Download PDF
IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT ABUJA Before His Lordship: HON. JUSTICE O. A. SHOGBOLA JUDGE DATE: 19TH MARCH, 2015 Suit No. NICN/ABJ/316/2012 BETWEEN 1. OBONI MUSA & 180 ORS 2. ODEWU THOMAS 3. JACOB ABDUL 4. UMORU ACHEMU 5. HUSSEINI MUSA 6. ABDUL DAMALE 7. ESTHER U. BENJAMIN 8. OCHENI EGBEDE 9. YUNUSA ELEOJO 10. OKOLO FRIDAY 11. GARUBA MONDAY 12. SULE MARTHA 13. ATTAH SHAIBU CLAIMANTS 14. EJEH MONICA 15. EMMANNUE EKELE 16. YAHAYA S. AIHABA 17. AKOR C. YUSUF 18. UGWU L. CHIDI 19. OGBALE ILIASU 20. ABDULLAHI KAMILU 21. BLESSING AKOH 22. OGUCHE ADUOJO 23. YAKUBU GRACE 24. AWAKULU OGOHI 25. YUSUFU COMFORT 26. PAUL AYEGBA 27. JUSEPH E. GRACE 28. YAKUBU ESTHER 29. MOMOH UGBEDE 30. ETILE MARY 31. RAJI ASIMAU 32. IDAKWO B. AYEFULU 33. YAKUBU UNEKWU 34. OCHALA OJONILE 35. HASSAN YAKUBU 36. YAKUBU MONDAY 37. MOHAMMED A. IBRAHIM 38. MOHAMMED ABDULLAH OMACHONU 39. BALA LAWAL 40. AUDU RABIU 41. JOHN JACOB 42. ADEYI ANDREW CLAIMANTS 43. DONATUS A. MUSA 44. IDRIS D. OGBADU 45. YUSUF UGBEDE 46. ADRIS ISHIAKA 47. ISSA SUNDAY 48. JAMES SUNDAY 49. OCHENI IBRAHIM 50. SALIFU ABUH 51. ELIJA PAUL 52. ADAMA USMAN 53. JACOB OMACHI 54. AHIABA D. AIKOYE 55. SULEMAN ZEKERE 56. IDOKO ESTHER 57. EBUTE ONUCHE 58. IKENI O. YAKUBU 59. CHRISTIPOER OLOBO 60. ABDUL MOHAMMED 61. ALFA ADEJO 62. REBECCA O. BENJAMI 63. ADEMU PETER 64. AMISETU OCHENI 65. MUSA A. ADEMU 66. IDRIS ECHI 67. IDAKWO JOY 68. ABUH ALAMI 69. ZAINAB SALIFU 70. ABU ASABE 71. ADAMA ELIZABETH 72. AYUBA S. PAUL 73. SHAIBU A. OGBAJE 74. JIBRIL UMARU 75. AJUMA AMODU 76. ACHEMU OJOANY 77. MONDAY YAHAYA 78. JAMES MARTHA 79. OMALE ONUCHE 80. MUSA AMISHETU 81. EDACHE I. EMANUEL 82. OKEWU PETER 83. SHEIDU D. ABDULAHI 84. SUNDAY AUGUSTINE 85. JONATHAN YAHAYA 86. YAHAYA DAUDA CLAIMANTS 87. UMORU SALISU 88. ABUBAKAR LAMI 89. OCHENI MOHAMMED 90. ALI T. ENEFOLA 91. IDRIS IBRAHIM 92. ABDULMALIK JIBRIL 93. MOHAMMED M. BASHIR 94. YUNUSA MOHAMMED 95. SULE ADEMU 96. SUMAILA ABUBAKAR 97. OBONI IBRAHIM 98. ACHEMU ACHUBA 99. JIBRIN FITUMI 100. UMORU YAHAYA 101. UGBEDE ADAJI 102. ABDUL JOY 103. JAMES UNEKWU 104. SULE JUMMAI 105. ALIDU SEIDU 106. IBRAHIM ABDULRAHAMAN 107. YAKUBU OJONEGECHE 108. SEIDU STEPHEN 109. MUDI BELLO 110. YUNUSA AUDU 111. ABDULAHI M. ISAH 112. YAKUBU J. OJOCHENEMI 113. MOMOH MUSA 114. FRIDAY ZEKERI 115. RILWANU KHALID 116. ISAH SEDU 117. SUMAILA YUNISA 118. YAKUBU MONDAY STEPHEN 119. ALIH J. ENEFOLA 120. YAKUBU JAMES 121. ISAIAH ADAMA 122. MARTHA ATABOH 123. FRIDAY M. PETER 124. HUSSEINI SEIDU 125. SULEIM IDRIS 126. ADEJOH JONAH CLAIMANTS 127. YAHAYA BALA MONDAY 128. JULIETU HASSAN 129. AGONO SUNDAY 130. AHIABAH ESTHER 131. BENGAMI ELIJAH 132. MUSA PAUL 133. ABUH SHAIBU 134. HALILU MONDAY 135. OKPANACHI IGONO 136. OBONI MONDAY 137. INAH U. OKENE 138. MOMOH S. OBAJE 139. YAKUBU SHERACK 140. SHAIBU RAMETU 141. LUCY E. YAKUBU 142. JOHN S. PAUL 143. ZEKERI DANJUMA 144. JOSEPH IDACHE MATHEW 145. YAKUBU ADEJOH 146. FEMI AFULUYI 147. MAJI RAYO OLABIYI 148. JOSEPH SIMON 149. YUSUF E. AKPAN 150. ACHENEJE R. EIKOJONWA 151. BEKISU EGWA 152. OKEKWU PETER 153. AGBENU MATHEW 154. ADEJOH JULIANA MARY 155. EGWU S. NNA 156. MAJA MATHEW 157. GODWIN OBONI 158. 0BED C. AUDU 159. ASOGWA E. EJIOFOR 160. YUSUFU LADI 161. HUSSAINI IDIRISU 162. SIMON MATHEW 163. HARUNA ISHAKA CLAIMANTS 164. ISAH ABRAHIM 165. HUSSAINI ADAJI 166. ABRAHAM AME 167. MAJI MICHAEL 168. MOSES OBAJE 169. DANIEL J. OBONI 170. JOHN EZEKIEL 171. DAUDA DANIEL 172. THOMAS ALEX OKPANACHI 173. ADAMA O. ABRAHAM 174. ATTAI OBETULE 175. NOAH A. OCHEJE 176. CHARITY ADA MADUBUEZE 177. ABUH EMMANUEL 178. PRINCE EZEANI 179. ABUH JEREMIAH 180. ACHEMU MAKOLO 181. YAHAYA MOHAMED AND 1. THE COMMANDANT GENERAL NIGERIA SECURITY AND CIVIL DEFENCE CROPS DEFENDANTS 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL CIVIL DEFENCE, IMMIGRATION AND PRISONS SERVICES BOARD 3. NIGERIA SECURITY AND CIVIL DEFENCE CORPS REPRESENTATION Ibrahim Bawa Esq for the Claimant. Lamikanra Esq for the 1st and 3rd Defendants B. Omoluwabi Esq for the 2nd defendant. JUDGMENT This is a transferred case from the Federal High Court and by the amended process the claimants claim jointly and severally against the defendants as follows: 1. An order that the verbal and oral suspension of the plaintiff by the Commandant General, Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps is null and void and of no effect 2. A Mandatory order directing the Commandant General, Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps and the Director/Secretary, civil Defence, Immigration and Prisons services board to immediately recalled all the plaintiffs to report/resume at their various state commands of the place of service/work they were posted to as at 2005 when they were employed as the stat of the Security and Civil Defence Corps. 3. A mandatory order of specific performance directing the Commandant General to release the plaintiff’s original copies of their letters of employment to them forthwith collected from them since 2007 after the screening/verification exercise. 4. An order directing the Commandant General, Nigerian Security and Civil Defence Corps, Civil Defence Immigration and Prisons Services board to immediately pay the plaintiffs all their arrears of salaries entitlement since August 2007 till date less the pension money/fund duly deducted from the plaintiffs salaries thereof which has already been paid into the plaintiffs pension account in accordance with Pension Acts since august 2007. 5. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, whether by the commandant General, Nigeria Security and civil Defence Corps, Civil Defence Immigration and Prisons Services Board whether by themselves,. Their agents. Servants, Privies employee or any other person or group of persons whomsoever from further interference with the employment of the plaintiffs jointly, separately and or severally in the capacity and rank in which they were employed in accordance to the provision of the 1999 constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria in accordance to Nigeria Security and Civil Defence corps Act 2003 and condition of service hand book 2007. 6. Cost of this action. The complaint is accompanied with the statement of fact, witness statement on oaths, list of witnesses and list of documents to relied upon at the trial. The 1st and 3rd defendants entered appearance. In reaction to the claimants the second defendant entered appearance on the 25th February, 2013 and filed the statement of defence with other accompanying documents. The matter went on trial, Mr. Ogboni Musa and Mr. Odewu Thomas testified on behalf of the claimants while Mr. Ayodele Solomon, the Civil defence corps in the Directorate of Intelligence and Investigation at Head quarters testified for the defendants. For the 2nd defendant Mr. Anthony Okhamera a former Assistant Director Admin of (CDFIPB) gave evidence on its behalf. On the 11th of March, 2015 parties adopted their final written address The learned counsel for the 2nd defendant in his trial written address raised the issue for determination of the Court as to validity or otherwise of the 180 claimants purported recruitment and whether they are bonafide staff of the 1st and 2nd defendant whether they are and thus entitled to reinstatement and any arrears of salary whatsoever. The Learned Counsel argued that the claimants are neither employees nor staff of the Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps (NSCDC) at any point in time. The Counsel argued that the contract of employment which is the central element in the structure of labour Law must possess all the essential features which charaterised an ordinary contract before it can be referred to as a valid contract before it can be referred to a contract of service that is: (i) Offer (ii) Acceptance (iii) Consideration (iv) Intention to create legal relations (v) Capacity to contract certainty (vi) Legality. The counsel submitted that where any of the above is missing there exist no contract of employment. Thus a contract entered into illegally as in this case cannot subsist. See UBN V. Odusote Bookstores Ltd (1995) 9WLR (pt 421) 551 And Ekwunife V Wayne (West Africa) Ltd. (1989) 5NWLR (Pt 122)422. The counsel went further to say that the claimant in this suit have failed to prove throughout the whole trial the existence of the following facts. That they were legally recruited by any of the defendants. Where exactly where they issued the purported letters of appointments. The venue where the interview was carried out, whether or not they were actually trained. The counsel argued that not one of the 180 claimants showed evidence of having been trained, and that after training a certificate of recognition is always awarded to officer who had under gone the training exercise under any of the four services On the claimant claim of oral stoppage of worker’s salaries counsel said they are never bonafide employees of either the Board or the NSCDC as no contract of employment existed between the duo abinitio. They cannot be allowed to benefit from their wrong doing that were fast fortunate that most of them could not be found when they ought to have been prosecuted. that a contract of employment that is ex-facie illegal and offend public policy will not be enforced as it does not enjoy statutory flavor. That the fact that they were paid salaries and other emoluments till a period of time before stoppage is not uncommon in that people are being paid erroneously in the services of the Federal or State Government until after their real status is found out. He went further to submit that since the appointment of the claimants have not been confirmed in accordance with Section 020301 they cannot be referred to a bonafide employee of any service. So also that the issue of payment with some of the claimants, Pension Scheme under the Pension Reforms Act 2004. That where necessary parties are not timorously of irregulating in appointment, the funds might still subsists for a period of time. Counsel referred to the evidence of PW1 and PW2 that the 180 claimants applied for different positions relevant to their qualifications. That the levels differs from HAPASS04 to HAPASS 08. This being incompatible with the rules of the Board as well as the service. According to Section 6 & 8 of the Immigration of Prisons Services Board Act, CAP LFN 2004 the Guidelines for Appointment, Promotion and discipline of Service Officer from HAPASS08 and above the service is responsible for that of the junior officers from grade LEVEL 07 AND BELOW. Counsel submitted further that the names of the recruited officers with the Board and the claimants would still claim to be staff of NSCDC. That for instance the name of PW1 who claimed to have come from Kogi was not found in the list of employees recruited in 2005. So also the names of other 179 claimants. The Counsel went further to argue that the rules governing the recruitment since 2005 was passed before the purported recruitment of the 180 claimants in this matter and for this being absent in the list of recruited staff in the year under question or subsequent, shows that they were never recruited. The counsel concluded that the claimants having failed to establish the legality of their purported employment that it offends the Labour Law to force an employer to accept as their employees the defendants’ defence be allowed. The learned counsel for the 1st and 3rd defendants raised two issues for determination which are: (1) Whether or not the 180 claimants’ purported recruitment and appointment are valid and if they were at any time bonafide staff of the 3rd defendant as to enable them to be reinstated and paid any salaries and arrears. (2) Whether or not the 1st and 3rd defendants have any power whatsoever to tamper with the deduction of pensions of its staff. In respect of issue one which is whether or not the 180 claimants purported recruitment and appointment are valid and if they were at any time bonafide staff of the 3rd defendant as to enable them to be reinstated and paid any salaries and arrears . The learned counsel submitted that the evidence adduced by both the claimants and the defendants in this suit clearly shows that none of the claimants is in the employment of any of the defendants nor was there not existing contract of employment between the claimants and the 3rd defendant in this suit. More so that none of the names of the 180 claimants was short listed by either the 2nd or 3rd defendant for employment in 2005. He said the purported letter of appointment relied upon by the claimants are fake as they were either procured from unauthorized sources or issued to them by fraudulent racketeers. That the mode and procedure for appointment and employment into the service of the 3rd defendant is as contained in chapter 2(2) of the Conditions of service for the NSCDC, 2007 which states that:- All appointment shall be made on the authority of Governing Board of the NSCDC subject to vacancies. That the Board is solely responsible for the appointment and discipline of senior officers of the corps from GL 08 and above, the is responsible for that of the junior from grade level 07 and below under the Supervision and approval of the Board. He said flowing from above it is contradictory for all the claimants including the PW1 whose appointment letter stated he has been appointed into the service of the NSCDC as Accountant on HAPASS 6 to have had their letters issued by the Board as only the NSCDC is authorized body to issue appointment letter of the said drank. That the list tendered by the defendants has neither the name of the PW1 nor any of the 179 claimants can be found in the list of newly recruited candidates by NSCDC. Having said that the learned counsel for the 1st and 3rd defendants concluded that the claimants have failed to establish the validity of their recruitment into the service of the 3rd defendants and who actually was responsible for the issuance of the said purported letter of appointment. That from the evidence before the court there was no valid contract of employment existing between the 180 claimants and the 3rd defendants in this suit. That the letters of appointment are all fake and fraudulently obtained. That none of the requirement of a valid contract of employment present to entitle them to any claim whatsoever. On the claimant’s claim that they regularly receive their payment of salaries allowances until when they had their purported letters of appointment withheld from them by the 3rd defendant, that Sections 020204 and 020301 of PSR and Chapter 21411(10 of the Condition of service of NSCDC requires fresh appointment into the service for mandatory period of two years before being confirmed in the service. That the management of the corps accommodated the claimant within these period and even paid them before the screening and verifying the authenticity of the claimants employment letters which revealed that they had fraudulently gained employment into the service of the 3rd defendant using fake appointment letters. On this issue, counsel concluded that since the names of the 180 claimants are not in the list of recruited staff in the year under construction or afterwards it will be safe to conclude that they were never at anytime a bonafide staff of the 3rd defendant. The learned counsel went on to submit on the 2nd issue which is whether or not the 1st and 3rd defendants have any power whatsoever to tamper with the deduction of pensions of the claimants. In this regard the Counsel submitted that it is not on the power of the defendant to tamper with the deduction of the pension contribution of its staff. The learned counsel submitted that it is not the powers of the defendant to tamper with the deduction of pension contribution of its staff or issue through whatever medium any person alert as alleged by the claimants in their claims. The counsel concluded that the claimants have by any means been able to show the validity of their purported employment letter and how they came about it, neither have they also established before the court the legality or otherwise of their employment with the 2nd defendant. That the position of laws is that an employee cannot be forced on the services of an employer. For the claimants the learned counsel formulated two issues for the determination of the court. 1. Whether or not the case of forgery of the employment letters of the claimants has been established by the defendants. 2. Whether the claimants are not entitled to re-instatement and payment of their salaries, their employment being regulated by statutory provision. On issue one the learned counsel submitted that forgery is a criminal offence which must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and must not leave room for speculation. It is not enough to plead that a document was fraudulently obtained when the evidence in support shows no such thing. Counsel submitted that the defendants did not deny averment in paragraph 6 of the claimants statement of claim that all the claimants became aware of the defendants recruitment exercise a result of publication in 2005 and they all duly applied for different cadres as advertised. That for this reason the allegation against the claimants that they forged their employment letters or that the letters are fake, baseless, and unfounded as same cannot be established against the claimant by the defendants. In that the witness of 1st and 3rd defendant during cross examination, an allegation of forgery of letters of employment testified that the list tendered in court does not contained the whole names of the staff of the corps and that his name is not on the list despite the fact that he was issued his letter of employment in 2005. Counsel submitted further that there is no evidence before the court either oral or written report contradicting the genuine or authenticity of the claimants employment letter from Mr. Makau Counsel relied on the case of AITUMA & Ors V. State (2006) All FWLR (pt.318) 671 at 687 where the court held:- It was held that before a prima facie case of forgery can be established against the defendants for forgery, there was need to call a handwriting expert, and that the person whose hand writing was forged is a material witness. The Counsel argued that it is not in dispute that the names of all the claimants are contained in the complete comprehensive list where the 1st and 3rd defendants intentionally and willfully refuse to tender before the court knowing fully well that there is no road for them once the list is tendered before the court. The counsel went further that the defendant missed the point on the role of the board as it affects the issue of appointment and or recruitment of staff for the NSCDC That the Act establishing the corps in 2003 constitutionally recognized the duties of the board and section 4(1) (c) provides: That Board shall recruit volunteers and regular members of the corps. While Section 9(1) provides that the board shall appoint for the corps such number of duty commandant, general, commandants and such officers and other ranks and employees as may from time to deem necessary for the4 purpose of the corps. That at the time of their employment the only guiding rules and regulation guiding the corps was the 2003 Act which gives the board an enormous power to employ all ranks and file for the corps, and the conditions of service which came into operation in July 2007 cannot have a retrospective effect to nullify the action carried out in 2005. To the counsel the issue before the court is the list of December 2005 employment and not August 2005 and the list tendered by Ayodele Solomon was dated August 2005 and went on to accept that his name is not on the list of 2005 and the list is not a complete list, and yet he is not being treated as a fake staff of employee of the NSCDC That the claimant need not contest the list tendered by 1st and 3rd defendants when the witness has admitted his name was not on the list despite the fact that he was employed in 2005 and that the claimant would have contested the list if it were a complete list and the claimants names were not there. The counsel also submitted that it is of no that the board has no intention to create legal relationship to enter into contract with the claimants that it is an afterthought. The counsel argued that there is no where it is stated that after training such staff shall be issued a certificate of training and the defendants can therefore not read into Act or condition of service what is not there. Still on this list the counsel contended that the letter of offer exhibited by the 1st and 3rd defendants of Enobono Tommy who is a staff till date from Akwa Ibom State which is the on the letter of Employment. The name of Enobono Tommy is not on the list just as the name of Ayodede solomon who was employed in 2005, like all the claimants. The claimant counsel argued further that there was no evidence that there was no employment in December 2005, that there was no where they stated that Makhau was not the authorized officer by the board who signed the employment letter of the claimant in 2005, or that Makhau ever denied signing of the claimants employment letter or that the signature was forged. The counsel still contended that the claimants were employed in December, 2005 on the basis of the August 2005 of the National Working Committee Recommendation which gave birth to the Condition of Service for Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps. In respect of issue two which is whether the claimants are entitled to re-instatement and payment of arrears of their salaries, their employment being regulated by statutory provisions. The Counsel for the claimant said the employment of the claimants is an employment with statutory flavor and as such they enjoy a special status over and above the ordinary master and servant relationship. They relied on the Chapter 4 of NSCDC Condition of service July 2007 paragraph 4.7.2 (iv). That by the provision they are entitled to their arrears of salaries less the pension funds which has been consistently been paid into their accounts by the defendants every month till date. For this reason the claimants are entitled to their benefits and all their arrears of salaries and reinstatement being that their employment is being regulated by statutes. The counsel countered the defendants submissions that the defendants cannot in any tampered with the claimant’s pension. H e asked if pension is being deducted from or contribution is from an employee names who is a staff, going by the statement of the defendant, evidence where does the balance of the remaining salaries after the pension contribution or deductions are being deposit. Since the claimants pension account is not being tampered with despite the defendants are in control of the salaries account, it will amount to fraud and a criminal offence since all the claimants’ names still remain and subsists as staff of the corps. The counsel to the claimant then calculated the claimant’s arrears of salaries in different ranks and cadres as attached to the written address. In conclusion the counsel urged the court to grant the claimants’ claims and dismiss the defendant’s defence as lack in merit. Having reviewed the submissions of the counsel the authorities cited and the oral evidence given at trial, the issue for the court to determine is whether the claimants are entitled to re-instatement and payment of arrears of their salaries, their employment being regulated by statutory provision? A case of 180 claimants in this suit who claimed to have been recruited in 2005 by the Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps (NSCDC) after applying for different cadres according to their qualifications and interviewed at the NSCDC Board Office in Gwagalada. After which they were posted to various states command were training was conducted. The claimants tendered the copies of their letters of employments dated 12th December 2005. The claimants contention is that they were in the employment of the defendant until 2007 when the Commandant General Nigeria Security and Civil Defence corps (NSCDC) instructed all those recruited in December 2005 to submit the original copy of their letters of employment for screening. This instruction they complied with. During this period, the salaries and other entitlement of the claimants were withheld except the claimant’s contribution to the pension account till date. As a result of this development the claimant made enquiries about their salaries and the position of their employment with the Civil defence corps . They were told that they have been suspended by the Commandant General. They claimed they have not done any wrong to deserve the treatment, and for this that they have been unlawfully and illegally suspended for no justification. The 180 claimants are in court for an order directing the Commandant General to release their Letters of Employment, recall all the claimants to resume in all their formations and for the claimants to be paid all their arrears of salaries since August 2007 till date less pension money already paid into their pension account. The contention of all the defendants is that the claimants were not recruited into the service of the Nigerian Security and Civil Defence Corps, the 3rd defendant in this suit. Investigation revealed that the claimants were those who attempted to gain employment into the 3rd defendant’s organization vide fake employment letters. They contended further that the letters of employment of the 180 claimants were fake. The defendants by their pleadings, oral evidence at the trial did not single out one out of the 180 letters of employment as fake before the court. They contended further that the names of the 180 claimants were not in the list of recruited staff in the year 2005 and afterwards, which means they were not recruited by the defendant. In addition, the defendants claimed that the 180 claimants did not show any evidence of their being trained, because after training a certificate of recognition is always awarded to the officers who had undergone training exercise under any of the force services. Again, the defendants did not provide any credible evidence by producing at least a copy of the sample of the certificate that would have been issued to the claimants on the completion of their training exercise. He who asserts must prove. The question placed before the court is whether the 180 claimants in this suit are actually recruited into the employment of the 3rd defendant by the 2nd defendant in 2005. The defendant produced only 2 volumes that is volumes 1 and 4 of the final report and recommendations of the National Working Committee (NWC) on the regularization of the NSCDC. Since the contention of the defendant is that the letters of employment of the 180 claimants were fake. How did the defendant come to the conclusion that the letters of employment were fake is not cleared to the court. Before they can come to the conclusion that the letters are fake they should have produced the genuine letter(s) of employment issued by the 2nd defendant and compare with those tendered by the claimants, they have not told the court or bring before the court a writing expert to show what makes the employment letters of the claimants to be Fake. Neither did they prove before the court by themselves what makes the letters of employment to be fake. He who alleges must prove. The defendants made heavy whether of the facts that because the names of the claimants were not on the list they were not recruited by the 3rd defendant. The sole witness for the 3rd defendant Mr. Solomon Ayodele also admitted under cross examination that his name was not on the list, what can then be deduced from this is that he also is in the same shoes like the 180 claimants and Mr. Solomon Ayodele ‘s letter of employment is also fake. When Mr. Solomon Ayodele was asked under cross examination, if Mr. M.B. Makkau ever complained that his signature was forged his answer was in the negative The defendant ought to have come with credible evidence before the court by tendering authentic letters signed by the Director/Secretary Mr. M.B. Makkau, it is out of place for the defendants to claim that the letters the claimants are holding were fake. They needed to have done more by convincing the court that the claimants’ letters were fake, by producing the genuine letters for the court to see. I will now proceed to consider the argument of the defendants on the issue of payment of money into Pension Account of claimants till date. The claimants have tendered their Current Pension Accounts from their different Pension Funds Administrators. The defendants admitted this submission and did not see anything wrong in this, they argued that this is feasible in the light of the present day pension scheme under the Pension Reform Act 2004. They claimed that necessary parties were not notified timeously of the irregularity in appointment. My worry here is if the claimants’ pensions are being credited into their various pension accounts till date, where are their salaries paid to? Is it possible to make deductions for pension without salaries being prepared for the 180 claimants? The answer is no. It must be stated that the defendants have committed errors in the performance of their official duties. Officers placed in position of responsibility must be careful and ensure that this is done with utmost care. The 180 claimants were offered employment in Nigerian Security and Civil Defence Corps, only for the defendants to turn round and dash the hopes of these young Nigerians looking for employment after passing out of school. But for the recklessness and inefficient manner the senior officials of the defendant handled the recruitment exercise in 2005. This matter would not have arisen in the first instance. The court therefore orders that the claimants are entitled to all the reliefs sought in this case. Their letters of appointments must be returned to them, their salaries be paid to them excluding the pension deductions from 2005 till date. The court makes no order as to cost. Judgment is entered accordingly ________________________________ HON. JUSCTICE O. A. SHOGBOLA JUDGE