR (Pt. 65) 407 and Section 123 of the Evidence Act 2011; and submitted that Claimants’ claim that they have not been paid their allowances and severance gratuity has been substantiated by Exhibits A-G and that the burden of proof has been shifted to the Defendants who claimed that the Claimants are not entitled to their claims. See Sections 133 (2) of the Evidence Act 2011 and the case of OSAWUM vs. EZEIRUKA (1978) 6-7 SC 135. The Claimants submitted that under cross examination DW1 acknowledged that the Claimants have not been paid their allowances and severance gratuity and that it was the duty of the 1st - 4th Defendants to pay the Claimants. Also, DW1 under cross examination, tried to exclude the Claimants from membership of the Imo State House of Assembly, a fact which had been admitted by the 1st - 4th Defendants in their Statement of Defence. DW1 cannot retract his admission and is bound to it. The Claimants contended that the Defendants must discharge the burden of proof on them alleging that the Claimants are not entitled to their claim. According to the Claimants, they have proved their entitlements by Exhibit A and B and CW1’s oral evidence which has not been refuted by the Defendants. The Defendants’ reliance on the amended Revenue Mobilization Circular was not pleaded in their statement of defence. The Claimants urged the court to discountenance it with all submissions of the 1st - 4th Defendants in respect of the aforesaid document as the Claimants were taken by surprise. Citing IYERE vs. BENDEL FEEDS AND FLOUR MILL LTD (2009) All FWLR (Pt. 453) 1217 at 1247, Counsel urged the court to accept the unchallenged evidence of the Claimants. On the issue of CW1 being in service therefore not entitled to severance gratuity, counsel for the Claimants submitted that CW1’s oral evidence made it clear that the action was brought by the Claimants, all of whom served as members of the Imo State House of Assembly between 2007 and 2011. COURT’s DECISION I have carefully examined the claims of the Claimants and I have also heard the submissions of counsels to the parties in their respective final written addresses. In my view, the issue which this court is to determine in this matter is whether the claimants have proved their case as to entitle them to the reliefs sought in the suit? To determine this issue, there is need to examine the facts and evidence presented before the court by the parties. The Claimants jointly claim the total sum of N40,055,454.00 from the Defendants. In the evidence of the 2nd Claimant who testified for the Claimants, he told the court that the sum represents unpaid severance gratuity, accommodation and security allowances due to the Claimants as former members of the Imo State House of Assembly between May 2007 and June 2011 but which the Defendants have refused to pay to them. CW1 testified that the Claimants were elected members of the Imo State House of Assembly on 14th April 2007 to represent Aboh Mbaise, Oru West and Ahiazu Mbaise State Constituencies respectively and on 20th April 2007, the Independent National Electoral Commission issued to them certificates of return admitted in evidence as Exhibits A, B and F. The Claimants served as members of the Imo State House of Assembly from May 2007 to June 2011. In February 2007, the Revenue Mobilization and Fiscal Commission fixed the remuneration package for political, public and judicial office holders in Nigeria. By virtue of the remuneration package as determined by RMAFC, the Claimants were each entitled to be paid the following sums: N1,337,225.00 as annual basic salary; 75% of the annual basic salary, amounting to N1,002,918.75, as annual accommodation allowance; and 300% of their annual basic salary, amounting to N4,011,675.00 as severance gratuity. The Claimants, as members of the Imo State House of Assembly, were also entitled to the sum of N7,000,000.00 each as security allowance which payment was captured in the 2011 appropriation Law of Imo State. The total sum outstanding to be paid to the Claimants is the sum of N40,055,454.00 which the Defendants have refused to pay to him despite repeated demands. The 1st to 4th Defendants filed a statement of defence and also called evidence. DW1 who testified for the 1st to 4th Defendants stated that he is a principal litigation officer in the Imo State House of Assembly. From the records in the Imo State House of Assembly, the Claimants were former members of the Imo State House of Assembly. The Imo State House of Assembly has autonomy from the Executive arm and it is thus a necessary party to this suit. The executive arm of Imo State Government to which the 2nd to 4th Defendants belong is not responsible for payment of allowances and salaries due to members of the Imo State House of Assembly. The House of Assembly controls its own budget when funds are released to it and its affairs are run by the management of the House of Assembly. While the Speaker is the approving authority, the Chief Accounting Officer signs cheques issued by the House of Assembly. None of the Defendants have anything to do with payment of the members of the House of Assembly. Security and other allowances and gratuity claimed by the Claimants were not fixed by the RMAFC and no percentage of the Claimants’ claims is mentioned and no amount is provided in the circular from RMAFC. Besides that the 1st to 4th Defendants are not responsible for payment of the sums claimed by the Claimants, the Claimants are not entitled to the sum they claim as salary, accommodation allowance and severance gratuity. They are not also entitled to their claim for security allowance as the claim is not captured in the 2011 Appropriation Law of Imo State. The 5th Defendant did not defend the suit. In paragraph 1 of the statement of defence of the 1st to 4th Defendants, they admit the averments of the Claimants in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the statement of facts. Thus, the facts that the Claimants were elected members of the Imo State House of Assembly and they served as members of the Imo State House of Assembly from May 2007 to June 2011 are not in dispute. The only dispute is as to the Claimants’ entitlement to their claims. While the Claimants said they are entitled to be paid severance gratuity, accommodation allowance and security allowance by virtue of the 2007 remuneration package released by the RMAFC and the 2011 Appropriation Law of Imo State, the Defendants said the Claimants are not entitled to their claims because the Defendants are not the ones responsible to pay the Claimants allowances and that the allowances claimed by the Claimants were not fixed by the RMAFC or contained in the RMAFC remuneration package in addition to the fact that security allowance claimed by the Claimants is not captured in the 2011 Appropriation Law of Imo State. The law is trite that the burden of proof of the claim is on the person who is seeking the claim. See Sections 131 and 132 of the Evidence Act 2011. See also UMEOJIAKO vs. EZENAMUO (1990) 1 S.C. 239; HIGHGRADE MARITIME SERVICES LTD. vs. FIRST BANK OF NIGERIA LIMITED (1991) 1 NWLR (Pt. 167) 290. In this case, the Claimants who claim payment of outstanding severance gratuity, accommodation allowance and security allowance have the burden to prove that they are entitled to the sums claimed. The 2nd Claimant who testified for the Claimants gave evidence that the total sum the Claimants claim jointly from the Defendants is N40,055,454.00 which sum was prescribed for the claimants as former members of the Imo State House of Assembly in the RMAFC remuneration package of 2007 and the 2011 Appropriation Law of Imo State. These documents were admitted in evidence from CW1 as Exhibits C and G. According to CW1, the unpaid entitlements of each of the Claimant under Exhibit C are N1,002,918.75 as accommodation allowance being 75% of annual basic salary and N4,011,675.00 as severance gratuity being 300% of annual basic salary. Security allowance of N7,000,000.00 was prescribed for each of them under Exhibit G. Let me first consider their claim under Exhibit C. The document is the 2007 Remuneration package for political, public and judicial office holders in Nigeria. CW1 tendered Exhibit C in evidence on 1/12/2014. The counsel for the 1st to 4th Defendants was not in court on that day. Exhibit C was accordingly admitted in evidence without objection. In the final written address of the 1st to 4th Defendants, their counsel has however urged the court to expunge the document from evidence. The grounds of the objection are that the exhibit is not on the letter head of RMAFC; it is not signed by the appropriate officer, that is, not signed by the Chairman of the commission, Engr. Hamman Tukur; no payment of legal fee as required in Section 111 Evidence Act and not certified at the foot as required in Section 104 Evidence Act. The Defendants counsel also argued that there is no legal department in RMAFC and that the head of legal department is not a signatory to the document. Accordingly, the document was not produced from proper custody and has a doubtful origin and authenticity. This same objection and on same grounds was raised to the admissibility of the 2007 RMAFC Remuneration package in suits NICN/EN/69/2012 BETWEEN Hon. Barr. Josephat C. Emenaha vs. Imo State Government & 4 others and NICN/EN/70/2012 BETWEEN Hon. Oyibo Nwaneri vs. Imo State Government & 4 others. These are sister cases to this case. In the judgment of this court in those cases delivered on 13th January, 2017 and 3rd July, 2017 respectively, this court overruled the objection and held that none of the grounds of objection has merit. I will maintain the same position in this case. For avoidance of doubt, Exhibit C is clearly headed to show it emanated from the RMAFC. It is headed “REVENUE MOBILIZATION ALLOCATION AND FISCAL COMMISION, ABUJA” and titled “REMUNERATION PACKAGE FOR POLITICAL, PUBLIC AND JUDICIAL OFFICE HOLDERS IN NIGERIA, VOLUME II. THE REVIEWED REMUNERATION PACKAGE FOR THE LEGISLATURE AT THE FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT LEVELS”. It is also indicated on it to be a “CERTIFIED TRUE COPY”. The name of the certifying officer is I. K. NUHU with his signature, designation as Head of Legal and dated 27/3/12 as date of certification. There is also a list of the Commissioners of the RMAFC where they signed including the secretary of the RMAFC. The fact that not all the commissioners signed it does not make the document inadmissible. I am also satisfied that it is certified by an officer of the Commission in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act. Also, being a certified true copy, it can be tendered or produced by anybody. The argument that the document was not produced from proper custody or that its authenticity is doubtful is trivial. It is for the above reasons I overrule the objection of the Defendants counsel to the admissibility of Exhibit C. I hold that the document has been properly admitted in evidence. Again, the 1st to 4th Defendants averred in paragraphs 17 and 18 the statement of defence that the Claimants’ salary, allowances and gratuity was not fixed by the RMAFC nor did the RMAFC remuneration package provide for any of the claims of the Claimant. The import of these averments of the 1st to 4th Defendants is that the salary and allowances of the Claimant as a member of the Imo State House of Assembly was not as determined and fixed by the RMAFC. The Defendants however failed to mention the body which prescribes the salaries and allowances of members of the Imo State House of Assembly. The body constitutionally recognized to determine and fix remunerations and allowances payable to political and public office holders in Nigeria is the RMAFC. To that extent, 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 Mobilization, Allocation and Fiscal Commission may determine”. See also Section 32 (d) of Part One of the 2nd Schedule of the 1999 Constitution which provides that the power to determine the remuneration appropriate for political office holders, which include legislators, is that of the RMAFC. It was pursuant to that responsibility the RMAFC released Exhibit C in 2007. The document contains a review of the remuneration package for political, public and judicial office holders in Nigeria. The remuneration package for members of the State Houses of Assembly is included. In arguing issue one of the Defendants’ final written address, the learned Counsel for the Defendants argued that the Claimants are not entitled to their claims because the claims are not provided in the reviewed remuneration package 2009 of the RMAFC. If I understand counsel’s arguments well, her position is that the 2009 remuneration package be used to determine the claims of the Claimants and not the one of 2007. I have examined the pleading and evidence adduced by the Defendants but I find that there is no where they pleaded or mentioned the said review circular of 2009. No fact relating to it was averred in the statement of defence. In fact, the defence of the claim did not contemplate the said review circular of 2009 at all. The counsel for the 1st and 4th Defendants’ reliance on the review circular of 2009 in the final address to argue that the Claimant cannot claim under the 2007 package amounts to setting up a different case for the Defendants. It is trite that parties are bound by pleadings and are restricted to arguing their case within the parameters of their pleading. See AGBOOLA vs. U.B.A. (2011) All FWLR (Pt.574) 74 at 89; ARCHBONG vs. EDAK (2006) All FWLR (Pt. 323) 1631 at 1643; BRAWAL SHIPPING NIG. LTD vs. OMETRACO INT’L LTD (2011) All FWLR (Pt. 574) 152 at 168. Again, the said review circular of 2009 was not produced before the court nor tendered in evidence but counsel to the 1st to 4th defendants urged the court to take judicial notice of it. It is counsel’s argument that the said review circular of 2009 is a subsidiary legislation which brings it within the documents the court is permitted to take judicial notice of. Let me ask. Assuming the review circular of 2009 is a document which this court can take judicial notice, for what use will it serve in this matter to take judicial notice of it? I think none. There is no fact pleaded in respect of the document for which it is to serve as proof. Merely examining the document without putting it to judicial use is going to be an exercise in futility. Therefore, I will not engage in the fruitless exercise of considering whether I can take judicial notice of review circular of 2009 or not. The remuneration package under which the Claimant’s claim in this matter remains to be considered, as disclosed in the parties’ pleadings, is the 2007 package which is Exhibit C. In the 2007 remuneration package, the sum of N1,337,225.00 was prescribed pages viii and 25 as the annual basic salary for members of State House of Assembly. The reviewed allowances for the legislature are contained in chapter four of the Exhibit. At pages 30/31, it provided for ACCOMODATION ALLOWANCES which is 75% of annual basic salary for members of State House of Assembly. At page 36, it provided for SECURITY which will be provided in kind by relevant security agencies to concerned officers. At page 38, it provided for SEVERANCE GRATUITY which is payable after successful completion of tenure at 300% of annual basic salary. From Exhibit C, the Claimants are each entitled to accommodation allowance and severance gratuity but not security allowance. Security is not in terms of cash. It is clear from the case of the Claimants however that they based their claim for security allowance on the 2011 Appropriation Law of Imo State. I shall come to this claim shortly. In Exhibit C, accommodation allowance is 75% of annual basic salary while severance gratuity is 300% of annual basic salary. The basic salary for members of House of Assembly in Exhibit C is N1,337,225.00. 75% of the annual basic salary was payable as accommodation allowance and 300% of the annual basic salary was to be paid as severance gratuity. Accordingly, each of the claimants are entitled to be paid the sums of N1,002,918.75 and N4,011,675.00 as accommodation allowance and severance gratuity respectively. The Defendants counsel did submit that the 2nd Claimant admitted under cross examination that he is still a member of the House of Assembly hence he is not entitled to severance gratuity. When the 2nd Claimant was cross examined by the Defendants counsel, he told the court that he served in the House of Assembly from 2007 to 2011 and he completed that tenure. He was re-elected in 2015 and presently a member of the House of Assembly which tenure will elapse in June 2019. He also said that the severance allowance he claims in this suit is that for the completed 2007-2011 tenure. The Defendants counsel has now taken on the 2nd Claimant on his evidence and argued that since he is still a member of the House of Assembly, he is not entitled to Severance allowance. Severance allowance is payable to members of the House of Assembly after successful completion of tenure. See page 38 of Exhibit C. From the evidence of the 2nd Claimant, he completed the 2007-2011 tenure and was re-elected in 2015 for the 2015-2019 tenure. The Defendants counsel appears to assume that the re-election of the 2nd Claimant is a continuation of his tenure which ended in June 2011. The fact that the 2nd Claimant got re-elected in 2015 into the House of Assembly is not a continuation of the 2007-2011 tenure. The 2nd Claimant completed the 2007-2011 tenure. He is therefore entitled to the severance allowance for that tenure. The Claimants alleged that as members of the Imo State House of Assembly, they were also entitled to the sum of N7,000,000.00 as security allowance which payment was captured in the 2011 Appropriation Law of Imo State. The 1st to 4th Defendants however denied this claim and averred that security allowance claimed by the Claimants was not captured in the 2011 appropriation Law of Imo State. The said 2011 appropriation Law of Imo State was admitted in evidence as Exhibit G although leave was granted to the Defendants counsel to argue her objection to the admissibility of the document in the final address. I have observed however that the arguments of learned counsel in the Defendants final written address in respect of the document is not about its admissibility but on its weight or bearing to the Claimants claim. Counsel’s argument is mostly to the effect that the document does not sustain the Claimants claim for security allowance. The points argued by counsel in relation to Exhibit G are relevant only to the consideration of the merit of the claim for security allowance but not on the admissibility of the document. Therefore, the submissions will be dealt with when considering the claim for security allowance. It thus appears the defence counsel has abandoned the objection. I hold that the document is duly in evidence. Whether or not it supports the Claimants claim is another matter. The Claimants have described Exhibit G as the Appropriation Law 2011. I have examined the document but I observe that it is only a budget proposal. There is nothing on the document to show it is a law or has been passed into a law. It does not contain the resolution of the House of Assembly passing it into law nor was it signed by the Speaker or Clerk of the House. It was not also signed by the Governor of the state nor does it contain the assent of the Governor. There is nothing on it to show it was passed into law. I cannot find any endorsement on the document to convince me it was the Appropriation Law of 2011. Even if I am to assume there was such an Appropriation Law of 2011 that provides security allowance for members of the Imo State House of Assembly for the budget year 2011, my view will be that the Claimants cannot insist on getting full benefits of the provisions meant for members of the House of Assembly in that budget. I take judicial notice of the fact that appropriation law runs for the particular budget year. In this case, the Appropriation Law of 2011 ran till the end of that budget year. The evidence of the Claimants show they left office in June 2011. That budget runs till end of year. Exhibit G did not mention that the budgeted security allowances was meant for named or specified members of the Imo State House of Assembly. In my view, the item for security allowance for members of the House of Assembly could be implemented at any time when the Claimants are no longer in office. It is not an allowance they can insist must be paid to them. I find that the claim for security allowance has not been proved. From the foregoing, I find that the Claimants are entitled to severance gratuity and accommodation allowance only. The total sum each of the Claimants is entitled to pursuant to Exhibit C is N5,014,593.75 being unpaid accommodation and severance gratuity. The Claimants have shown that they have not been paid these allowances and had even demanded payment from the Defendants vide Exhibit D but the Defendants have refused to pay. The Defendants merely alleged that the Claimants are not entitled to their claim. The Defendants’ assertion only lends support to the Claimants’ allegation that they have not been paid the allowances. These allowances are the Claimants’ due and constitutional allowances. They ought to be paid. The question at this point is who is to pay it to the Claimants? The Claimants brought the Defendants to court and sought from this court an order against the Defendants for payment of the sum claimed. But the Defendants averred that they are not responsible for payment of salaries and allowances of members of the Imo State House of Assembly. The 1st to 4th Defendants contended that if any money is owed to the Claimants at all, it is the House of Assembly which ought to pay the Claimants and not the 1st to 4th Defendants. The Defendants further averred that the executive arm has no control over money appropriated to the House of Assembly and cannot be responsible for payment of House of Assembly members. To address this issue, it is necessary to know the status of the Defendants in this case. The Claimants described the 1st Defendant as the Government of Imo State, the 2nd Defendant as the Chief Executive of Imo State, the 3rd Defendant as the Chief Law Officer of Imo State and the 4th Defendant as the officer in charge of the accounts and funds of Imo State Government in paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5(a) of the statement of facts. In paragraphs 11 and 15, the Claimants claim payment of their allowances from these Defendants. According to the Claimants, the Defendants are responsible to pay but they have refused to pay. I will not unduly waste time on this issue. Constitutionally, the Government of each state in Nigeria has control of its funds, whether internally generated or from the Federation Account. The responsibility for the appropriation and use of the funds, including paying salaries and allowances of political, public office holders or civil servants also lies with the State Government. The 2nd Defendant, the chief executive of the state, is the office who exercises power or authority on behalf of the Imo State Government. It was in the Government of Imo State the Claimants served as members of the House of Assembly between 2007 and 2011. It cannot be contended that the Government of Imo State is not responsible to pay the members of the House of Assembly their salaries and due allowances. From the facts and evidence before me, I am firmly convinced that the Defendants, particularly the 1st and 2nd Defendants, have the responsibility to ensure the Claimants were paid their allowances as members of the Imo State House of Assembly as fixed by the RMAFC. In the result of all the foregoing, I find that the Claimants are entitled to accommodation allowance and severance gratuity. The claim for security allowance is refused. I accordingly grant the Claimants’ claim for accommodation allowance and severance gratuity in the total sum of N5,014,593.75 (Five Million, Fourteen Thousand, Five Hundred and Ninety Three Naira, Seventy-Five Kobo) to each of the Claimants. The Claimants also claim interest on the sum at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of the judgment until the judgment debt is liquidated. I grant this relief too. Consequently, the Defendants are ordered to pay the sum of N15,043,781.25 (Fifteen Million, Forty Three Thousand, Seven Hundred and Eighty One Naira, Twenty Five Kobo) to the Claimants. The sum must be paid within 30 days from today after which the sum will attract 10% interest per annum. I also award cost of N300,000.00 (Three Hundred Thousand Naira) in favour of the Claimants. Judgment is entered accordingly. Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe Judge