Download PDF
REPRESENTATION Olabanjo Ayenakin, and with him are K. O. Imafidon and O. Ojo, for the claimant. Y. A. Alajo, and with him are O. O. Alifarin and Abiodun Bello, for the defendants. JUDGMENT The claimant commenced this action by a complaint against the defendant, which was filed on 17th November 2011. The claimant is claiming from the defendants, jointly and severally, for the following reliefs – (a) A declaration that the compulsory retirement of the plaintiff’s appointment under the defendants by the defendants and contained in a letter of compulsory retirement with reference number ELGSC 993/74 of 18th August 2011 is wrongful, illegal, unconstitutional, null, void and of no effect whatsoever. (b) A mandatory order on the defendants to re-instate the [claimant] to his employment with full entitlements from the date of termination of the appointment till judgment and thereafter. Accompanying the complaint are a 15-paragraphed statement of facts, the list of documents frontloaded (and copies of the documents) and the list of witnesses, all dated 15th November 2011. The defendants entered appearance by filing their memorandum of appearance dated 20th December 2011 but filed on 1st February 2012. The preliminary objection of the defendants dated 5th January 2012 but filed on 1st February 2012 was heard and dismissed by the Court on 5th March 2012 as part of that filed in Suit No. NIC/LA/157/2011. Thereafter the defendants joined issues by filing their 21-paragraphed statement of defence dated 2nd March 2012 but filed on 5th March 2012. Accompanying the statement of defence are the list of documents to be relied on at the trial dated 2nd March 2012 (and copies of the documents), and the list of four witnesses dated 2nd March 2012 (together with their sworn depositions, all dated 5th March 2012). The claimant then filed his sworn witness deposition dated and filed on 20th April 2012. The claimant’s reply to the statement of defence is dated 25th March 2012 but filed on 20th April 2012. This instant suit (NIC/LA/161/2011) is one of six similar suits – the others are NIC/LA/157/2011, NIC/LA/158/2011, NIC/LA/159/2011, NIC/LA/160/2011, and NIC/LA/162/2011. The defendants in all these six suits are one and the same. The claims of the respective claimants against the defendants in all six suits are same. The counsel for the defendants in all six suits is the same. The only difference is that in three of these suits (NIC/LA/157/2011, NIC/LA/158/2011 and NIC/LA/161/2011), the counsel for the respective claimants is Olabanjo Ayenakin Esq., while in the other three suits (NIC/LA/159/2011, NIC/LA/160/2011 and NIC/LA/162/2011), the counsel for the respective claimants is Dr. Akin Onigbinde. Now, sections 36 and 37 of the Trade Disputes Act 2004 and section 12 of the National Industrial Court (NIC) Act 2006 enjoins this Court to be flexible and less formal, while section 14 of the NIC Act enjoins this Court to do all such things as are necessary and will avoid multiplicity of suits. In this regard, all parties and their counsel agreed that all the directions and orders made in the instant case together with the final judgment shall abide the other five sister cases. This was, however, not to affect the enrolment of separate judgments for the six cases, depending, of course, on the outcome of the present case. In fact on this ground, Dr. Akin Onigbinde was able to cross-examine the defence witnesses in the instant suit. The case of the claimant is that he is a statutory employee with the defendants and so cannot just be compulsorily retired in the manner that he was without following the strict requirements of due process. The defence of the defendants is that in the reorganization of the State Civil Service, which extended to the Local Government Service Commission, the claimant and others needed to leave the Service having failed an examination that was designed to test the continued competence and relevance of the claimant in the service of the Local Government Service Commission. To the defendants, therefore, they had the right to act as they did given the terms and conditions of the letter of employment of the claimant, clauses 02508, 05308, 05532(2) and 12204 of the Local Government Staff Rules, Revised Edition 2010. These and other submissions of the parties were considered in much detail in Suit No. NIC/LA/157/2011. Given the agreement of the parties to have the decision therein bind this case, and for all the reasons given, therefore, in Suit No. NIC/LA/157/2011, I find for the claimant, and so declare and hold as follows – (a) The compulsory retirement of the plaintiff’s appointment by the defendants is wrongful, illegal, unconstitutional, null, void and of no effect whatsoever. (b) The defendants shall forthwith re-instate the claimant to his employment with full entitlements from the date of termination of the appointment till judgment and thereafter till he reaches the age of retirement. (c) The three months’ salary paid to the claimant in lieu of notice shall be deducted from his monthly salary in an amount not exceeding one-third of his salary for any one month until fully recovered. (d) Cost is put at Fifty Thousand Naira (N50,000) only payable by the defendants to the claimant. Judgment is entered accordingly. …………………………………… Hon. Justice B. B. Kanyip