Download PDF
JUDGMENT Introduction & Claims 1. The Claimant commenced this suit by his General Form of Complaint on 6/11/13 and by his amended statement of claim dated and filed on 11/7/14 sought the following reliefs against the Defendants - 1. Declaration that the purported compulsory retirement of the Claimant’s employment by the 2nd Defendant acting on the instruction and authority of the 1st Defendant’s from the service of the 1st Defendant vide the 2nd Defendant’s letter of 6th August 2013, is wrongful, illegal and of no legal effect whatsoever. 2. Declaration that the Claimant is still a lawful employee and still in the service of the 1st and 2nd Defendants as the 1st Defendant’s Chief Administrative Officer, Board for Technical and Vocational Education (BOTAVED) notwithstanding the 2nd Defendant’s letter of compulsory retirement of the Claimant/termination of the Claimant’s employment dated 6th of August 2013. 3. An Order of this honourable court reinstating the Claimant to his post and office as the Chief Administrative Officer, Board for Technical and Vocational Education (BOTAVED) with the 1st Defendant and to all his rights and privileges attached thereto. 4. An Order directing the 1st and 2nd Defendants to pay to the Claimant all his arrears of salary, allowances and other emoluments/entitlements accruing and due to the claimant from the 6th of August 2013 when he was unlawfully retired till date of his reinstatement by the court and thereafter full salary, allowances and other entitlements due to the claimant as an employee of the 1st and 2nd Defendants on a monthly basis. ALTERNATIVELY 5. An Order directing the 1st and 2nd Defendants to pay the Claimant his basic salary and allowances covering the period from the 6th of August 2013 when he was compulsorily retired by the 1st and 2nd Defendants to the 28th of February 2018 being the date he would ordinarily have retired for having attained the statutory retirement age of 60 as stipulated by the Oyo State Civil Service to wit: Total Basic Salary from August 2013 to February 2018 =N=47, 124.07 x 55 Months = =N=2,591,823.85 (Two Million, Five Hundred and Ninety One Thousand, Eight Hundred and Twenty Three Naira, Eighty Five Kobo) Total Rent Allowance from August 2013- February 2018 =N=18,849.61 x 55 Months = =N=1,036,728.55 (One Million, Thirty Six Thousand, Seven Hundred and Twenty Eight Naira and Fifty Five Kobo) Total Transport Allowance from August 2013- February 2018 =N=7, 539.84 x 55 Months = =N=414,691.2 (Four Hundred and Fourteen Thousand, Six Hundred and Ninety One Naira and Two Kobo) Meal subsidy from August 2013 to February 2018 =N=1,595.64 x 55 Months =N=87,760.2 (Eighty Seven Thousand, Seven Hundred and Sixty Naira and Two Kobo) Utility allowance from August 2013 to February 2018 =N=4,712.38 x 55 Months = =N=259, 180.9 (Two Hundred and Fifty Nine Thousand Naira and Nine Kobo) And thereafter his pensions and/or gratuities. 6. General Damages of =N=500,000 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira) for the 1st and 2nd Defendants breach of their contract of employment with the Claimant. 2. Claimant's Form 1 was accompanied by all the requisite frontloaded processes. The Defendants filed a joint reaction to the suit including statement of defence and witness deposition. No document was frontloaded to be relied upon by the Defendants. Case of the Claimant 3. Claimant opened his case 7/2/19, testified in chief by adopting his witness deposition of 6/11/13 as his evidence and tendered 7 documents as exhibits. The documents were admitted in evidence and marked as Exh. AA1-Exh. AA7. 4. The case of the Claimant as revealed in both the pleadings, evidence in chief and evidence led is that he was appointed by the 1st and 2nd Defendants as a Teacher on Grade Level 07/2 with the 2nd Defendant vide a letter of re-absorption after study leave with Reference No. SBTP 41985/6 dated 22nd July 1983; that over the years the years during the course of my service to Oyo state, he rose through the ranks, having been promoted several times and having held several positions of responsibility within the Oyo State Civil Service Commission such as the post of Semi Administrative Officer State Universal Primary Education Board, Deputy Director Ministry of Establishment, Deputy Director, Ministry of finance; Deputy Director; Ministry of Lands and Housing; Director, Civil Service Commission; Director, Local Government Affairs; Chief Administrative Officer Grade Level 13; that he has have always discharged my duties meritoriously and was never cited for misconduct at any point in time during my service with the 1st and 2nd Defendants; that he applied for permission to go on official leave via my Letter of Application for annual leave dated 16th of July 2013 and it was duly granted; that he was astonished when after he resumed from annual leave on the 15th of August 2013, he received a letter from the 2nd Defendant dated 6th of August 2013 informing him that he has been compulsorily retired from service with immediate effect and that although the letter of compulsory retirement issued by the Defendants was dated 6th of August 2013, it was not served on him until the 15th of August 2013 which was the day resumed duties after completing his annual leave which began on the 22nd July 2013 and ended on the 14th of August 2013. 5. Claimant averred that he carefully scrutinized the said letter of retirement of service but it did not disclose any valid reason for my retirement other than as follows: “…………… that your continued existence in the service cannot serve the best interest of the present administration”; that as at the time he received the retirement letter dated 6th of August 2013, he had put in 30 years of service to the 1st and 2nd Defendants and there was never any occasion on which his competence or integrity was called into question or doubted; that under the extant laws/stature regulating his employment with the 1st and 2nd Defendants, he is due for retirement in 2018 by which date he would have put in 35 years of service with the 1st Defendant; that his purported compulsory retirement by the st and 2nd Defendants vide the letter of 6th August 2013 was null, void and unlawful for not being in line with the extant laws regulating the Claimant’s employment; that under the extant laws regulating his employment with the 1st and 2nd Defendants, they have no power to compulsorily retire him from the service of the 1st Defendant on baseless grounds; that by not following the various rules and orders regulating his employment with the 1sat and 2nd Defendants particularly on the mode of termination and particularly by not serving me the required statutory notice, his purported compulsory retirement by the 1st Defendant vide the 2nd Defendants’ letter dated 6th of August 2013 was unlawful and of no effect whatsoever and that because of the failure of the 1st and 2nd Defendants to follow the p[roper procedure of terminating his employment, he is still a staff of the 1st and 2nd Defendants until my employment is properly determined in line with the extant rules and other regulations governing the Oyo State Civil Service employment. 6. Claimant further averred that he is entitled to all of his full monthly salary of =N=47,124.07 and all other entitlements/allowances from September, 2013; that his purported compulsory retirement by the 1st and 2nd Defendants vide the letter dated 6th of August without following the rules and regulations guiding same is in breach of their contract with me, and he is entitled to general damages; that his employment with the 1st and 2nd Defendants is governed and regulated by the Oyo State Civil Service Commission Regulations and the said laws confirm that the conditions of his service shall be equated with those obtaining for employees in the State Public Service which means that the Oyo State Public Service Regulations further regulate my employment with the 1st Defendant and that the Oyo State Civil Service Commission Regulations and the Oyo State Public Service Rules as they affect my employment were flagrantly flouted by the 1st and 2nd Defendants when they terminated my appointment vide their letter dated 6th August 2013. 7. Under cross examination, CW1 testified that he joined civil service in 1983; that he has never faced any disciplinary action before he retired; that he was not accused of any office before he was retired and that he has never been a politician. Case of the Defendants 8. The Defendants opened their joint defence on 7/2/19. On 9/4/19, the Defendants called one as their sole defence witness. The DW adopted his written deposition of 11/2/13 as his evidence in chief. The Defendants did not tender any evidence. 9. The Defendants averred that paragraphs 1,3,4,5,6,8,9,18,19 of the statement of facts are best known to the Claimant; that paragraphs 7 to 17 of the statement of facts are false; that the Claimant was truly given a letter from the 2nd Defendants acting on the instructions of the 1st Defendant informing him that he has been compulsorily retired from service with immediate effect on the ground that the Claimants continued existence in the service of the 1st Defendant cannot serve the best interest of the administration which represents the interest of the state; that as a consequence of this reason, the Claimant became completely a threat to the interest of the general public whose interests are being protected and represented by the 1st Defendant; that with regard to paragraph 10 of the Claimant Statement of fact, the Defendants did not just retire the Claimant rather it was a Management decision taking into consideration the overriding interest of the state and in line with extant laws regulating the Claimant’s employment; that they relied on Oyo State Civil service Commission Regulation 2000 as reproduced in both the Oyo State Civil Service Rules (vol.1) 2013; the Defendants have the power and authority to retire an officer from service where the reason being adduced has to do with public interest; that truly the Claimant was retired by the 1st and 2nd Defendants after they were convinced that the Claimants continuous stay in the service of the 1st Defendant constitutes serious threat to the interest of the general public of the state; that the Claimant is put into strictest proof of his claim at paragraph 15 and 17 of his claim that contrary to the above paragraphs, the decision of the 1st Defendant to compulsorily retire the Claimant was based on public interest and that the Claimant had ceased to be a staff of the 1st Defendants since 6th August, 2013 when he was retired. 10. Under cross examination, witness testified that Claimant’s employment was governed by Vol. 1 & 2 of Oyo State Government Public Service Rules 2013; that Claimant’s employment could only be terminated in accordance with Public Service Rules; that Claimant was never cited for misconduct while with the Defendants; the Defendants did not follow due process in terminating the employment of the Claimant. Final Written Addresses 11. At the conclusion of trial and pursuant to the direction of the Court, learned Counsel to the Defendants filed a 5-page final written address on 6/6/19. In it Counsel set down the following issues down for the just determination of this case - 1. Whether the Defendants can compulsorily retire the Claimant when the Claimant had completely become a threat to the interest of the general public. 2. If the above is resolved in the affirmative, whether the Defendants are compelled in law to retain an Officer who has become a threat to public interest at all cost until the retirement age. 12. In arguing these issues, learned Counsel to the Defendants submitted that there is no controversy that the employment of the Claimant enjoys statutory flavour and as such the employer is bound by the statute governing the said employment citing Azenabor v. Bayero University, Kano (2009)17 NWLR (Pt. 1169) 96 & CBN v. Igwillo (2007)14 NWLR (Pt. 1054) 393; that there is no controversy that the letter of appointment of the Claimant as well as the Oyo State Public Service Rules & Oyo State Civil Service Rules are the forts et origo governing the promotion and discipline of civil service staff of Oyo State; that Claimant becoming a threat to the interest of the general public is a key administrative and lawful reason why an officer may be retired before the retirement age and the Claimant is entitled to no more than one month notice before he will be disengaged from service. Counsel submitted that it is only where a Claimant is disengaged from service due to misconduct that the issue of panel of enquiry stipulated by the Oyo State Public Service Rules would apply. Counsel added that it is not the case of the Clamant that the Civil Service Rules does not contain provisions for compulsory retirement; that it is not his case that the Commission under which he served lacks power to remove him and that it is also not his case that he was not a threat to public interest before his compulsory retirement on 6/8/13. Counsel prayed the Court to refuse all the reliefs sought by the Claimant. 13. The final written address of the Claimant of 17 pages was dated and filed on 26/8/19. In it, Counsel set down 3 issues for determination as follows - 1. Whether the Defendants can address this honourable court on issues which are not covered by their Statement of Defence on which no evidence was led by them during hearing. 2. Whether the Defendants adhered to the procedure laid down in Regulation 030601 of the Oyo State Public Service Rules of 2013 in the compulsory retirement of the Claimant from the Oyo State Civil Service. 3. Whether the Claimant is entitled to reinstatement to his status as Assistant Director Grade level, 14 within the service of the 2nd Defendant, or in lieu of reinstatement he should be awarded his entitlements and damages. 14. Counsel submitted on issue 1 that there are no facts from which it can be reasonably inferred that the 1st and 2nd Defendants have a right to compulsory retire the Claimant without a recourse to the extant Public Service Rules of Oyo State; that it was the 1st Defendant who decided that his personal interest as Governor of Oyo State amounts to the interest of the general public and that this could be found in Exh. AA5; that the Defendants cannot at the address stage of the proceedings introduce public policy and civil service reorganisation as the reason for the compulsory retirement of the Claimant as address of Counsel cannot take the place of evidence citing Ayorinde v. Sogunro (2012)11 NWLR (Pt. 1312) 460; that in any event government policy cannot be used to override the influence of Public Service Rules citing Gusau v. Nigerian Customs Service (2014) LPELR-23367(CA). Counsel prayed the Court to resolve this issue in favour of the Claimant. 15. On whether the Defendants adhered to the procedure laid down in Regulation 030601 of the Oyo State Public Service Rules of 2013 in the compulsory retirement of the Claimant from the Oyo State Civil Service, learned Counsel answered in the negative. Learned Counsel submitted that even if the compulsory retirement of the Claimant was based on Regulation 030601 of the Oyo State Public Service Rules, 2013 only the Civil Service Commission could act under the said Regulation; that the Regulation does not make reference to the State Governor and neither does it vest him with any powers to unilaterally initiate the process of compulsory retirement. Learned Counsel referred to the evidence of DW1 under cross examination where the witness admitted that the 2nd Defendant did not follow the procedure 030601 of the Oyo State Public Service Rules, 2013; that the legal effect of failure to follow Civil Service Rules in disciplinary process was laid down in Mr. Okocha v. Civil Service Commission, Edo State & Anor. (2004)FWLR (Pt. 190) at 1318 where the Court held that Civil Service Rules invest in public servants a legal status making their removal dependent on strict compliance with the Civil Service Rules, otherwise the termination would be null and void and of no effect. Counsel added that where a statute has created and defined the relationship between the employer and employee and also defined the method of dismissing the employee upon his misconduct, no such dismissal would be effectual without the employer's strict adherence or compliance with the relevant provisions of the statute citing S.O. Adedeji v. Police Service Commission (1967) All NLR 72 & Obianwuna v. NEPA (2016)LPELR-40935 (CA). Counsel urged the Court to resolve this issue in favor of the Claimant. 16. On the third issue for determination which is whether the Claimant is entitled to reinstatement to his status as Assistant Director Grade level, 14 within the service of the 2nd Defendant, or in lieu of reinstatement he should be awarded his entitlements and damages; that the remedy of reinstatement is of particular significance to employees whose contract of employment enjoys statutory flavor as opposed to what is obtained under the normal master/servant arrangement and that it can be granted in circumstances as envisaged by Imoloane v. WAEC (1992)9 NWL (Pt. 265) & Abomeli v. NRC (1995)1 NWLR (Pt. 372) 451. Learned Counsel submitted that Claimant as a tenured Civil Servant is entitled to reinstatement having been unfairly retired citing Okoroafor v. Minister of Internal Affairs & Ors. (2004 All FWLR (Pt. 209) 1108 at 1115. According to the learned Counsel, the Claimant already attained the compulsory retirement age of 60 years in 2018 and hence possibility of reinstatement is unattainable but that on judicial authority, Claimant is entitled to damages citing Igbe v. Gov. of Bendel State (1983) NSCC 54 & Isievwore v. NEPA (2002) FWLR (Pt. 124) 398. Learned Counsel therefore prayed the Court considering the fact that Claimant had attained the age of compulsory retirement in 2018, the Court should grant reliefs 5 and 6 as contained in the amended statement of facts filed on 11/7/14. Decision 17. I have carefully read and understood all the processes filed by the learned Counsel on either side. I heard the oral testimonies of the witnesses called as well as watched their demeanor. I have in addition carefully evaluated all the exhibits tendered and admitted at trial. Having done all this, I set down these issues for the just determination of this case - 1. Whether the Defendants adhered to the procedure laid down in Regulation 030601 of the Oyo State Public Service Rules of 2013 in the compulsory retirement of the Claimant from the Oyo State Civil Service. 2. Whether the Claimant is entitled to reinstatement to his status as Assistant Director Grade level, 14 within the service of the 2nd Defendant, or in lieu of reinstatement he should be awarded his entitlements and damages. 18. The position of the law remains trite at all times that the burden is on he who asserts to prove same. The proof expected is by cogent, credible and admissible evidence which may be either oral or documentary or both bearing in mind however that documentary evidence is much more preferred. One of the reliefs sought by the Claimant is a declaration that the purported compulsory retirement of the Claimant’s employment by the 2nd Defendant acting on the instruction and authority of the 1st Defendant’s from the service of the 1st Defendant vide the 2nd Defendant’s letter of 6th August 2013, is wrongful, illegal and of no legal effect whatsoever. The crux of his argument is that the compulsory retirement did not follow the procedure laid down in Regulation 030601 of the Oyo State Public Service Rules of 2013. Now is the Oyo State Public Service Rules part of the contractual agreement between the parties? If yes, what is the procedure for any compulsory retirement of an employee under that Rules? Was the procedure complied with in the instant case? 19. The simple case of the Claimant is that after he resumed from annual leave on the 15th of August 2013, he received a letter from the 2nd Defendant dated 6th of August 2013 informing him that he has been compulsorily retired from service with immediate effect and that although the letter of compulsory retirement issued by the Defendants was dated 6th of August 2013, it was not served on him until the 15th of August 2013 which was the day resumed duties after completing his annual leave which began on the 22nd July 2013 and ended on the 14th of August 2013. 20. The Defendants did not deny much. Indeed they agreed that the Claimant was truly given a letter from the 2nd Defendants acting on the instructions of the 1st Defendant informing him that he has been compulsorily retired from service with immediate effect on the ground that the Claimants continued existence in the service of the 1st Defendant cannot serve the best interest of the administration which represents the interest of the state; that as a consequence of this reason, the Claimant became completely a threat to the interest of the general public whose interests are being protected and represented by the 1st Defendant; that the compulsory retirement of the Claimant was a Management decision taking into consideration the overriding interest of the state and in line with extant laws regulating the Claimant’s employment; that they relied on Oyo State Civil Service Commission Regulation 2000 as reproduced in both the Oyo State Civil Service Rules (vol.1) 2013; the Defendants have the power and authority to retire an officer from service where the reason being adduced has to do with public interest. 21. The sole witness for the defence, Akeem Akanbi Jimoh, while testifying under cross examination on 9/4/19 stated that Claimant’s employment was governed by Vol. 1 & 2 of Oyo State Government Public Service Rules 2013; that Claimant’s employment could only be terminated in accordance with Public Service Rules; that Claimant was never cited for misconduct while with the Defendants and that the Defendants did not follow due process in terminating the employment of the Claimant. It was the submissions of learned Counsel before me in this case that there is no controversy that the employment of the Claimant enjoys statutory flavour and as such the employer is bound by the statute governing the said employment citing Azenabor v. Bayero University, Kano (2009)17 NWLR (Pt. 1169) 96 & CBN v. Igwillo (2007)14 NWLR (Pt. 1054) 393; that there is no controversy that the letter of appointment of the Claimant as well as the Oyo State Public Service Rules & Oyo State Civil Service Rules are the forts et origo governing the promotion and discipline of civil service staff of Oyo State; that Claimant becoming a threat to the interest of the general public is a key administrative and lawful reason why an officer may be retired before the retirement age. There is consensus among the parties that the employment of the Claimant is statutorily protected and that for him to be compulsorily retired there must be recourse to the provisions of the Public Service Rules of Oyo State. What then is the applicable statutory provisions respecting compulsory retirement? 22. Section 5, Public Service Rules, Vol. 1 January 2013 deals with Conduct Prejudicial to the Security of the State. I here reproduce the 2 Regulations under that section thus- ''030501 - Where a Committee comprising members from the Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Establishments, Training & Poverty Alleviation is satisfied that an Officer has committed a misconduct involving the security of the State or prejudicial to it, the Officer shall be subject to the normal disciplinary procedure provided that the punishment for such misconduct shall be aggravated. ''030601-Notwithstanding the provisions of this Chapter, if the Civil Service Commission considers that it is desirable in the Public interest that an Officer should be required to retire from service on grounds which cannot suitably be dealt with by the procedures laid down in the rule 030305, it shall call for a full report from the Permanent Secretary/Head of Extra-Ministerial Department in which the Officer has served; and if, considering that report and giving the Officer an opportunity of submitting a reply to the complaints by reason of which his retirement is contemplated, the Commission is satisfied, having regard to the conditions of service, the usefulness of the Officer thereto and all other circumstances of the case, that it is desirable in the public interest to do, it shall retire the Officer and the Officer's service shall accordingly terminate on such a date as the Commission may specify. In every such case, the question of pension and gratuity will be dealt with under the Pensions Law''. 23. Now what were the steps leading to the compulsory retirement of the Claimant? I find none. Exh. AA6 was the instrument which compulsorily retired the Claimant from the service of the 1st Defendant. It was dated 6th August, 2013. The heading is Retirement From Service. It is of 2 paragraphs. It emanated from the Civil Service Commission Office of the Permanent Secretary and simply stated - ''I am directed to inform you that the Executive Governor of Oyo State Senator Abiola Ajimobi, has approved your immediate retirement from the service of Oyo State Government on the grounds that your continued existence in the Service cannot serve the best interest of the present administration. I wish you best of luck in your future endeavours''. 24. Under the applicable extant civil service regulations the power to compulsorily retire an officer of the Defendants is vested in the Civil Service Commission and not in the Governor of the State. Certain procedure was also indicated to be followed toward achieving that result. Firstly, the Commission shall call for a full report from the Permanent Secretary/Head of Extra-Ministerial Department in which the Officer has served. Secondly, the Commission shall consider the report. Thirdly, the officer concerned shall be afforded opportunity of submitting a reply to the complaints by reason of which his retirement is contemplated. If having done all this and the Commission is satisfied, then it shall terminate the appointment of the officer concerned via compulsory retirement and so inform the officer concerned. 25. By Exh. AA1, Claimant was reabsorbed into the service of the Defendants on 22/7/83. He rose through the ranks. There is no record of queries or any indictment against him by the Defendants. The Defendants indeed did not tender any exhibit to show any shortcomings or failings on the part of the Claimant. From 1983 till August of 2013 the existence of the Claimant was not a threat to the Civil Service Commission or the good people of Oyo State or all the previous administrations including Military juntas . But on 6/8/13, the Defendants suddenly realised that his ''... continued existence in the Service cannot serve the best interest of the present administration''. It appears to me that the issuance of Exh. AA6 was a sheer display of naked power and the reason given in it amounts to giving a Dog a bad name in order to kill it. 26. For a man, a citizen of Nigeria and an indigene of Oyo State who puts in about three decades of untainted record into the service of the fatherland to be suddenly shown the way out especially on the ground that his continued existence in the service of the State could not serve the best interest of the present administration is akin to liken the interest of the generality of the people to be the interest of a political arrangement. That is not the way it should be. That is not the way it has always being. I will not say more on this. A word, it said, is enough for the wise. The sole witness of the Defendants testified to the effect that the compulsory retirement of the Claimant did not follow the due process. That is also my finding. I resolve the first issue in favor of the Claimant. I hold that the Defendants did not adhere to the procedure laid down in Regulation 030601 of the Oyo State Public Service Rules of 2013 in the compulsory retirement of the Claimant from the Oyo State Civil Service. A major consequence of this holding is that the compulsory retirement of the Claimant by Exh. AA6 is wrongful and of no effect whatsoever and hence entitling the Claimant to reinstatement. In Shitta-Bey v. Federal Public Service Commission (1981) LPELR-3056 (SC) Idigbe JSC relying on Hodge v. Ultra Electric Limited (1943)i KB 462 at 466 & William Dixon Limited v. Patterson (1943) S.C 78 at 85 held (in a similar circumstance as this case ) that the appellant has the right of reinstatement to his former position before the dismissal. 27. The second issue for determination is whether the Claimant is entitled to reinstatement to his status as Assistant Director Grade level, 14 within the service of the 2nd Defendant, or in lieu of reinstatement he should be awarded his entitlements and damages. An order of reinstatement is usually one to follow where an employment with statutory flavor as in the present action is wrongfully terminated. See Kwara State Civil Service Commission v. Abiodun (2009)NWLR (Pt. 493 1315 & FMC, Ido-Ekiti v. Olajide (2011) All FWLR (Pt. 593) 1944. Claimant was wrongfully compulsorily retired in 2013. This is 2020. That is about 7 years ago. 28. The reliefs sought by the Claimant are in alternative. He sought reinstatement on the one hand. In the alternative Claimant sought an Order directing the 1st and 2nd Defendants to pay him his basic salary and allowances covering the period from the 6th of August 2013 when he was compulsorily retired by the 1st and 2nd Defendants to the 28th of February 2018 being the date he would ordinarily have retired for having attained the statutory retirement age of 60 as stipulated by the Oyo State Civil Service. It is apparent that with the Claimant having attained the statutory and compulsory retirement age of 60 years in 2018 an order for his reinstatement is completely out of it. But that certainly is not to say that the Court cannot examine and grant the alternative remedy sought. This Court has found that Claimant was wrongfully retired. A wrong has been found. Of a truth there must be a remedy. May the day never come when a Court will not be able to remedy a wrong committed. The wrongfulness in the compulsory retirement of the Claimant amounts to same not having taken place. Thus, Claimant is for all intents and purposes still in the employment of the Defendants till he attained age of retirement on the 28th of February 2018. Claimant gave the particulars of his claims as follows - Total Basic Salary from August 2013 to February 2018 =N=47, 124.07 x 55 Months = =N=2,591,823.85 (Two Million, Five Hundred and Ninety One Thousand, Eight Hundred and Twenty Three Naira, Eighty Five Kobo) Total Rent Allowance from August 2013- February 2018 =N=18,849.61 x 55 Months = =N=1,036,728.55 (One Million, Thirty Six Thousand, Seven Hundred and Twenty Eight Naira and Fifty Five Kobo) Total Transport Allowance from August 2013- February 2018 =N=7, 539.84 x 55 Months = =N=414,691.2 (Four Hundred and Fourteen Thousand, Six Hundred and Ninety One Naira and Two Kobo) Meal subsidy from August 2013 to February 2018 =N=1,595.64 x 55 Months =N=87,760.2 (Eighty Seven Thousand, Seven Hundred and Sixty Naira and Two Kobo) Utility allowance from August 2013 to February 2018 =N=4,712.38 x 55 Months = =N=259, 180.9 (Two Hundred and Fifty Nine Thousand Naira and Nine Kobo) 29. These figures as claimed were not in any way or manner contested by the Defendants. Not having been contested by the Defendants I hold that the Claimant is entitled to same as claimed. The Defendants are here ordered and directed to pay to the Claimant his salaries and allowances including rent, transport, meal subsidy and utility allowances from August 2013 to February 2018 as stated in his complaint. 30. Claimant also sought award of =N=500,000.00 as general damages against both the 1st and 2nd Defendants for breach of contract. According to Akeju JCA in EFCC v. Inuwa & Anor. (2014) LPELR-2359 (CA) general damages is the kind of damages which the law presumes to be the consequence of the act complained of and unlike special damages a claimant for general damages does not need to specifically plead and specially prove it by evidence, it is sufficient if the facts thereof are generally averred. This Court has already ordered the Defendants to pay to the Claimant all his arrears of salaries and allowances from the date of his wrongful compulsory retirement to 28/2/2018 being the date he attained the statutory retirement age of 60 years. That was to remedy the wrong committed against him by the Defendants. To further award general damages in any sum will amount to double compensation which of course the law frowns at. I thus refuse and dismiss the claim for the award of general damages. The Defendants are however ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of Two Hundred Naira as cost of this action. 31. Finally, for the avoidance of doubt and for all the reasons as contained in this Judgment, 1. I declare that the purported compulsory retirement of the Claimant’s employment by the 2nd Defendant acting on the instruction and authority of the 1st Defendant’s from the service of the 1st Defendant vide the 2nd Defendant’s letter of 6th August 2013, is wrongful, illegal and of no legal effect whatsoever. 2. I declare that the Claimant remained in the employment of the Defendants till 28/2/2018 when he attained 60 years being the statutory age of retirement from the service of the Defendants. 3. The Defendants are ordered to pay the Claimant his basic salary and allowances covering the period from the 6th of August 2013 when he was compulsorily retired by the 1st and 2nd Defendants to the 28th of February 2018 being the date he would ordinarily have retired for having attained the statutory retirement age of 60 as stipulated by the Oyo State Civil Service. 4. The Defendants are ordered to pay to the Claimant the followings - i. Total Basic Salary from August 2013 to February 2018 =N=47, 124.07 x 55 Months = =N=2,591,823.85 (Two Million, Five Hundred and Ninety One Thousand, Eight Hundred and Twenty Three Naira, Eighty Five Kobo) ii. Total Rent Allowance from August 2013- February 2018 =N=18,849.61 x 55 Months = =N=1,036,728.55 (One Million, Thirty Six Thousand, Seven Hundred and Twenty Eight Naira and Fifty Five Kobo) iii. Total Transport Allowance from August 2013- February 2018 =N=7, 539.84 x 55 Months = =N=414,691.2 (Four Hundred and Fourteen Thousand, Six Hundred and Ninety One Naira and Two Kobo) iv. Meal subsidy from August 2013 to February 2018 =N=1,595.64 x 55 Months =N=87,760.2 (Eighty Seven Thousand, Seven Hundred and Sixty Naira and Two Kobo) v. Utility allowance from August 2013 to February 2018 =N=4,712.38 x 55 Months = =N=259, 180.9 (Two Hundred and Fifty Nine Thousand Naira and Nine Kobo) 5. The Defendants are ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of Two Hundred Naira as cost of this action. 6. All the terms of this Judgment shall be complied with within 30 days from today after which the entire sum shall attract interest at the rate of 20% per annum. 32. Judgment is entered accordingly. __________________ Hon. Justice J. D. Peters Presiding Judge