Download PDF
By his Complaint dated 17th November, 2011 and filed on the same date the claimant seek the following reliefs: 1. A declaration that the respondent (Delta State University, Abraka) having accepted the transfer of service of the claimant from the Niger Delta Basin and Rural Development Authority in 1997 and have the claimant’s services merged is statutorily bound to compute and pay the claimant’s full benefits (and not in part) for the 35 years the respondent has recognized as the years of service of the claimant. 2. A declaration that it is the duty of the respondent and not that of the claimant to request for payment or reimbursement of the claimant’s accrued benefits/transfer value from the Niger Delta Basin and Rural Development Authority. 3. An order of the court directing the respondent to pay the claimant all his pension benefits based on the 35 years of service and not in part since the respondent have accepted the transfer and merged the claimant’s services to give him 35 years. 4. An order of the court restraining the respondent from retiring the claimant until the determination of this case. 5. Alternative Reliefs: An order of the court directing the respondent to treat the appointment of the claimant as a new appointment and allow the claimant to continue his services until he has completed 35 years of service or attain the age of 60 years if the respondent is not ready to pay the claimant for the 35 years as merged. 6. Other ancillary reliefs as this court may deem fit to make in the circumstances of the case. Filed along with the Complaint are Statement of Claim, List of Witnesses, Sworn Written Statement of Claimant and List of Document to be relied upon. In reaction the respondent filed a memorandum of appearance dated 30th January, 2012, Statement of Defence, Defendant's Witness Statement on Oath and List of Document dated 20th March, 2012. The claimant filed a reply to the Defendant’s Statement of Defence dated and filed on 26th April, 2012. The claimant’s case is that he was employed by the respondent as a Principal Technologist from June, 1994 which appointment was formalized by a letter dated 20th February, 1997. That he was posted to the Department of Vocational Education of the respondent where he still works. The claimant pleaded that prior to his appointment he was working for the Niger Delta Basin and Rural Development Authority, Port Harcourt as P.T.O (Agric Mech) a permanent and pensionable employment of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. That as soon as he was employed by the respondent he applied through the respondent to the Niger Delta Basin and Rural Development Authority for his services to be transferred and merged by the respondent and which application was approved as shown in the transfer letter of 23rd June, 1997. That the respondent accepted the letter of transfer of service beginning from his first date of appointment which was 5th December, 1976 to the very date his service was transferred to the respondent. That his total years of service that were transferred to the respondent was seventeen and half years. That after the letter of transfer of service he worked with the respondent for seventeen and half years. He pleaded that in April, 2011 he got a notice of retirement from the respondent informing him that he will be due to retire from the respondent with effect from 5th December, 2011 by which date he would have served the respondent for thirty five years. That upon receipt of the said letter, he went to the Pension Section of the respondent university and found that the respondent used the seventeen and half years he worked with the Federal Parastatals including the Niger Delta Basin and Rural Development Authority to compute the 35 years of service for which they now notify him of his retirement from the respondent’s service but refused to pay him in full for the 35 years he served the respondent while asking him to go to the Niger Delta Basin and Rural Development Authority to collect his pension for the seventeen and half years he served the Federal Parastatals including the Niger Delta Basin and Rural Development Authority. That based on the information he got from Pension Section of the respondent he informed the National Association of Academic Technologists, Delta State University Branch which wrote a letter to the respondent protesting against the behavior of the respondent towards his employee whose services are transferred from another body and merged with their services with the respondent. That the respondent failed to reply to the letter dated 13th June, 2011. That after waiting in vain for months for the respondent’s reply, he personally wrote another letter to the respondent on 5th September, 2011 which the respondent also failed to reply. He pleaded that when the respondent failed to reply to his letter, he contacted his Solicitor S. Ekidiare & Co. to write another letter to the respondent but the respondent did not reply to the said letter. That his employment is covered by statute and it is the duty of the respondent to pay him all his benefits for the 35 years and then demand for reimbursement from the Niger Delta Basin and Rural Development Authority if the respondent has not done so as required at the time of transfer and merger of his services. That the basis for attaining the 35 years in service for which respondent notified him of his retirement is the transfer of the seventeen and half years he completed with the Federal Parastatals, and having accepted his transfer in accordance with Rule 9 of Chapter Ten of the Delta State University Regulations for Senior Staff, the respondent is under a statutory duty to request for payment from the Niger Delta Basin and Rural Development Authority for transfer value benefit for the seventeen and half years he served. That by Rule 9 of Chapter 10 of the Delta State University Regulations for Senior Staff, it is wrong for the respondent to ask him to go back to his former employer and request for his transfer value benefit after he has accepted the transfer and merged his service to give him 35 years of service. He also pleaded that the respondent cannot accept his transfer in part. That if the respondent is not willing to pay him in full it should treat his employment as a new employment and allow him to work for another seventeen and half years or until he attains the retirement age of 60 years. That by rule 020501 of the Public Service Rule, 2006, transfer is a permanent release of an officer from one schedule service to another which the respondent accepted. He therefore reiterated his reliefs as per his Complaint. The respondent’s defence while admitting paragraphs 1 to 14 and 18 of the Statement of Claim stated that the claimant is no longer a staff of the respondent. The respondent pleaded that the claimant has been retired since 5th day of December, 2011 before it was served with the processes of this court on 14th day of January, 2012. That it is not true that it failed or neglected to reply to the claimant’s letter dated 13th June, 2011. That its acceptance of claimant’s transfer of service was predicated on the University’s Staff Regulations applicable to his grade as may be amended from time to time, as well as his formalization of appointment. The respondent denied paragraphs 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 of the Statement of Claim. The respondent pleaded that it replied all the letters written by claimant reiterating the position of the enabling statute as it affected the claimant’s retirement. In denying paragraphs 19 to 24 of the Statement of Claim, the respondent states that by claimant’s respective letters of appointment agreed with the respondent to be entitled to pension benefits as may be approved from time to time by the University Council and which said agreement he signed on the 30th day of April, 1997. In answer to paragraphs 19 to 24 of Statement of Claim the respondent states by a circular letter from the Ministry of Higher Education, Asaba, Delta State to which the respondent is answerable and dated the 12th November, 2010 payment of pension was now predicated on the subsisting Pension Act to wit: “all those who transferred their services to Delta State University should have their appropriate pensions and gratuities for the period they served their former employers paid by those employers in line with the subsisting Pension Act.†That the claimant is aware of the said law which has affected other staff and as acknowledged by the claimant via his Solicitor’s letter dated 14th October, 2011. That the respondent is ready, willing and capable of paying the claimant his pension entitlement to the extent permissible by law. That in specific answers to paragraphs 24, (1), (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) of the Statement of Claim states that the claimant is not entitled to the reliefs claimed. In his reply to the respondent’s Statement of Defence dated 26th April, 2012 the claimant pleaded that he resumed duty on 15th December, 1976 and not 5th December, 1976 and that it is not true that he retired since 5th December, 2011. That the 2nd letter dated 7th December, 2011 written by the respondent cancelling the earlier letter was equally a nullity as it fails to take into consideration the 7 days break in his service to reach 35 years in service as required by law. That the respondent was served with the processes filed in this suit long before the court’s first sitting on 16th December, 2011 and it is not true that the respondent was served on 14th January, 2012. He pleaded that he never at any time accepted the Notice of Retirement served on him by the respondent because of the circumstances threatening his gratuity and pension but wrote to the respondent demanding clarifications on the fate of his gratuity and pension before he will accept his retirement. That the respondent did not reply to his letter. That the respondent is aware of the Motion on Notice for injunction and the court order of 8/2/12. That he was transferred to the respondent in 1997 based on the University Senior Staff Regulation in force as at 1997 and not the Ministry of Education’s circular of 12th December, 2010 which was only a recommendation and not law. That the circular applies to the respondent’s Secondary School Teachers of which he is not one. That he is a Technologist (a Senior Staff) in the Department of Vocational Education, Delta State University and the circular letter from Ministry of Higher Education dated 12th November, 2010 is neither a law nor an act of the Federal Government. He pleaded that the respondent cannot interprete the said circular letter retrospectively as his transfer was governed by Rules and Regulations that were in force as at the time his services were transferred to the respondent’s University’s Senior Staff Regulations in force at the time of his appointment and the Pension Act, the amendment contemplated in the University’s Senior Staff Regulations were not to apply retrospectively. That the circular letter did not amend Section 9 of Chapter 10 of the respondent Senior Staff Regulation. That his pension benefits is governed by the Pension Act, Delta State University’s Senior Staff Regulation (HATISS 6 – 15) and the Civil Service Rules. That Clause (IV) of his letter formalizing his appointment did not say that respondent is accepting his transfer in part. He also pleaded that the respondent has just set up an Ad-hoc Committee to review a Committee Report on the review of University’s Senior Staff Regulations of 1998 which is subject to adoption by the Appointment and Promotion Committee and approved by the University Council. That the respondent is fully aware of the facts that his retirement is governed by the Old Non-Contributory Pension Scheme with his gratuity and pension of 35 years based on percentages of final pay and not final emolument applicable in the Contributory Pension Scheme not yet implemented in Delta State University. Parties agreed to file Written Addresses to argue their case. Consequently, parties were ordered to file their respective Final Written Addresses and Reply on Points of Law, if any. The claimant filed his Final Written Address dated 22nd May, 2012 and filed on 24th May, 2012. Instead of filing its Final Written Address as directed by the court, the respondent filed a motion seeking leave of court to amend its Statement of Defence and other processes dated 23rd July, 2012 but the respondent was not in court on 31st July, 2012 to move the motion. Consequently, the said motion was struck out. On the 12th December, 2012 when this matter came up for adoption of Written Address, the claimant adopted his Final Written Address dated 22/5/2012 as well as a reply on Points of Law dated 3rd November, 2012 and filed on same date. The respondent adopted its Final Written Address dated 22nd October, 2012 but filed on 23rd October, 2012. Counsel to the respondent prayed the court to strike out paragraph (4) of page two (2) of his brief of argument. Claimant’s Counsel formulated four issues for determination as follows: 1. Whether the claimant’s transfer to Delta State University in 1997 was governed by and Law/Rules of the University. 2. Whether Chapter 10 Section 9 of the Delta State University Abraka, Senior Staff Regulations is binding on the respondent to ask for the transfer value of the claimant from his former employer. 3. Whether the circular letter of Ministry of High Education Delta State Ref. No. MHE/DELSU/USUA Vol.1/T190 alter or change the provision of Section 9 of Chapter 10 of the Senior Staff Regulations of Delta State University Abraka. 4. Whether the claimant is entitled to his reliefs. Arguing issues one and two, claimant’s counsel submitted that the transfer of the claimant’s service is governed by the Delta State University Abraka Senior Staff Regulations (HATISS 6-15) as embodied at pages 30 – 66 of the claimant’s reply to the respondent’s Statement of Defence. He cited Section 9 Chapter 10 of the Senior Staff Rule of the respondent. He submitted that the provision of the Senior Staff Regulation referred to put the responsibility of asking for the transfer value from the previous employer on the respondent and not on the claimant. That transfer value by implication is to be paid to the respondent who will at the end of the claimant’s service calculate his retirement benefits and pay same in full to the claimant. Learned Counsel also submitted that the respondent’s Senior Staff Regulation referred to above is a contractual document between the respondent and the claimant and same is binding on the respondent to pay the claimant in full for all his retirement benefits. He submitted that the Delta State University Senior Staff Regulation forms part of the claimant’s terms and conditions of service with the respondent which defines the role of the respondent in all matters of transfer of services accepted by the respondent. He cited the case of National Union of Hotels and Personal Services Workers v. Barkadazuwa International Hotel, Kano [1978 – 2006] DJNIC page 339 ratio, Management of Bright Star Industries Ltd v. Precision, Electrical and Related Equipment Workers Union [1978 – 2006] DJNIC page 334 at page 335 ratio 1. Learned Counsel submitted that the terms and conditions of service set out in the respondent’s Senior Staff’s Regulation in Section 9 of Chapter 10 formed the basis of contract of employment between the respondent and the claimant in matters of transfer of service to the respondent. That it will be unfair at this stage for the respondent to withdraw from the initial agreement between him and the claimant when he was transferring his services to the respondent’s University in 1997. He submitted that Chapter 1 Section 1 of the Senior Staff’s Regulation makes the provisions of the rule a procedure and condition of service for all the Senior Staff of the respondent and same is applicable to the claimant. On issue three, Learned Counsel referred to paragraph 5 of the Statement of Defence where a circular letter Ref. No. MHE/DELSU/USUA/Vol. 1/T190 from Ministry of High Education, Asaba, Delta State dated 12th November, 2010 which states that payment of pension was now predicated on the subsisting Pension Act. He submitted that the circular is not a Pension Act or law under the Delta State Government. That the respondent is yet to make it a condition of service for its employees in matter of transfer of service to the respondent. That the circular from the Ministry of Higher Education, Delta State cannot be interpreted retrospectively to bind the claimant’s transfer of service which has been completed in 1997. He submitted that it is trite law that condition of service cannot be reviewed downward to oppress an employee but can be reviewed upward to favour an employee. Counsel define transfer value by referring to Chapter 1 paragraph 29 of the respondent’s Senior Staff Regulation and submitted that by the definition, it is clear that the respondent has the responsibility of making all necessary arrangement to collect the transfer value of the claimant from his previous employer and if she fails to do so she cannot now shift the burden on the claimant. Referring to Chapter 10 Section 9 Counsel submitted that the respondent is estopped from abdicating from its duty to the claimant. He submitted further that the respondent cannot use the years the claimant served his previous employer to retire him while at the same time refusing to pay him for those years. He urged this court to disregard the said circular and hold that the provisions of the respondent’s Senior Staff Regulations as it affects the transfer of the claimant is the appropriate law binding on the respondent. Arguing issue four, Learned Counsel submitted that the provisions of Delta State University Senior Staff Regulations, Procedure and Conditions of Service for Senior Staff if very clear, unambiguous and needs nothing to be added or subtracted from it. He cited the case of NNPC v. Lutin Investment Ltd & Anor [2006] All FWLR (pt. 301) p. 1760 at 1768. He submitted that the combined effect of Section 9, Chapter 10 and Section 29 of Chapter 1 of the respondent Senior Staff Regulation Procedure and condition of service put the responsibility of demanding for the transfer value of the claimant’s transfer years from his previous employer on the respondent and not on the claimant. He submitted that the claimant is entitled to all his reliefs since Chapter 10, Section 9 of the respondent Senior Staff Regulation Procedure and conditions of service for senior staff have not been abrogated or abolished. Learned Counsel argued alternatively that assuming but not conceding that the circular letter from the Ministry of Higher Education Delta State have taken over the place of Section 9, Chapter 10 of the respondent Senior Staff Regulation, Procedure and conditions of service that the respondent be ordered to reject the transfer and treat the claimant’s employment as a new employment and allow him to serve the respondent until he has completed 35 years of service or attained the age of 60 years. The respondent formulated three issues for determination as follows: 1. What law governs the employment and the retirement and payment of retirement benefits to the claimant. 2. Whether it is the duty of the respondent to approach the claimant’s erstwhile employer for the computation of the claimant’s retirement benefits, for the 17½ years that claimant spent, before transferring his services to the respondent. 3. Whether this case is not statute barred. On issue one, Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the claimant’s employment is governed by the contract of employment as contained in his letter of appointment headed, “Formalization of Appointment†dated the 20th February, 1997 and it is this letter that makes the employment of the claimant pensionable. He submitted that the court cannot make a contract for the parties citing the case of Nuhu vs. Fufore Local Government Council [2004] F.W.L.R (pt. 193) pg. 277, A.P Ltd v. Owodunni [1991] 6 LRCN 1944 p. 1947. Counsel also cited Section 40 (1) of the Delta State University Edit, 1998 which provided that “subject to this law and the Regulations, appointment for the filling of vacancies in the Administrative, Professional and Technical Staff of the University shall be the responsibility of the Council or where the Council so delegate the Vice-Chancellor or Registrarâ€. He submitted that the claimant having accepted that his pension benefits can be determined/approved “from time to time†he cannot be heard to be complaining now that the “fowl†has come home to “roostâ€. He submitted that there is no law backing the claimant’s claim before this court neither is there any document to back up his claim. He urged the court to hold that the only document governing the claimant’s Pension is the said letter of “Formalization of Appointment.†On issue two, Learned Counsel noted that the respondent’s Regulations came into being in 1998 after claimant had been employed in 1997 and there is no place where the said regulation was made retrospective. He submitted that much as the cases of National Union of Hotels & Personal Services Workers (Supra) and Management of Bright Star Industries Ltd (Supra) cited by the claimant’s counsel are good laws, they are unfortunately not applicable to this case. That assuming but not conceding that the court holds otherwise, the said Delta State University Regulation does not help the claimant in the pursuit of his case. He submitted that there is nothing to show before this court that any amount was paid by the claimant’s employer to the respondent at the time the claimant transferred his service on the 15th June, 1994. He submitted that the duty to transfer claimant’s value does not lie on the respondent, that it is incumbent on the claimant who transferred his services to do so at the time of transferring his service. He referred the court to the claimant’s former employer’s reply letter in respect of claimant’s “Application for Transfer of Service†dated 23rd June, 1997 to buttress the point that it was the claimant that applied personally to have his services transferred. He submitted that under “Reasonable man’s doctrineâ€, the claimant did not act timeously, rather he went home to sleep believing that at the end of the day he can approach this court. He cited the case of Oseyomon v. Ojo [1997] 52 LRCN, 2068 at p. 2072 ratios 19 & 20. Learned Counsel submitted that it behooves the claimant to approach the erstwhile employer to calculate and send figure to the respondent since the respondent has failed to do so. Learned Counsel also referred the court to Chapter 2 Rule 1 (1) (d) and (5) (i) of the respondent’s Regulation on appointments on procedure for full-time appointment by transfer or secondment and submitted that the condition for transfer of service is not sacrosanct as it is made subject to approval of the Council. He also cited Section 11 (1) (b) of the Interpretation Act, LFN, 2004 to wit “where an enactment confers a power to appoint a person either to an office or exercise any function, whether for a specific period or not, the power includes power to remove or suspend him.†He submitted that the much talked about Chapter 10 Rule 9 of the said Regulation does not help the claimant. Counsel submitted that the claimant failed to approach the Council of the respondent for a proper meaning of Chapter 10 Rule 9 of the said regulation. He also submitted that a Government White Paper which has been considered and approved by the Executive Arm of Government at its Exco Meeting of 30th September, 2010 cannot be referred to as a recommendation but it has the force of law. Counsel submitted that the respondent is not an Agency of the Federal Government and therefore not bound by the provisions of Rule 020501 of the Public Service Rule, 2006. Respondent’s Counsel drew the attention of the court to document number 12 attached to the claimant’s reply to Statement of Defence which is a letter setting up an ad-hoc Committee to review the present Senior Staff Regulation and stated that clause (iii) to wit: “Any other matter incidental to the above†cannot be interpreted to include the relief claimed by the claimant in this case. He submitted that the “ejusdem generis rule helps to confine the construction of general words within the genus of special words which they follow in a statutory provision or in a document. That where there are general words following particular and specific words, the general words must be confined to things of the same kind as those specified. He cited the case of FRN & AG v. Ifegwu [2003] 112 LRCN p. 2233 at p. 2245 ratio 18, Fawehinmi v. Inspector General of Police [2002] 98 LRCN 1165 at p. 1171 ratio 9, AG Bendel v. Aideyan [2003] F.W.L.R (pt. 87) p. 886 at p. 896 ratio 17. He submitted that there is no place in the above documents and regulations where a duty is placed on the respondent to be the one who should apply for the Transfer Value of the claimant’s benefits from his erstwhile employer. On Section 5 Rule 02051 of the Federal Government Public Service Rules Learned Counsel submitted that it does not apply as it applies to transfer of officer from one scheduled of service to another within the same service. On issue three, Learned Counsel submitted that this court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain this case because it is statute barred under Section 2 of the Public Officers Protection Law, Laws of Delta State, 2008 for not coming to court “within three months next after the act, neglect or default complained ofâ€. He submitted that the claimant got his notice of retirement in April, 2011 but delayed till the 17th November, 2011 before filing this case. He cited the case of Gyang v. National Steel Council [2003] F.W.L.R (pt. 147) p. 1172 at 1174. For the meaning of Public Officer, Counsel referred the court to the case of F.G.N v. Zebra Energy Ltd [2003] F.W.L.R (pt. 142) p. 154 at p. 163 ratio 18. He finally urged the court to dismiss the claimant’s suit. In his reply on points of law, Learned Counsel for the claimant submitted that the claimant’s employment is governed by the terms and conditions as contained in his contract of employment which are offer of temporary appointment dated 16th May, 1994 and letter headed “Formalization of Appointment and any other documents referred to in the letter of appointment, and that both documents made mention of the respondent’s Staff Regulations. That inclusion of Senior Staff Regulation HATTISS 6 – 15 of 20th July, 1998 in the claimant’s letter of appointment made its provisions part and parcel of the claimant’s conditions of service and binding on the respondent citing Management of Bright Star Industries Ltd v. Precision Electrical and Related Equipment Workers Union [1978 – 2006] DJNIC p. 335 ratio 1. He submitted that transfer value is defined in Chapter 1 Rule 4 (XXIX) of the respondent’s Senior Staff Regulations and Procedure and Conditions of Service 1998, therefore, it is the responsibility of the respondent to demand and accept the transfer value from the claimant’s previous employer. He also cited National Union of Hotel and Personal Services Workers and Barkadazuwa International Hotel Kano (Supra) at p. 339. Learned Counsel further submitted that the respondent’s Senior Staff Regulation HATISS 6 – 15 of 20th July, 1998 have not been amended and same is still in force. That Section 40 (1) of the Delta State University Edict, 1998 is not part of the claimant’s conditions of service or contract of employment. On the issue of statute barred, Learned Counsel submitted that the claimant’s action is not statute barred and that the respondent’s letter of retirement dated 30th September, 2011 was cancelled by the respondent’s letter of 7th December, 2011. He submitted that by 15/12/2011 the claimant would not have completed 35 years of service because of 7 days break in his service which nullifies the respondent’s second letter but before then the claimant had already gone to court for redress. That the argument on statute barred was not pleaded in the Statement of Defence and same go to no issue citing the case of SPDC v. Ambah [1999] 66 LRCN p. 390 at 393 ratio 6. He finally urged the court to reject the submission of the respondent’s counsel and enter judgment in favour of the claimant. I have carefully considered the processes filed in this case, the submissions of counsel and authorities cited. The claimant herein was originally employed by the Niger Delta Basin and Rural Development Authority, Port Harcourt on 15th December, 1976. The claimant was subsequently given temporary employment by the respondent as a Principal Technologist via its letter dated 16th May, 1994 and the employment was formalized by the respondent in a letter dated 20th February, 1997. By its letter of 23rd June, 1997 the claimant’s service was transferred to the respondent by the Niger Delta Basin and Rural Development Authority. The claimant’s record of service from his previous employer was equally transferred to the respondent. By its letter of 30th September, 2011 the respondent informed the claimant of his retirement effective on 6th December, 2011 which effective date was later changed to 16th December, 2011. The gruise of the claimant is that the respondent used the 17½ years he worked with the Niger Delta Basin and Rural Development Authority to compute the 35 years of his service but refused to pay him retirement benefits for 17½ years he spent with his previous employer. To this end, the claimant argued that under the Delta State University Senior Staff Regulations (HATISS 6 – 15) it is the duty of the respondent to ask for the transfer value of his accrued benefits from his previous employer. On the other hand, the respondent argued that the responsibility to ask for the value of the claimant’s benefits lie with the claimant citing Ministry of Higher Education Circular dated 12th November, 2010. That there is no law or regulation which makes the respondent duty bound to recover claimant’s pension and benefits from his previous employer. It is important to reproduce Chapter 9 (10) of the respondent’s Senior Staff regulation which provides as follows: “If a staff member transfers to the University from another public service, the public service from which he transfers shall pay his accrued benefits as at the date of transfer to the University in accordance with a table of transfer value for the time being in force in respect of the public services of the federation or as may be agreed with the previous employer.†From the above provision of the respondent’s Senior Staff Regulation relied upon by the claimant, there is no where the liability to recover the accrued benefits of the claimant’s previous employment was placed on the respondent. The claimant did not also establish before this court that his accrued benefits from his previous employer has been paid to the respondent. In the entirety of the claimant’s argument, he did not furnish this court with any law, regulation or judicial authority that places the responsibility of calling for the transfer value of the claimant’s benefits from his previous employment on the respondent. The two authorities cited by the claimant to argue his case – National Union of Hotels and Personal Services Workers v. Barkadazuwa International Hotel, Kano [1978 – 2006] DJNIC p. 339 and Management of Bright Star Industries Ltd v. Precisions, Electrical and Related Equipment Workers Union [1978 – 2006] DJNIC p. 334 deals with bindingness of terms and conditions of service on parties thereto but are not authorities to support the claimant’s contention that the respondent has the responsibility to recover the claimant’s transfer value of his benefits from his previous employer. It is obvious from the facts of this case that the respondent is a State University created under State Law while the claimant’s previous employer – Niger Delta Basin and Rural Development Authority is a parastatal of the federal government and the two entities have different pension and gratuity regimes in accordance with the laws establishing them as well as any regulation or condition of service applicable to their employees. It is in evidence that the claimant applied to his previous employer for his services to be transferred to the respondent. It therefore behooves the claimant to apply and follow up on his pension and gratuity from his previous employer. That has been the procedure in Public Service especially in present day Nigeria. However, to ensure that he does not fail in his quest to recover his gratuity and pension benefits from his previous employer the claimant ought to have joined his previous employer that is the Niger Delta Basin and Rural Development as respondent in this suit and probably seek an order of court directing it to compute/calculate his said benefits accruable. Therefore the failure to join the claimant’s previous employer is fatal to his case as the pension liability of the respondent in this case cannot be stretched to his previous employer. I therefore find and hold that the respondent is not liable to pay the pension benefits of the claimant for his previous employer since there is no evidence such monies has been received by the respondent. The respondent argued also that this matter is statute barred on the ground that it was filed against a Public Officer outside three months after the cause of action contrary to Section 2 of Public Officers Protection Law of Delta State, 2008. That the claimant received his notice of retirement in April, 2011 but filed this action on 17th November, 2011. On the other hand, the claimant argued that the respondent’s letter of notice of retirement dated 30th September, 2011 was cancelled by the respondent’s letter dated 7th December, 2011. A look at the claimant’s case shows that the reliefs sought from this court include payment of his pension and accrued benefits. The claimant claim falls squarely within the purview of Section 254C (1) (k) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Third Alteration) Act, 2010. I do not therefore, agree with the submission of the respondent’s counsel that this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this matter. As to whether this case is statute barred, this court has held in previous cases that limitation laws have no application to labour rights especially as regards right to salaries, pensions and other entitlements of an office have been held not to be time-barred. See Faniyi & Anor v. A.G Federation & Ors (unreported) Suit No. NIC/28/2008 the ruling delivered on 11th March, 2009, Capt. Oghide & Ors v. Shona Jason Nig. Ltd [2009] 16 N.L.L.R (pt. 43) p. 73, John Ovoh v. Westminster Dredging [2009] 14 N.L.L.R (pt. 37) p. 68 at p. 96. The arguments of the respondent on these grounds is hereby discountenanced. For all the reasons given above, I find that the claimant’s case is frivolous and misconceived and lacking in merit. It is hereby dismissed in its entirety. Cost of N40,000 is awarded in favour of the respondent. Judgment is entered accordingly. …………………………………… Hon. Justice J. T. Agbadu Fishim Judge