IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE PORT HARCOURT JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT PORT HARCOURT

 

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE P. I. HAMMAN --- JUDGE

 

DATE: FRIDAY 13TH MAY, 2022                     SUIT NO: NICN/YEN/155/2016

 

BETWEEN:

 

1.     PYAKUE DORNU

2.     NWALE SHEDRACK EGERENYIE

3.     DINEE GREEN VICTORIA                              CLAIMANTS

4.     BUGBA KORKA NNAA   

                                     

AND

 

1.     RIVERS STATE SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL BOARD   DEFEN

2.     MINISTRY OF EDUCATION RIVERS STATE                           DANTS

3.     RIVERS STATE GOVERNMENT                   

 

JUDGMENT

 

1.1.           The claimants filed this Complaint and Statement of Facts on the 27th day of July, 2016, and claim against the Defendants as follows:

 

1.      An order of this Honourable Court declaring the defendants refusal to pay the claimants their salaries and other entitlements after having been duly employed and claimants rendering their services, as wrongful, unlawful, oppressive and without any justification.

 

2.      An order of this Honourable Court directing the defendants to pay the claimants their salaries and entitlements from 1st August, 2013 to the date judgment will be delivered in this suit as follows:

1st claimant = N65,000 (Sixty Five Thousand Naira) only per month.

2nd claimant = N65, 000 (Sixty Five Thousand Naira) only per month.

3rd claimant = N65,000 (Sixty Five Thousand Naira) only per month.

4th claimant = N67,123 (Sixty Seven Thousand, One Hundred and Twenty Three Naira) only per month.

3.      A declaration that the claimants are entitled to promotion and other entitlements emanating therefrom as may be the practice in the Rivers State Senior Secondary School Board and the Rivers State Ministry of Education.

 

4.      An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants by themselves, agents, privies, servants etc from refusing, neglecting or failing to pay the claimants their salaries and other entitlement forthwith.

 

5.      The sum of N20,000,000.00 (Twenty Million Naira) only being general damages against the defendants for mental, psychological and social trauma suffered by the claimants arising from such wrongful refusal to pay the claimants their salaries and other entitlements.

 

1.2.           While the 1st Defendant filed its Memorandum of Appearance on the 28th of September, 2016, the 2nd and 3rd Defendants’ Joint Memorandum of Appearance was filed on the 23rd of February, 2018 but deemed as properly filed and served on the 2nd of March, 2018. The Defendants’ Joint Statement of Defence together with other accompanying processes were filed on the 23rd of February, 2018 but deemed as having been properly filed and served on the 2nd of March, 2018. The Claimants filed a Reply to the Statement of Defence on the 20th day of April, 2018 which was however deemed as having been properly filed and served on the 24th of April, 2018. The Defendants were given leave to call additional witness (Chinenye Ebenezer Erinwo) on the 2nd of March, 2020.

 

1.3.           Trial in this suit commenced on 5th of November 2019, when the 4th Claimant (Mr. Bugba Korka Nnaa) testifies as CW1. The witness who swore with the Holy Bible and spoke in English Language identified and adopted his statement on oath that was filed on the 27th of July, 2016, before tendering the following documents which were admitted by the court:

1.      Government of Rivers State Staff ID Card in the name of Bugba Korka Nnna ----------- exhibit CW1A.

2.      Solicitor’s letter of Senator (Gbene) Dr. Cyrus N. Nunieh & Co. dated 3rd February, 2016 ---------- exhibit CW1B.

3.      Solicitor’s letter of Senator (Gbene) Dr. Cyrus N. Nunieh & Co. dated 2nd February, 2016 ---------- exhibit CW1C.

4.      Provisional Offer of appointment/posting ------------ exhibit CW1D.

5.      Solicitor’s letter of Senator (Gbene) Dr. Cyrus N. Nunieh & Co. dated 25th January, 2016 ---------- exhibit CW1E.

6.      Assumption of Duty Certificate in the name of Bugba Korka Nnaa ----- exhibit CW1F.

The witness (CW1) was cross-examined by the Defendants’ counsel without any re-examination before being discharged on the 5th of November, 2019.

 

1.4.           The 3rd Claimant (Dinee Green Victoria) testified as CW2 on the 3rd of December, 2019. She swore with the Holy Bible and spoke in English Language. CW2 identified and adopted her deposition that was filed on the 27th of July, 2016, and tendered her letter of provisional offer of appointment/posting, Assumption of Duty Certificate and Staff ID Card of Government of Rivers State which were admitted as exhibits CW2A, CW2B and CW2C respectively. She then identified exhibits CW1B, CW1C and CW1E as the letters written by her lawyer. The witness (CW2) was then cross-examined by the learned counsel to the Defendants and discharged on the 3rd of December, 2019 without any re-examination.

 

1.5.           The 2nd Claimant (Nwale Shedrack Egerenyie) who testified as CW3 on 3rd December, 2019 also swore with the Holy Bible and spoke in English Language. He identified and adopted his deposition that was filed on the 27th of July, 2016 before tendering his letter of provisional offer of appointment/posting, Assumption of duty certificate and Staff ID Card of the Government of Rivers State which were admitted as exhibits CW3A, CW3B and CW3C respectively. He then identified exhibits CW1B, CW1C and CW1E as the letters written by his lawyer. The witness (CW3) was cross-examined by the learned counsel to the Defendants and discharged on the 3rd of December, 2019 without any re-examination.

 

1.6.           The 4th Claimant (Pyakune Dornu) who testified as CW4 on the 28th of January, 2020 swore with the Holy Bible and spoke in English Language. He identified and adopted his deposition that was filed on the 27th of July, 2016 before tendering copies of his Staff ID Card, provisional offer of appointment/posting and Assumption of Duty Certificate which were admitted as exhibits CW4A, CW4B and CW4C respectively. He then identified exhibits CW1B, CW1C and CW1E as the documents he also referred to in his statement on oath. The witness (CW4) was cross-examined by the learned counsel to the Defendants and discharged on the 28th of January, 2020. The claimants then closed their case on the 28th of January, 2020.

 

1.7.           The Defendants opened their defence on the 18th of February, 2021 by calling one Chinenye Ebenezer Erinwo, Esq. (an Assistant Legal Officer in the Rivers State Senior Secondary Schools Board) who testified as DW. The witness who swore with the Holy Bible and spoke in English Language identified and adopted his deposition that was made on the 27th of February, 2020. He then tendered the following documents which were admitted by the court:

1.      C.S.S. Kaani Staff Attendance Time Book --------- exhibit DW1A.

2.      C.S.S. Kaani Staff Attendance Time Book ------ exhibit DW1B.

3.      C.H.S. Sii Staff Attendance Time Book ------------ exhibit DW1C.

4.      G.S.S. Lumene Staff Attendance Time Book ------- exhibit DW1D.

5.      Comprehensive Details of Rivers State Senior Secondary Schools Board’s Teachers employed in 2013 --------------- exhibit DW1E.

6.      Government Secondary School, Lumene-Bangha Nominal Roll of new recruited teachers, 2013 -12-05 ----------- exhibit DW1F.

7.      Rivers State Senior Secondary Schools Board, Port Harcourt Authentic (Termly Statistical) Nominal Roll for 2015/2016 Academic Session, Community Senior Secondary School, Kaani ---------- exhibit DW1G.

8.      Rivers State Senior Secondary Schools Board, Port Harcourt Termly Statistical Nominal Roll for the 2015/2016 Academic Session, Government Secondary School, Lumene Bangha (Academic Staff) -------- exhibit DW1H.

9.      Rivers State Senior Secondary Schools Board, Port Harcourt Termly Statistical Nominal Roll for the 2015/2016 Academic Session, Government Secondary School, Lumene Bangha (Non-Academic Staff) -- exhibit DW1J.

The witness (DW) was cross-examined by the Claimants’ counsel and discharged on the 29th of September, 2021 without any re-examination. The Defendants then closed their case on the 29th of September, 2021.

 

1.8.           With the close of evidence, parties were directed to file their final written addresses beginning with the Defendants. While the Defendants’ Final Written Address was filed on the 25th of October, 2021, that of the Claimants was filed on 30th of November, 2021. The Defendants filed a Reply on Points of Law on the 17th of January, 2022 which was deemed as having been properly filed and served on the 14th of February, 2022. These processes were adopted by both counsel on the 14th day of February, 2022, with E. N. Obua appearing for the Claimants, while P. Enebeli (Principal State Counsel, Rivers State Ministry of Justice) appeared for the Defendants.

 

THE CASE OF THE CLAIMANTS:

 

2.1.           The Claimants alleged that sequel to their applications they were shortlisted and interviewed by the 1st Defendant before being employed as Master Grade 2 Teachers vide letters of appointment/posting dated 1st August, 2013. That they were also given Assumption of Duty Certificates dated 1st August, 2013 and also Staff ID cards, and have been teaching in their various schools till date.

 

2.2.           According to the claimants, the 1st Claimant is a classroom teacher at Comprehensive High School (CHS) Sii in Ogoni Khana LGA of Rvers State; the 2nd claimant is a classroom teacher at Community Secondary School Kaani in Ogoni Khana LGA of Rivers State; the 3rd Claimant is a classroom teacher at Community Secondary School Kaaki in Ogoni Khana LGA of Rivers State; while the 4th Claimant is a classroom teacher at Government Secondary School Lumene in Ogoni Khana LGA of Rivers State. That while other persons who were also employed by the defendants have been paid and still receiving their salaries, the defendants have refused to pay them their salaries despite repeated demands by them and their solicitors. They pleaded their salaries and grade levels to include:

1st claimant --- salary grade level 7 step 2, (N65,000) per month.

2nd claimant --- salary grade level 7 step 2, (N65, 000) per month.

3rd claimant --- salary grade level 7 step 2, (N65,000) per month.

4th claimant --- salary grade level 8 step 4, (N67,123) per month.

 

2.3.           They urged the court to grant their claims because they have suffered mental, psychological, social and financial losses as a result of the defendants’ failure to pay them their salaries.

 

 

 

 

DEFENDANTS’ CASE:

 

3.1.           The Defendants deny ever employing the claimants as teachers. That the names of the claimants were neither shortlisted for interview, interviewed nor issued appointment/posting letters, assumption of duty certificates and staff ID Cards. That the claimants were not among those who went through the 2013 teachers recruitment exercise in Rivers State. That the names of the claimants are not contained in the Time Books and Payrolls/Nominal Rolls of the schools they alleged to have been deployed. That since the claimants are not employees of the defendants, they are not entitled to any salary and the suit should be dismissed with substantial cost.

 

DEFENDANT’S SUBMISSIONS.

 

4.1.           The learned counsel to the Defendants distilled this lone issue for determination in this suit: Whether the Claimants have adduced sufficient evidence to show that they are employees of the Defendants and that they(sic) entitled to salaries and promotions from the Defendants?

 

4.2.           It was submitted on the lone issue that since the claimants failed to show that they accepted any offer of employment from the defendants, there is no valid contract of employment between the parties in this suit. That where an offeror has prescribed the method by which an acceptance of an offer it to be communicated, the offeree must adopt the said method in communicating the acceptance. See Bilante Int’l Ltd. V. NDIC (2011) LPELR-781. That for there to be a valid contract the parties must be in consensus as idem with regard to the terms and conditions of the contract. See Amana Suites Hotels Ltd V. PDP (2007) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1031) 453 at 484 and Sona Breweries Plc V. Peters (2005) 1 NWLR (Pt. 908) 478 at 488.

 

4.3.           That the claimants who alleged that they reported to duty and have been teaching in the various schools they were posted to have the burden of proof because he who asserts must prove. See Ayanru V. Mandilas Ltd (2007) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1043) 453.

 

4.4.           It was further posited that while the 1st claimant’s alleged assumption of duty certificate (exhibit CW4C) purporting to show that the 1st claimant assumed duty on the 30th of October, 2013, the said certificate was however signed by the principal/Head Teacher and Zonal Director on the 1st of August, 2013 meaning that it was prepared and signed before the alleged assumption of duty by the 1st claimant. For the 2nd and 3rd claimants it was argued that their alleged assumption of duty certificates (exhibits CW3B and CW2B) are not dated meaning that they were forged and procured for the purpose of this suit.

 

4.5.           Learned counsel referred the court to exhibits DW1A – DW1J and submitted that the defendants have shown that the claimants were not among the teachers employed by the defendants in 2013. That since the claims in this suit are in the nature of special damages, the claimants have failed to plead and strictly prove same with particulars as required by law. The court was urged to resolve the lone issue in favour of the defendants and dismiss the suit. See Rivers State College of Education & 2 Ors. V. Omubo (1992) 8 NWLR (Pt. 260) 456, Union Beverages Ltd V. Owolabi (1988) 1 NWLR (Pt. 68) 128 at 133, Ajolore V. Kwara State College of Technology and Anor (1980) FWLR 414 AT 419, National Maritime Authority V. Marine Management Associates Inc. & Anor (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1185) 613, Nwaji V. Coastal Services Nigeria Limited (2004) 11 NWLR (Pt. 885) 552 at 564, 566-569 and 570, Okon Johnson & 14 Ors V. Mobil Producing Nig. Unlimited & 2 Ors, (2007) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1194) and Institute of Health Ahmadu Bello University Hospital Management Board V. Mrs. Jummai R. I. Anyip (2011) LPELR-SC.199/2003.

 

CLAIMANTS’ SUBMISSIONS

 

5.1.           The learned Claimants’ counsel identified this lone issue for the court’s determination, to wit: Whether Claimants have proved their case to be entitled to the claims sought.

 

5.2.           It is apposite to note that the learned counsel to the claimants raised a preliminary point of law with respect to the admissibility of exhibits DW1A, DW1B, DW1C, DW1D, DW1E, DW1F, DW1G, DW1H and DW1J. The ground of the objection is that the above listed exhibits are public documents which ought to be certified before they can be validly admitted into evidence. That by sections 104 and 105 of the Evidence Act, a public document must carry the words ‘certified true copy’, dated, stating the name, title and signature of the certifying officer. See Emeka V. Chuba-Ikpeazu (2017) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1589) 345 ratio 7 at 394(SC).

5.3.           That since the exhibits tendered by the defendants only bear ‘CTC’ it could mean anything such as “Christ Transfiguration Church” or “Community Traditional Council.” That the exhibits are also not dated by the certifying officer, and it is not the duty of the court to ascribe any meaning to the abbreviation “CTC”. See FAAN V. W.E.S. (Nig) Ltd (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1249) 219(SC).

 

5.4.           With respect to the lone issue distilled for determination it was submitted that civil cases like the instant one are decided on the preponderance of evidence or balance of probability. See Adeleke V. Iyanda (2001) 13 NWLR (Pt. 729) 1 at 21-22. That since an offer can be accepted by conduct, words of the parties or by documents, if the claimants did not accept the offers of employment as alleged by the defendants it would not have been possible for the Head of Service of Rivers State to have captured them biometrically and issued the Staff Identity Cards to them. Learned counsel referred to exhibits CW1A, CW2C, CW3C and CW4A and the case of Unitab Nig. Ltd V. Oyelola (2005) AFWLR (Pt. 280) 824.

 

5.5.           That since the claimants assumed duties at their respective schools where they were posted and signed attendance time books over an extended period of time, the defendants are estopped from denying that the claimants are their employees. The court was urged to find and hold that a valid contract of employment exists between the claimants and the defendants. See Nneji V. Zakhem Com (Nig) Ltd (2006) 12 NWLR (Pt. 994) 297 at 311. References were also made to exhibits CW1D, CW2A, CW3A, CW4B, CW2B, CW3B and CW4C.

 

5.6.           That since the evidence of the claimants were neither challenged nor debunked they remain good and credible and the court should rely on them, referring to the case of Ebeinwe V. State (2011) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1246) 402 at 416. That the defendants who assert that the Staff ID Cards issued to the claimants (exhibits CW1A, CW2C, CW3C and CW4A) were forged because the staff identity numbers on the ID Cards belong to other staff of the defendants failed to prove this allegation. That documents when tendered in evidence are the best form of evidence and no oral testimony can contradict the contents of documents. See Ronke V. FRN (2020) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1709) 574 ratios 10 and 23 at 397 and 599 and Olowu V. Building Stock Ltd (2018) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1601) 343 ratio 24.

 

5.7.           That even the exhibits tendered by the defendants support the case of the claimants because the names of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th claimants appeared many times in exhibits DW1A, DW1B and DW1D, and that since the defendants failed to produce completely exhibits DW1G, DW1H and DW1J from 2013 when the claimants were employed to 2015/2016 when this suit was instituted raises a presumption that had the full documents been tendered they would be unfavourable or adverse to the case of the defendants. See section 167(d) of the Evidence Act and Udeagu V. Benue Cement Co. Ltd (2006) 2 NWLR (Pt. 965) 600.

 

5.8.           It was further posited that, while DW1 informed the court during cross-examination that 20 persons were posted to CSS Kaani, the nominal roll tendered by the defendants (exhibit DW1G) however has only 17 names thereby leaving out 3 persons who include the 2nd and 3rd Claimants.

 

5.9.           That the claimants pleaded and particularized their claims at paragraph 16 of the Statement of Facts and proved same by their various depositions on oath their salaries per month which was admitted by DW1 during his cross-examination on the 29th of September, 2021.

 

5.10.       That the claimants have proved their case before the court and the court should enter judgment in their favour.

 

DEFENDANTS’ REPLY ON POINTS OF LAW.

 

6.1.           The defendants filed a Reply on Points of Law on the 17th of January, 2022 which was deemed as properly filed and served on the 14th of February, 2022. In response to the objection to the admissibility of the exhibits tendered by the defendants, it was replied that the claimants’ counsel has not shown that he is misled by the use of the abbreviation ‘CTC’ on the exhibits. That since parties are quite familiar with the abbreviation “CTC” they could not have been misled with respect to the meaning. That the word “CTC” has been judicially noticed and used by the courts in a plethora of cases. That to accept the argument of the claimants’ counsel is akin to accepting that the expressions “NWLR” or “LPELR” could mean anything other than the meanings in legal parlance. That the documents were duly dated 28th February, 2020 by the certifying officer. The court was urged to discountenance the objection. See  A. B. Manu & Co. (Nig) Ltd V. Costain (W.A.) Ltd (1994) LPELR-14650(CA) and Dan-Agundi V. Ballah & Ors (2019) LPELR-48898(CA).

COURT’S DECISION:

 

7.1.           Having carefully considered the pleadings, evidence and submissions of counsel for the parties, and having seen that the issues identified by both parties are almost the same, this court shall adopt the claimant’s issue in determining this suit, to wit: Whether the claimants have proved their case to be entitled to the claims sought.

7.2.           Before resolving the lone issue distilled for determination in this suit, I shall first consider the objection raised by the claimants’ counsel on the admissibility of exhibits DW1A, DW1B, DW1C, DW1D, DW1E, DW1F, DW1G, DW1H and DW1J. According to learned counsel the use of the abbreviation ‘CTC’ on the documents does not meet the requirements of sections 104 and 105 of the Evidence Act. That the said exhibits being public documents were not duly certified in compliance with sections 104 and 105 of the Evidence Act, and should therefore be discountenanced.

 

7.3.           Sections 104 and 105 of the Evidence Act, 2011 which provide for the certification of public documents are hereunder reproduced for the purpose of clarity:

“104(1) Every public officer having the custody of a public document which any person has a right to inspect shall give that person on demand a copy of it on payment of the legal fees prescribed in that respect, together with a certificate written at the foot of such copy that is a true copy of such document or part of it as the case may be.

(2) The certificate mentioned in subsection (1) of this section shall be dated and subscribed by such officer with his name and his official title, and shall be sealed, whenever such officer is authorized by law to make use of a seal, and such copies so certified shall be called certified copies.

(3) An officer who, by the ordinary course of official duty, is authorized to deliver such copies, shall be deemed to have the custody of such documents within the meaning of this section.

105. Copies of documents certified in accordance with section 104 may be produced in proof of the contents of the public documents or parts of the public documents of which they purport to be copies.”

 

7.4.           I have pored over the said exhibits DW1A – DW1J tendered by the defendants in this suit, and there is no doubt that being public documents they must be certified in accordance with the provisions of sections 104 and 105 of the Evidence Act reproduced above. I have seen that all the exhibits bear the abbreviation ‘CTC’ with the name of one Ezekiel-Hart A (Mrs) DA and duly signed by the officer. The exhibits also carry the stamp of the Director Administration, Rivers State Senior Secondary Schools Board Port Harcourt and while some are dated 27th February, 2020, others are dated 28th of February, 2020. I therefore hold the humble view that since the exhibits bear the name, signature, date and designation of the certifying officer who is the DA (Director of Administration) of the Rivers State Senior Secondary Schools Board, they were properly certified and properly admitted in evidence. The argument that the use of abbreviation ‘CTC’ could mean ‘Christ Transfiguration Church’ or ‘Community Traditional Council’ is to say the least ridiculous because context is important in everything. The context in which the abbreviation is used (legal profession) leaves no room for any doubt that the abbreviation means ‘Certified True Copies’. The Black’s Law Dictionary, Tenth Edition at page 4 defined abbreviation as “(1)The act of shortening of abridging, esp. a word or phrase. 2. The resulting shortened or abridged version of a word or phrase.” In any case, the abbreviation “CTC” has been used by appellate courts to mean “Certified True Copies”. In the circumstance, I find no merit in the objection and same is hereby discountenanced. The exhibits tendered by the defendant (exhibits DW1A – DW1J) were properly admitted, and shall be relied upon in this judgment. See Senator Iyiola Omisore & Anor V. Ogbeni Rauf Adesoji Aregbesola & Ors (2015) LPELR-24803(SC), Adzape-Orubibi Mimi & Anor V. Gabriel Torwua Suswan & Ors (2019) LPELR-48780(CA) and Hon. Maniru Babba Dan-Agundi V. Ibrahim Umar Ballah & Ors (2019) LPELR-48898(CA).

 

7.5.           Having resolved the preliminary point with respect to the admissibility of exhibits DW1A – DW1J, I shall now proceed to resolve the sole issue identified for determination in this suit.

 

7.6.           There is no doubt that the claimants who claim to have been employed by the defendants (particularly the 1st defendant) have the onus of establishing their claims before the court. In the bid to prove their claims as required by law, the claimants gave evidence in chief vide their various depositions as CW1, CW2, CW3 and CW4. During the cross-examination of the 4th Claimant (Bugba Korka Nnaa) who testified as CW1 on the 5th of November, 2019, the witness answered that he is 47 years of age and that he has proof of acceptance of the employment as a teacher on grade level 8 step 4. That the rank indicated in his ID Card is teacher, and that it is not correct that all those who took part in the genuine employment exercise have been receiving their salaries till date. He affirmed that his appointment is subject to confirmation and that he has not been confirmed. He refuted the insinuation that all the documents tendered by him are fake and insisted that he was employed by the defendants.

 

7.7.           During the cross-examination of the 3rd claimant (Dinee Green Victoria) who testified as CW2 on the 3rd of December, 2019, the witness answered that she attended an interview at the Rivers State Basic Education after the Senior Secondary School Board informed them of the interview. That while she has the list where she was shortlisted she however did not have it with her in court. That her qualification is NCE and she was employed on grade level 7 step 2 as a classroom teacher which she accepted. That she has lost the acceptance letter. She affirmed that all the teachers that were properly employed have been receiving their salaries, and she has never received any salary, and insisted that the sum of N65,000.00 she is claiming is her salary. That since the appointment letter stated that her probation is for a period of two years, the appointment is supposed to be confirmed after the period. She however stated that the appointment was confirmed orally by the Senior Secondary School Board. The witness who answered that she participated in biometric exercise however recanted and stated that she did not participate in the exercise because she has not been receiving salary. In another twist the witness informed the court that it was during the biometric exercise that she was given the ID Card, and insisted that she is a staff of the Rivers State Secondary School Board.

 

7.8.           The claimants’ 3rd witness (CW3) Nwale Shedrack Egerenyie (2nd Claimant) who was cross-examined on the 3rd of December, 2019 answered that he obtained his NCE in 2007 and he is 50 years old. That he was employed in 2013 as a classroom teacher grade level 07 step 2. That he took part in the first biometric exercise and he was given ID Card in 2013. That he does not know those who invited him for the interview and he has never received salary but their co-workers said the NCE holders would be paid N65,000.00. That he is not aware that the position he is claiming is not meant for NCE holders. That he is an employee of the Senior Secondary School Board and the documents tendered by him are not fake.

 

7.9.           The 1st claimant Pyakue Dornu testified as CW4 on the 28th of January, 2020. During his cross-examination the witness answered that he was given a provisional letter of employment as a classroom teacher on grade level 7 step 2. That he could not recall the meaning of ‘MG’ stated in the letter of employment and the rank stated in his ID Card. He refuted the question that all the documents tendered by him are fake. That while he accepted the offer in writing, he has however misplaced the copy of the acceptance letter. That the appointment was for a probationary period of two years, and the appointment was confirmed orally. That he participated in the first biometric exercise in 2013 and he was given staff ID card. That he has NCE, and refuted the question that an NCE holder cannot be offered the position he was given. That the salary he is claiming is not his own computation but the government salary for the grade level. That they were directed via radio announcement to open bank accounts. That he saw the list of shortlisted candidates in a cyber café which he did not print. 

 

7.10.       The evidence-in-chief of the defendants’ sole witness (DW) Chinenye Ebenezer Erinwo, Esq. who testified on the 18th of February, 2021 is not different from the averments in the defendants’ pleadings. During his cross-examination on the 18th of March, 2021 and 29th of September, 2021, the witness answered that he was transferred to the Legal Department of the 1st Defendant in 2019, and that the defendants carried out recruitment exercise in 2013 which information was circulated through media houses. That the successful candidates were shortlisted and invited for interview but he would not know the number of those shortlisted and invited for interview. That he does not have the list of those shortlisted for the interview but the total number of persons employed is 5,565, and they were given letters of employment and posted to various schools. That it is only the Board of the 1st Defendant that can issue appointment/posting letters to successful candidates, and confirmed that as at 2013 when the exercise was carried out the Executive Chairman of the Board was Chief Hon. Allwell H. Onyesoh. That while the name on exhibits CW1D, CW2A, CW3A and CW4D is that of the Executive Chairman of the Board, but that the documents did not originate from the Schools Board. That from exhibits CW1D, CW2A, CW3A and CW4B the 4th, 3rd, 2nd, and 1st claimants were posted to GSS Lumene Bangha, CSS Kaani, CSS Kaani and CHS Sii respectively. That the practice of the Board is for the successful candidates to collect their appointment letters at the registry and report to the principals of the schools they are posted to with their letters of posting. That it is not correct that it is only those whose names appear on the list forwarded to the principals of the various schools that will be attended to by the principals because they don’t send names or list of those employed to the principals, but that it is the individual employees that take their letters of appointment to the various schools. That while exhibits CW1F, CW2B, CW3B and CW4C are on the letterheads of the 1st Defendant, they are however not signed by the Chairman of the 1st Defendant’s Board, and refuted the question that the documents were signed by the principals of the various schools and the Zonal Director. That while 20 persons were posted to CSS Kaani, he cannot recall the number of persons posted to CHS Sii. The witness affirmed that only those duly employed and assumed duty are allowed to sign Staff Time Book by the schools, but that since the claimants were not duly employed, they cannot sign Staff Time Book. That all duly employed staff are issued staff ID card with an identity number signed by the Head of Service. He refuted the question that it is his evidence that the ID numbers given to the claimants belong to some other employed teachers, and insisted that the names of the claimants are not on the monthly nominal payroll. The witness affirmed that the nominal roll of Lumene Bangha before the court is for the month of March, and that they do not have the statistical nominal roll for the whole of 2014 and January, February and April, 2015 before the court. That the nominal roll of CSS Kaani for the year 2013 is not before the court, and he does not know the number of teachers posted to Lumene Bangha Comprehensive Secondary School. He informed the court that the salary of staff on grade level 7 step 2 is about N65,000.00 while that of staff on grade level 8 step 4 is about N67,000.00. He affirmed being aware that the Principal of GSS Lumene wrote to the Board demanding for the salary of the 4th claimant, but that he is not aware that the Board called for settlement.

 

7.11.       Having evaluated the evidence in this suit, it is obvious that the claimants were employed as classroom teachers by the 1st defendant and posted to their various schools as shown in exhibits CW1D, CW1F, CW2A, CW2B, CW3A, CW3B, CW4B and CW4C all dated 1st August, 2013. While exhibits CW1D, CW2A, CW3A and CW4B which are the employment letters were duly signed by Chief Allwell Onyesoh (JP) who DW confirmed during his cross-examination was the Executive Chairman of the 1st Defendant as at 2013 when the recruitment exercise was carried out, exhibits CW1F, CW2B, CW3B and CW4C which are the assumption of duty certificates were endorsed by the principals of the schools the claimants were posted to i.e. GSS Lumene-Bangha, CSS Kaani and CHS Sii and also endorsed by the Education Zonal Director for Khana Local Government indicating that the claimants duly assumed duties in their respective schools.

 

7.12.       The claimants also informed the court during their respective cross-examination that they participated in the biometric exercise of 2013 after their employment and duly issued staff ID Cards by the Head of Service (HOS) of Rivers State which are in evidence as exhibits CW1A, CW2C, CW3C and CW4A. Exhibits CW1B, CW1C and CW1E are demand letters written to the Executive Chairman of the 1st Defendant by the claimants’ solicitors. The argument by the defendants’ counsel that the claimants failed to establish that they accepted the offers of employment is untenable because without acceptance of the offers they would not have been issued the staff ID Cards by the Head of Service.

 

7.13.       It is noted that, the only defence put forward by the defendants is that they did not employ the claimants and the employment and posting letters as well as the staff ID Cards were not issued by the defendants because the numbers in the ID Cards belong to other employees of the defendants. In essence, the defendants are alleging that these documents were forged or faked as pleaded in paragraphs 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Statement of Defence and paragraphs 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the defendants’ witness statement on oath filed on the 27th of February, 2020.

 

7.14.       The law is trite that where criminal allegation (in this case forgery) is in issue even in a civil case, it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. This is the clear provision of section 135(1) of the Evidence Act. See the cases of African International Bank Limited & Ors. V. Femi Asaolu (2005) LPELR-11340(CA) and Dangana Mamman & Ors. V. Manasseh A. Tukura & Ors (2021) LPELR-53297(CA) at pages 31 – 32 paras. E – C where the Court of Appeal per Yargata Byenchit Nimpar, J.C.A. succinctly put the legal position thus, “The Appellants in their pleadings, statement of defence, averred that exhibit MT is a forgery. The law requires a party to go beyond pleadings and to prove such allegation. The allegation being criminal is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt as stipulated by section 135 of the Evidence Act, 2011 and as Ogunbiyi, JSC said in Agi V. PDP & Ors (2016) LPELR-42578(SC) thus: “The law is well settled that where allegation of crime is directly in issue in any civil or criminal proceedings, it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and the onus of proof is on the person who asserts. See Section 135(1) and (2) of the Evidence Act. See also Omoboriowo V. Ajasin (1984) 1 SCNJ 108; Bayo V. Njidda (2004) 8 NWLR (Pt. 876) 544 and Arebi V. Gbabiyo (2008) 2 LRECN 467 at 489.” Forgery by every definition is a criminal allegation and it was defined in Ngadi V. FRN (2018) LPELR-43636(CA) as follows: “By the definition of forgery, it includes making a false document or writing and altering a genuine document or writing in any material part, either by subtraction or addition that includes of date, attestation, seal or other material matter.” Per Garba, J.C.A. (as he then was).”

 

7.15.       In view of the onerous burden placed on the defendants by law to prove the allegations that the claimants were not shortlisted for the interview carried out in 2013 and that they were not issued the letters of employment, letters of posting and the Staff ID Cards, the defendants needed to have done more than just pleading these allegations and tendering exhibits DW1A, DW1B, DW1C, DW1D, DW1E, DW1F, DW1G and DW1H which are the Staff Attendance Time Books and Nominal Rolls of the various schools as well as the List of teachers recruited by the 1st Defendant in 2013. The defendants needed to have gone further and produce before the court the list of those shortlisted for the interview, list of those interviewed and the successful candidates who were recruited as secondary school teachers in Rivers State as at 2013. This would have shown clearly that the claimants were neither shortlisted for the interview and interviewed nor recruited by the 1st defendant. I have however seen from exhibits DW1A, DW1B, DWC and DW1D that some of the claimants indeed reported for work and signed the Staff Attendance Time Books. While the 2nd Claimant (Nwale Shedrack Egerenye) signed the Staff Attendance Time Book of C.S.S. Kaani (exhibit DW1B) on the 3rd June, 2014, 6th June, 2014, 10th June, 2014, 12th June, 2014, 18th June, 2014, 24th June, 2014, 2nd July, 2014, 4th July, 2014, 9th July, 2014, 18th July, 2014, 23rd July, 2014 and 24th July, 2014, the 3rd Claimant (Dinee Green Victoria) signed the Staff Attendance Time Book of C.S.S. Kaani (exhibit DW1A) on the 4th November, 2014 and exhibit DW1B on the 20th May, 2014, 23rd May, 2014, 30th May, 2014, 5th June, 2014 and 12th June, 2014; the 4th Claimant (Bugba Korka Nnaa) signed the Staff Attendance Time Book of G.S.S. Lumene (exhibit DW1D) on the 24th March, 2014, 1st April, 2014, 9th April, 2014, 10th April, 2014, 26th May, 2014, 4th June, 2014, 10th June, 2014, 17th June, 2014, 24th June, 2014, 30th June, 2014, 4th July, 2014, 7th July, 2014, 9th July, 2014, 15th July, 2014, 16th July, 2014, 23rd July, 2014, 24th July, 2014, 16th October, 2014, 21st October, 2014, 27th October, 2014, 5th November, 2014, 6th November, 2014, 11th November, 2014, 12th November, 2014, 19th November, 2014, 24th November, 2014, 27th November, 2014, 2nd December, 2014, 4th December, 2014, 8th December, 2014, 12th December, 2014, 17th December, 2014, 28th January, 2015, 10th February, 2015 and 13th February, 2015. For the claimants to be attending classes and teaching students in the various schools they were posted to as shown in the exhibits tendered by the defendants is indicative of the fact that they were employed by the defendants particularly the 1st defendant. I so find and hold.

 

7.16.       The defendants tendered exhibit DW1E ostensibly as proof that the names of the claimants are not in the list of the teachers recruited during the 2013 recruitment exercise. While I have not seen the names of the claimants in exhibit DW1E, it must however be pointed out that exhibit DW1E is not the master list of the recruited staff of the 1st defendant as prepared in 2013 when the exercise was carried out. Exhibit DW1E was prepared/compiled on the 29th of September, 2016 (more than three years after the recruitment exercise) and during the pendency of this suit which was commenced on the 27th of July, 2016. It is the law in this country that evidence procured during the pendency or in anticipation of a suit by an interested party is inadmissible in law. That is the fate that has befallen exhibit DW1E. Since exhibit DW1E was made by the 1st Defendant during the pendency of this suit it is clearly inadmissible in law, and having admitted same the court hereby expunges the said exhibit DW1E from the records. It lacks any iota of credibility/probative value and none shall be ascribed to same. See CSP L. L. Anagbado V. Alhaji Idi Faruk (2018) LPELR-44909(SC) and Federal Road Safety Commission & Ors. V. Incorporated Trustees of Risk & Accident Prevention Society of Nigeria (2020) LPELR-51271(CA) and section 83(3) of the Evidence Act.

 

7.17.       It is now obvious that the defendants have failed to prove the allegations of forgery against the claimants as required by law. They have not shown the court that exhibits CW1A, CW1D, CW1F, CW2A, CW2B, CW2C, CW3A, CW3B, CW3C, CW4A, CW4B and CW4C were either forged or illegally obtained by the claimants. Rather than outrightly denying issuing the documents to the claimants, I think the case of the defendants would have been more plausible if they had shown the court that upon verification/investigation the claimants were found to have been improperly recruited for whatever reason.

 

7.18.       With respect to the reliefs in this suit, I hold that relief one(1) for an order of court declaring the defendants’ refusal to pay the claimants their salaries and other entitlements after having been duly employed and claimants rendering their services as wrongful, unlawful, oppressive and without any justification is hereby granted. The claimants who have established that they were employed and worked for the defendants deserve to be paid their wages.

 

7.19.       With respect to relief two (2) for order directing the defendants to pay the claimants their salaries and entitlements from 1st August 2013 to the date judgment is delivered is also granted. The claimants are entitled to be paid till date of judgment in the suit because of the statutory nature of their employments. They pleaded their salaries in paragraph 16 of the Statement of Facts and their various depositions as N65,000 per month for the 1st, 2nd and 3rd claimants on salary grade level 7 step 2 and N67,123 per month for the 4th claimant on salary grade level 8 step 4. Even though the letters of employment (exhibits CW1D, CW2A, CW3A and CW4B) are silent on the remunerations of the claimants, the defendants’ sole witness admitted during his cross-examination on the 29th of September, 2021 that the salary of grade level 7 step 2 is about N65,000.00 while that of grade level 8 step 4 is N67,000.00 plus.

 

7.20.       For relief three (3) for a declaration that the claimants are entitled to promotion and other entitlements emanating therefrom as may be the practice in the Rivers State Senior Secondary School Board and the Rivers State Ministry of Education, I must state straightaway that this relief is not grantable in view of the legal position that promotion in the service is not a right but a privilege which is earned, and that an employer cannot be compelled to promote its employee. Relief three (3) is therefore refused. See Sylvester C. Nwoye V. Federal Airports Authority of Nigeria (2019) LPELR-46402(SC).

 

7.21.       For relief four (4) for an order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants by themselves, agents, privies, servants etc from refusing, neglecting or failing to pay the claimants their salaries and other entitlement forthwith, while I hold the view that since the court has held that the claimants are entitled to their salaries an ancillary order of perpetual injunction can be made in deserving circumstances, I am however not comfortable with the way the relief for perpetual injunction is couched in this suit. The relief as couched is open-ended and not predicated upon the statutory periods the employments of the claimants will end. In any case, the claimants have not claimed any relief relating to the status of their employments with the defendants to have warranted an order of perpetual injunction. Relief four (4) is therefore refused.

 

7.22.       Relief five (5) is for the sum of N20, 000,000.00 (Twenty Million Naira) only being general damages against the defendants for mental, psychological and social trauma suffered by the claimants arising from such wrongful refusal to pay the claimants their salaries and other entitlements. Having granted relief two (2) for the payment of the claimants’ entitlements I do not think that they are entitled to any amount as general damages. In any case, they have not shown the court how they suffered mental, psychological and social trauma because of the defendants’ refusal to pay their salaries. This relief fails and is accordingly refused.

 

7.23.       In the final result, the lone issue is hereby resolved in favour of the Claimants. The Claimants’ case therefore succeeds in part, and reliefs 1 and 2 are hereby granted. Reliefs 3, 4 and 5 are refused. For the avoidance of doubt, the court hereby declares and orders as follows:

 

1.      It is hereby declared that the defendants’ refusal to pay the claimants their salaries and other entitlements after having been duly employed and claimants rendering their services, as wrongful, unlawful, oppressive and without any justification.

 

2.      The defendants are hereby directed to pay the claimants their salaries and entitlements from 1st August, 2013 to the date judgment is delivered in this suit being today Friday 13th May, 2022 as follows:

1st claimant = N65,000 (Sixty Five Thousand Naira) only per month.

2nd claimant = N65, 000 (Sixty Five Thousand Naira) only per month.

3rd claimant = N65,000 (Sixty Five Thousand Naira) only per month.

4th claimant = N67,123 (Sixty Seven Thousand, One Hundred and Twenty Three Naira) only per month.

 

Judgment is entered accordingly.

 

No order as to cost

 

 

Hon. Justice P. I. Hamman

Judge

 

REPRESENTATION:

 

E. N. Obua for the Claimants.

P. Enebeli, Esq. (Principal State Counsel, Rivers State Ministry of Justice) for the Defendants.