Download PDF
The claimants had taken up a complaint dated and filed on 9th May 2011 against the defendants. By an amended statement of facts, the claimants are claiming against the defendants – 1. The sum of N19,885,687.86 (Nineteen Million, Eight Hundred and Eighty-Five Thousand, Six Hundred and Eighty-Seven Naira, Eighty-Six kobo) only being arrears of their monthly salaries, severance packages, leave transport grant, balance of furniture allowances and other benefits due and payable to the claimants which the defendants have failed, refused and/or neglected to pay to the claimants in spite of several oral and written demands. 2. 10% interest on the sum of N19,885,687.86 (Nineteen Million, Eight Hundred and Eighty-Five Thousand, Six Hundred and Eighty-Seven Naira, Eighty-Six 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, furniture allowances and leave transport grant are – 1. 1st claimant – Hon. Joseph Daodu – a) N289,990 monthly salary from February 2010 to December 2010 = N3,189,899.13. b) Severance package as Supervisor = N2,427,900. c) Leave Transport Grant for 2010 = N80,930.00. d) Balance of Furniture Allowance = N927,900.20. Total sum due and payable to the 1st claimant = N6,626,629.13. 2. 2nd claimant – Chief S. S. Akpata – a) N272,360 monthly salary from February 2010 to December 2010 = N2,995,966.27. b) Severance package as Special Adviser to the Local Government = N2,280,228.00. c) Leave Transport Grant for 2010 = N76,007.60. d) Balance of Furniture Allowance = N1,280,228.00. Total sum due and payable to the 2nd claimant = N6,632,429.60. 3. 3rd claimant – Mr. Lewis Ashore – a) N289,990.81 monthly salary from February 2010 to December 2010 = N3,189,899.13. b) Severance package as Supervisor for Agriculture = N2,427,900.00. c) Leave Transport Grant for 2010 = N80,930.00. d) Balance of Furniture Allowance = N927,900.00. Total sum due and payable to 3rd claimant = N6,626,629.13. Grand Total of 1st, 2nd and 3rd Claimants’ salaries, severance, leave transport grant and balance of furniture allowance = N19,885,687.86. 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, A1, B1, C1, D, A2, B2, C2 and D. Also filed by the claimants are their respective witness statement on oath all dated and filed on 31st August 2012. In reaction, the defendants entered their respective memorandum of appearance and filed their respective defence processes. The 1st defendant’s statement of defence to the amended statement of claim is dated and filed on 14th December 2011. It is accompanied by the list of witnesses, list of documents and copies of the documents marked Exhibits AK1 – AK4. The 2nd defendant’s statement of defence is dated 13th December 2011 but filed on 15th December 2011. It is accompanied by the list of documents to be relied upon and copies of the documents. The claimants filed a reply to each of the defendants’ statement of defence. At the trial, the claimants testified on their own behalf as CW1, CW2 and CW3 respectively. 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 Charles Osagbemeh v. Akoko-Edo Local Government, Edo State & anor Suit No. NICN/LA/33/2011; in which sense it is equally a sister case to Chief J. A. Emasealu v. Akoko-Edo Local Government, Edo State & anor unreported Suit No. NIC/LA/31/201. The case of the claimants is that the 1st and 3rd claimants were appointed as Supervisors of, while the 2nd claimant was appointed as Special Adviser to, Akoko-Edo Local Government Council of Edo State by the then Chairman of the Local Government, Chief J. A. Emasealu vide respective letters all 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 claimants then, because the suspension of the Chairman was declared null and void and their appointments are tied to that of the Chairman, their tenure ought to terminate on 17th December 2010, hence the claim for salaries, severance, leave transport grant and balance of furniture allowance for the period February 2010 to 17th December 2010. To prove that their appointments by the Chairman were valid in the first place, they referred to section 22(1) – (4) of the Edo State Local Government law 2000 (as amended), which provides for the appointment of Supervisors by the Chairman for the duration of the Chairman’s tenure and they shall be deemed to have left office at the expiration of the tenure of the Chairman who appointed them. The case of the 1st defendant is that it was never the appointer of the claimants and so was not their employer whom they can sue. Secondly, that the claimants did not disclose any reasonable cause of action against the 1st defendant. Thirdly, that the Acting Chairman has the powers to sack or remove the claimants from office, which he exercised validly. Lastly, that the appointments of the claimant is not tenured and so they are not entitled to any compensation. The case of the 2nd defendant is that the claimants are not political appointees and so not public servants 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 claimants are not. That there is no evidence that the claimants were appointed or employed by the 2nd defendant. And if the claimants were not appointees of the 2nd defendant, then the 2nd defendant has no business paying their salaries 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. NICN/LA/33/2011 as well as Chief Charles Osagbemeh v. Akoko-Edo Local Government, Edo State & anor Suit No. NICN/LA/33/2011, I held as valid the claim for salary and allowances of the claimants in those cases 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 claimants to be paid their full salaries and allowances that they would have earned for the unexpired period of their tenure i.e. for the period February 2010 to 17th December 2010. The issue that presently arises is whether the claimants in the instant case have accordingly made out their respective cases. Exhibit A is the letter dated 4th January 2008 appointing the 1st claimant as Supervisor in Akoko-Edo Local Government with effect from 4th January 2008. The appointment was made by the Chairman of the Local Government and it goes on to state that the appointment is at the pleasure of the Chairman and shall terminate at the end of the tenure of the Chairman in office. However, that the appointment may be terminated at any time if the 1st claimant is found to be inefficient in the performance of his duty or found wanting in any other respect. Exhibit A2 is also dated 4th January 2008 and appoints the 3rd claimant as supervisor in similar terms as Exhibit A did the 1st claimant. Exhibit A1 also dated 4th February 2008 is the letter appointing the 2nd claimant as Special Adviser to the Local Government. It is different from Exhibits A and A2 in that it does not have the clause in Exhibits A and A2 that says the appointment is at the pleasure of the Chairman and shall terminate at the expiration of the tenure of the Chairman. This is the clause that made me rule in Chief Emasealu v. Akoko-Edo Local Government, Edo State & anor Suit No. NICN/LA/33/2011 as well as Chief Charles Osagbemeh v. Akoko-Edo Local Government, Edo State & anor Suit No. NICN/LA/33/2011 that the claimant’s contract of employment is one of a fixed term contract. This means that in respect of the 1st and 3rd claimants, Exhibits A and A2 yield to the same conclusion that their contracts of employment are fixed term contracts. By tying the terms of appointment of the 1st and 3rd claimants to that of the Chairman who appointed them, the terms of appointment of the 1st and 3rd claimants 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 paragraphs 2 of Exhibits A and A2 (which state that the “appointment…terminates at the end of the tenure of the Chairman in office”) tied the 1st and 3rd claimants’ appointment to that of Chief J. A. Emasealu, the Chairman who appointed them, the suspension of Chief Emasealu as Chairman of the Local Government also meant the suspension of the 1st and 3rd claimants as Supervisors to the Local Government. Any power to sack or remove, which the 1st defendant said was vested in the Acting Chairman, could not have been of any effect. Regarding the 2nd claimant, however, the equivalent of paragraph 2 of Exhibits A and A2 is not in Exhibit A1, the letter appointing the 2nd claimant as Special Adviser to the Local Government. All that Exhibit A1 said was that the 2nd claimant was appointed as Special Adviser to the Local Government with effect from February 1, 2008. Then in paragraph 2, the letter goes on to provide that the 2nd claimant’s “continued retention as Special Adviser is dependent on your loyalty, dedication, performance and above all at the pleasure of the Executive Chairman of the Local Government”. Nothing is said about tying his tenure to that of the Chairman in order to make the contract one of a fixed, determinable term. This being the case, I cannot hold that the contract of employment of the 2nd claimant is one that is fixed term. His appointment was simply at the pleasure of the Chairman; meaning that it cannot come within the contemplation of College of Education, Ekiadolor v. Osayande and Shena Security Co. Ltd v. Afropak (Nig.) Ltd. The 2nd claimant cannot, therefore, claim as is the case with the 1st and 3rd claimants in the instant case or the claimants in Chief Emasealu v. Akoko-Edo Local Government, Edo State & anor Suit No. NICN/LA/33/2011 and Chief Charles Osagbemeh v. Akoko-Edo Local Government, Edo State & anor Suit No. NICN/LA/33/2011. It is, therefore, my finding and holding that while the 1st and 3rd claimants have made out a case for the payment to them of their salaries for the period February 2010 to 17th December 2010 given the provisions of the Political and Public Officers Emolument Law 2007 of Edo State, the 2nd claimant has not. The claims of the 2nd claimant accordingly fail and so are dismissed. But what exactly are the 1st and 3rd claimants entitled to? As far as salaries, severance packages and leave transport grants are concerned, like in Chief Emasealu v. Akoko-Edo Local Government, Edo State & anor Suit No. NICN/LA/33/2011 and Chief Charles Osagbemeh v. Akoko-Edo Local Government, Edo State & anor Suit No. NICN/LA/33/2011, a case has been made for them by the 1st and 3rd claimants. But regarding the claim for ‘balance of furniture allowance’, as the name claim goes, the 1st and 3rd claimants are seeking for the balance of their furniture allowance. They did not show to the Court the amount part-paid to them to warrant the claim for the balance. The claim for balance of furniture allowance accordingly fails and is dismissed. The 1st claimant, Hon. Joseph Daodu, claimed for the period February 2010 – 17th December 2010 the sum of N3,189,899.13 at a monthly salary of N289,990. This means that at N9,354.52 per day, his salary for the 17 days in December 2010 comes to N159,026.77; and if N2,899,900 for 10 months is added, what we have is N3,058,926.77, not N3,189,899.13 he claims. If the severance package of N2,427,900 and the leave transport grant for 2010 of N80,930.00 are added to N3,058,926.77, what we have as the total sum due and payable to the 1st claimant will be N5,567,756.77; and I so find and hold. The 3rd claimant, Mr. Lewis Ashore, on the other hand claimed for same period the sum of N3,189,899.13 at a monthly salary of N289,990.81. This means that at N9,354.54 per day, his salary for the 17 days in December 2010 comes to N159,027.22; and if N2,899,901.30 for 10 months is added, what we have is N3,058,928.52, not N3,189,899.13 that he claims. If the severance package of N2,427,900 and the leave transport grant for 2010 of N80,930.00 are added to N3,058,928.52, what we have as the total sum due and payable to the 3rd claimant will be N5,567,758.52; and I so find and hold. The 1st and 3rd claimants claimed for both pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on the sums they 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 1st claimant the sum of Five Million, Five Hundred and Sixty-Seven Thousand, Seven Hundred and Fifty-Six Naira, Seventy-Seven kobo (N5,567,756.77) only being the full salary, severance package 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 Supervisor to Akoko-Edo Local Government Council. 2. The said sum of N5,567,756.77 shall be paid within 30 days of this judgment; failing which it shall attract interest at the rate of 10% per annum until liquidated. 3. The defendants shall pay to the 3rd claimant the sum of Five Million, Five Hundred and Sixty-Seven Thousand, Seven Hundred and Fifty-Eight Naira, Fifty-Two kobo (N5,567,758.52) only being the full salary, severance package 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 Supervisor to Akoko-Edo Local Government Council. 4. The said sum of N5,567,758.52 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