Download PDF
JUDGMENT The claimant had taken up a complaint dated and filed on 9th May 2011 against the defendants. By an amended statement of facts, the claimant is claiming against the defendants – 1. The sum of N5,698,729.13 (Five Million, Six Hundred and Ninety-Eight Thousand, Seven Hundred and Twenty-Nine Naira and Thirteen kobo) only being arrears of his monthly salaries, severance package, leave transport grant and other allowances due and payable to the claimant from February 2010 to December 2010 which the defendants have failed, refused and/or neglected to pay to the claimant in spite of several oral and written demands. 2. 10% interest on the sum of N5,698,729.13 (Five Million, Six Hundred and Ninety-Eight Thousand, Seven Hundred and Twenty-Nine Naira and Thirteen kobo) only from February 2010 to February 2011 and thereafter 10% interest on the judgment sum from the date of judgment until the total judgment sum is fully and totally liquidated. 3. Cost of the suit. The particulars of the salary, severance allowance and leave transport grant allowance are – a) Monthly salary arrears from February 2010 to December 2010 at N518,006.27 per month = N3,189,899.13. b) Severance package as Secretary to the Local Government = N2,427,900.00. c) Leave Transport Grant for the year 2010 = N80,930.00. Total sum due and payable to the claimant = N5,698,729.13. Accompanying the complaint are the amended statement of facts, the list of witnesses to be called, list of documents to be relied upon together with copies of the said documents marked Exhibits A – E. Also filed by the claimant is his witness statement on oath dated and filed on 31st August 2012. In reaction, the defendants entered their respective memorandum of appearance. The 2nd defendant’s is dated 13th December 2011 but filed on 15th December 2011, while that of the 1st defendant is dated 2nd March 2012. Each defendant also filed its statement of defence, list of witnesses to be called, and list of documents to be relied upon at the trial together with copies of the said documents. At the trial, the claimant testified on his own behalf as CW. Mr. Fatai Umoru, a legal officer attached to Akoko-Edo Local Government of Edo State, testified for the 1st defendant; while Rev. Patrick Esamah, a public servant and Secretary of Edo State Local Government Service Commission testified for the 2nd defendant. At the close of trial, parties were asked to file and serve their respective written addresses as per Order 19 Rule 13 of the National Industrial Court (NIC) Rules 2007 starting with the defendants. This they did. This case is a sister case to that of Chief J. A. Emasealu v. Akoko-Edo Local Government, Edo State & anor unreported Suit No. NIC/LA/31/2011 and bears relationship with it. The case of the claimant is that he was appointed Secretary of Akoko-Edo Local government Council of Edo State by the then Chairman of the Local Government, Chief J. A. Emasealu vide a letter dated 4th January 2008; and because his appointment was at the pleasure of the Chairman, it was to terminate at the end of the tenure of the Chairman, which is 17th December 2010. Now, Chief J. A. Emasealu was suspended but his suspension was declared null and void by the High Court of Edo State in Chief Emasealu v. Comrade Adams Oshiomole & 9 ors Suit No. HIG/4/2010. To the claimant then, because the suspension of the Chairman was declared null and void and his appointment is tied to that of the Chairman, his tenure ought to terminate on 17th December 2010, hence his claim for salary and allowances for the period February 2010 to 17th December 2010. To prove that his appointment by the Chairman was valid in the first place, he referred to section 68(1) of the Edo State Local Government law 2000 (as amended), which provides that the Secretary shall be appointed by the Chairman for the duration of the Chairman’s tenure and he shall be deemed to have left office at the expiration of the tenure of the Chairman who appointed him provided that the Chairman may terminate the appointment of the Secretary at any time for inefficiency, misconduct, dishonesty, inability to discharge the functions of his office whether arising from infirmity of mind or body or any other cause. There is no evidence before the Court that the Chairman who appointed the claimant terminated the claimant’s appointment at any time before 17th December 2010 when his own term as an elected Chairman was due to come to an end. The balance of the arguments of the claimant are a rehearse of the arguments advanced in Chief Emasealu v. Comrade Adams Oshiomole & 9 ors Suit No. HIG/4/2010; and so there will be no need repeating them here. The case of the 1st defendant is that upon the suspension of the then Chairman, Chief J. A. Emasealu, the claimant deserted office and abandoned his official responsibilities in sympathy with the suspended Chairman. That he failed to convene the Exco meeting of 1st December on the 18th day of February 2010 even though he was supposed to act as Secretary of the Exco. Upon this disloyalty and insubordination, the Acting Chairman who at this time had been duly sworn in concert with his Exco summarily sacked/terminated the appointment of the claimant. In consequence that the claimant is not entitled to or qualified for any severance benefit because he did not disengage honourably from the service of the 1st defendant and neither is he entitled to arrears of salary. The case of the 2nd defendant is that the claimant is not a political appointee and so not a public servant of a State or staff of the Local Government within the contemplation of section 318(1)(d) of the 1999 Constitution. That the 2nd defendant is not responsible for political appointees, only civil servants of which the claimant is not. That there is no evidence that the claimant was appointed or employed by the 2nd defendant. And if the claimant is not an appointee of the 2nd defendant, then the 2nd defendant has no business paying his salary and allowances. I heard learned counsel and considered all the processes in the matter. In Chief Emasealu v. Akoko-Edo Local Government, Edo State & anor Suit No. NIC/LA/31/2011, I held as valid the claim for salary and allowances of the claimant in that case given the declaration of the suspension of Chief J. A. Emasealu as null and void by a Court of competent jurisdiction. I relied on College of Education, Ekiadolor v. Osayande [2010] 6 NWLR (Pt. 1191) 423 and Shena Security Co. Ltd v. Afropak (Nig.) Ltd [2008] 18 NWLR (Pt. 1118) 77 as authority for the right of the claimant to be paid his full salary that he would have earned for the unexpired period of his tenure i.e. for the period February 2010 to 17th December 2010. The issue that presently arises is whether the claimant in the instant case has accordingly made out his case. Exhibit A is the letter dated 4th January 2008 appointing the claimant as Secretary to Akoko-Edo Local Government with effect from 4th January 2008. The appointment was made in line with section 68(1) of the Local Government Law 2000. It goes on to state that the appointment is at the pleasure of the Chairman and terminates at the end of the tenure of the Chairman in office. However, that the appointment may be terminated at any time if the claimant is found to be inefficient in the performance of his duty or found wanting in any other respect. What is the import of Exhibit A? A global reading of Exhibit A indicates that the term of office of the claimant is tied to the tenure of the Chairman who appointed him. I indicated earlier that there is no evidence before the Court that the Chairman who appointed him terminated his appointment before the expiration of the tenure of the Chairman. By tying the term of appointment of the claimant to that of the Chairman who appointed him, the term of appointment of the claimant thereby became one of a fixed term within the contemplation of College of Education, Ekiadolor v. Osayande and Shena Security Co. Ltd v. Afropak (Nig.) Ltd. This being the case, since paragraph 2 of Exhibit A (which states that the “appointment…terminates at the end of the tenure of the Chairman in office”) tied the claimant’s appointment to that of Chief J. A. Emasealu, the Chairman who appointed him, the suspension of Chief Emasealu as Chairman of the Local Government also meant the suspension of the claimant as Secretary to the Local Government. The summary sack/termination which the 1st defendant said was meted out on the claimant by the Acting Chairman could not have been of any effect. It is, therefore, my finding and holding that the claimant has made out a case for the payment to him of his salary, severance allowance and leave transport grant for the period February 2010 to 17th December 2010 given the provisions of the Political and Public officers Emolument Law 2007 of Edo State. But what exactly is he entitled to? Given the particulars of his claim, his monthly salary is put at N518,006.27. The claimant could only have worked to 17th December 2010. This means that his salary for the 17 days of December at N16,709.88 per day is N284,067.95, which if added to N5,180,062.70 for ten months comes to N5,464,130.65 for the period February 2010 to 17th December 2010, and not the N5,698,729.13 that he claims. I accordingly find and hold that the claimant is entitled to be paid by the defendants the sum of N5,464,130.65 being the full salary he would have earned for the unexpired period (i.e. the period February 2010 to 17th December 2010) of his term as Secretary to Akoko-Edo Local Government Council. The claimant claimed for both pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on the sums he claimed. This Court does not grant pre-judgment interest. See Kurt Severinsen v. Emerging Markets Telecommunication Services Limited [2012] 27 NLLR (Pt. 78) 374, Miss Ebere Ukoji v. Standard Alliance Life Assurance Co. Ltd unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/48/2012 the judgment of which was delivered on March 26, 2014 and Miss Odiete Hope Ogaga v. Jopa Energy Ltd unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/408/2012 the judgment of which was delivered on March 26, 2014. However, by Order 21 Rule 4 of the NIC Rules 2007, this Court at the time of delivering judgment or making an order may direct the time within which payment of a judgment sum is to be made or other act is to be done and may order interest at a rate not less than 10% per annum to be paid upon any judgment. On the whole, and for the avoidance of doubt, I hereby order as follows – 1. The defendants shall pay to the claimant the sum of Five Million, Four Hundred and Sixty-Four Thousand, One Hundred and Thirty Naira, Sixty-Five kobo (N5,464,130.65) only being the full salary, severance allowance and leave transport grant he would have earned for the unexpired period (i.e. the period February 2010 to 17th December 2010) of his term as Secretary to Akoko-Edo Local Government Council. 2. The said sum of N5,464,130.65 shall be paid within 30 days of this judgment; failing which it shall attract interest at the rate of 10% per annum until liquidated Judgment is entered accordingly. I make no order as to cost. …………………………………… Hon. Justice B. B. Kanyip