IN THE NATIONAL INDUSRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE BENIN JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT BENIN

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP:  HON. JUSTICE A.A. ADEWEMIMO

 

DATED: 10th MAY, 2022                             SUIT NO: NICN/BEN/39/2019

 

BETWEEN

 

1.     HON. ERIC O. OHONSI                                                                       

2.     MR. CHRISTOPHER S. OKHUELEGBE             …….. CLAIMANTS

3.     MR. RALPH MOORE O. ASEMIEN

 

AND

 

IGUEBEN LOCAL GOVERNMENT

COUNCIL                                                                       …….. DEFENDANT

 

Representations:

 

Prince Edobor Izebhigie, Esq. for the Claimants

C.U. Ibhafidon, Esq. for the Defendant

 

 

JUDGMENT

1.      The Claimants initiated this suit by way of a complaint, statement of facts and other accompanying processes dated and filed 22nd day of November, 2019, whereby they seek the following reliefs against the Defendant:

a)     A DECLARATION that the 1st Claimant is entitled to the immediate release and payment of the sum of N2,233,900.00 (Two Million Two Hundred and Thirty Three Thousand, Nine Hundred Naira), the 2nd Claimant is entitled to the immediate release and payment of the sum of N2,227,900.00 (Two Million Two Hundred and Twenty Seven Thousand, Nine Hundred Naira), and the 3rd Claimant is entitled to the immediate release and payment of the sum of N2,080,228.00 (Two Million Eighty Thousand, Two Hundred and Twenty Eight Naira), totaling  N6,542,028.00 (Six Million Five Hundred and Forty Two Thousand and Twenty Eight Naira) being the balances of the claimants full severance gratuity found due to  them having been paid N200,000.00 (Two Hundred Thousand Naira) only each amounting to N600,000.00 (Six Hundred Thousand Naira).

b)    A DECLARATION that the 2nd Claimant is entitled to the payment of the sum of N2,427,900.00 (Two Million Four Hundred and Twenty-Seven Thousand, Nine Hundred Naira) and the 3rd claimant is entitled to the sum of N2,280,228.00 (Two Million Two Hundred and Eighty Thousand Two Hundred and Twenty-Eight Naira) totaling N4,708,128.00 (Four Million Seven Hundred and Eight Thousand One Hundred and Twenty-Eight Naira) being the 2nd and 3rd claimants’ full furniture allowances found due to them.

c)     AN ORDER compelling the Defendant to release forthwith and pay up in full the balances of N6,542,028.00 (Six Million Five Hundred and Forty-Two Thousand and Twenty-Eight Naira) being the Claimants balances of severance monetary benefit in accordance with the binding Edo State Political and Public Officers Emolument Law in force.

d)    AN ORDER compelling the Defendant to pay up the 2nd and 3rd claimants in full their furniture allowances of N4,708,128.00 (Four Million Seven Hundred and Eight Thousand One Hundred and Twenty-Eight Naira) due to them.

e)     Interest on the total balance sum of Severance Gratuity (N6,542,028.00), and Furniture Allowances (N4,708,128.00) making N11,250,156 (Eleven Million, Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand, One Hundred and Fifty-Six Naira) at the rate of 20% until the sum is liquidated.

f)      N600,000.00 (Six Hundred Thousand Naira) only being cost of action and legal fees.

2.      The Defendant joined issues with the claimants vide its memorandum of appearance, statement of defence and other accompanying documents dated and filed 14th of October, 2020, but deemed properly filed and served on 23rd of March, 2021.

3.      The case in summary is that, the 1st, 2nd and 3rd claimants are former political office holders and served in the defendant from 2013 -2016.  Upon the successful completion of their tenure, the claimants became entitled to severance gratuities and furniture allowances, they relied on the Edo State Political and Public Officers Emolument Law, 2007, for the reliefs claimed. The claimants’ grievance in this suit is that the defendant despite repeated demands, has refused to pay their entitlements whereupon they instituted this action.

4.      Trial commenced in this suit on the 26th July, 2021, when all three claimants testified as CW1-CW3. The first claimant, Eric Ohonsi testified as CW1, he adopted his written deposition and tendered documents that were admitted and marked Exhibits H1-H4. It is on record that the defence counsel objected to the admissibility of Exhibit H1, H3, and H4 (Edo State Political and Public Officers Emolument Law, 2007, at the point of tendering same but the court deferred arguments on same to Final Written Address stage.

5.      CW1 led evidence that he was sworn in as an elected Councilor, Ward 2, Igueben Local Government on 22nd of May, 2013, and appointed leader of the legislative house of the defendant. CW1 served the defendant till the end of his tenure i.e., 21st of April, 2016, and was on an annual basic salary of N811,300.00 (Eight Hundred and Eleven Thousand, Three Hundred Naira). He added that by virtue of his office and as provided in the Edo State Political and Public Officers Emolument Law, he is entitled to 300% of his annual basic salary as severance gratuity.

6.      CW1 continued that the defendant only paid him a sum of N200,000 (Two Hundred Thousand Naira) out of the total severance gratuity leaving a balance of N2,233,900,00 (Two Million Two Hundred and Thirty-Three Thousand, Nine Hundred Naira) yet unpaid. CW1 testified that despite repeated demands, the defendant persistently refused to pay the outstanding balance.

7.      Under cross-examination, CW1 maintained that he was an elected councilor and served and completed his tenure, but was not issued a letter of employment, because he was elected.

8.      The 2nd claimant, Christopher Okulegbe testified as CW2, he adopted his written deposition on oath, identified Exhibits H3 and H4, and tendered Exhibit K1(letter of Appointment). He stated that he was appointed as a Supervisor in the defendant vide letter dated 3rd June, 2013, and served in that office for three years. He continued that his basic annual salary was N809,300 (Eight Hundred and Nine Thousand, Three Hundred Naira), and added that at the expiration of his tenure of office, he became entitled to 300% of his annual basic salary i.e. N2,427,900 (Two Million Four Hundred and Twenty-Seven Thousand, Nine Hundred Naira) as severance gratuity and Furniture allowance respectively. CW2 alleged that he was paid N200,000 (Two Hundred Thousand Naira) by the defendant out of his severance gratuity leaving a balance of N2,227,900,00 (Two million two hundred and Twenty-Seven thousand, nine hundred naira) yet unpaid, while his furniture allowance was left unpaid.

9.      Under cross-examination, CW2 stated that it is not true that the defendant only pays salaries of political office holders, and mentioned that the claimants are also entitled to gratuity. He added that he does not have any evidence of the payment of N200,000 out of his severance gratuity, by the defendant with him, as they are in the custody of the defendant.

10.    The 3rd claimant, Ralph Moore O. Asemien testified as CW3. He adopted his written deposition, identified Exhibits H2, H3, and H4, and tendered Exhibits R1 and R2. His evidence-in-chief is substantially the same with the other claimants, he led further evidence that he was appointed as a special adviser by the Chairman of the defendant, and his annual basic salary was N760,076 (Seven Hundred and Sixty Thousand, Seventy-Six Naira). CW3 testified that he is entitled to severance gratuity and furniture allowance at the rate of 300% of his annual basic salary which is N2,280,228 (Two Million Two Hundred and Eighty Thousand, Two Hundred and Twenty-Eight Naira) respectively but was only paid N200,000.00k, out of his severance gratuity by the defendant.

11.    CW3 testified under cross-examination that Exhibit R2 stipulates his entitlement and same is embedded in Exhibit H4(Emolument Law), and maintained that he was an appointee of the defendant.

12.    The defence opened by calling Carol O. Iyoha, legal officer with the defendant as DW1. The defendant’s witness adopted her written deposition and was duly cross-examined. In her evidence-in-chief, DW1 testified that the claimants are neither entitled to the severance gratuities nor the furniture allowances claimed in their reliefs. She continued that the claimants misled the defendant to pay them the sum of N200,000 (Two Hundred Thousand Naira) each, to which they were never entitled.

13.    Under cross-examination, DW1 confirmed that the 1st, 2nd and 3rd claimants served as Councilor, Supervisor, and Special Adviser respectively with the defendant from 2013 -2016. DW1 reiterated that the claimants were only entitled to their salaries, not severance gratuities or furniture allowances. She further testified that she does not know if the N200,000.00k paid to the claimants were part of their gratuities.

14.    The defence closed after the evidence of DW1 and the case was adjourned for adoption of final written addresses. Learned counsel for the parties adopted their addresses on 14th of February, 2022, and this case was thereafter set down for judgment.

15.    The defendant’s final written address dated 25th November, 2021 was adopted and filed by C.U. Ibhafidon Esq. on 29th November, 2021. Learned counsel submitted one issue for determination in the address to wit:

        i.            Whether the claimants’ claim for salary arrears, severance gratuity, furniture allowances, severance money benefit entitlement are not qualified as special damages.

16.    He noted that claims for Salary Arrears, Severance Gratuity, Furniture Allowances and Monetary Benefit entitlement qualify as special damages.  Learned defence counsel argued that a claim must be pleaded and particularized. He added that the Claimants in this instance failed to comply with this requirement and as such, the claims must fail, citing U.B.N Plc vs. Nwankwo & Anor (2020) vol. 300 LRCN pg. 223 at 227-229 ratios 2-8.

17.    The defence counsel further contended that the Edo State Political and Public Officers Emolument Law, 2007, is null, void, illegal, unconstitutional, and morally wrong. He relied on an unreported Court of Appeal decision CA/A/810/2017 in the Governor of Kogi State & 3 Ors and in conclusion urged the Court to dismiss this suit with cost.

18.    The claimants’ final written address is dated 13th December, 2021 and filed by Prince Edobor Izebhigie Esq. on the 14th December, 2021. Learned counsel for the claimants submitted one issue for determination in the address to wit:

        i.            Whether the Claimants have been able to prove their case on the preponderance of evidence to be entitled to the reliefs sought.

19.    The claimant’s counsel submitted that the burden to establish the facts upon which legal liabilities and rights depends, rests on the parties who asserts same. Learned counsel argued that the claimants have discharged this burden by tendering Exhibits H1, K1 and R1, R2. He also referred to the Edo State Political and Public Officers Emolument Law 2007, relied on by the claimants in proof that they are entitled to severance gratuity and furniture allowance.

20.    Learned counsel pointed out that the claimants have also established that the 1st claimant was duly elected as councilor of the defendant, and the 2nd and 3rd  Claimants were appointees of the chairman of the defendant. Learned claimants’ counsel noted that the evidence before the Court further indicates that they all completed their respective tenures, and as such they have discharged the burden placed on them by the law, citing Apena V. Aileru (2015) 24 WRN 1.

21.    Learned Counsel noted that material assertions in the statement of facts were not frontally denied by the defendant, thus are deemed admitted, citing Hilary Farms Ltd & Ors. v M/V Mahtra & Ors. (2007) 6 SC (pt. 11) 85. He argued that the Defendant only made evasive denial in its defence and this will not suffice to debunk the evidence of the Claimants, citing UBA PLC V Jargaba (2007) 11 NWLR (pt. 1045) 247.

22.    The claimants’ counsel argued further that by virtue of Section 4 of the Edo State Political and Public officers Emolument Law, 2007, the claimants all fall within the definition of elected and appointed officers.  He therefore posited that the evidence led by the Defence did not discredit the case of the claimants. He maintained that the Defendant paid part of the Claimants severance gratuity, while the furniture allowance of the 2nd and 3rd claimants were not paid.

23.    Learned Counsel submitted that since the Edo State Political and Public Officers Emolument Law, 2007 is still in force and has not been repealed, the claimants are entitled to 300% of their Annual Basic salaries each as severance gratuity and furniture allowance as specified in Part II and Part III Sub-section B schedule 2 of the Law. He urged the Court to hold that the claimants are entitled to the balance of their severance gratuities, and the 2nd and 3rd claimants entitled to their furniture allowances.

24.    The claimants’ counsel further argued that the Claimants are entitled to an award of post-judgment interest and cost of this action. He pointed out that the Defendant has not denied, challenged nor discredited this head of the claim which is supported by Exhibit H2, and relied on Hilary Farms Ltd & Ors. V. M/V Mahtra & Ors. (Supra); and Order 55 Rule 5 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure Rules) 2017.

25.    Learned counsel noted that the defendant failed to comply with the Rules of this Court, which requires certification of an unreported case relied upon by a party. He therefore urged the court to discountenance the unreported Court of Appeal case, Appeal No: CA/A/810/2017, cited by the defence counsel. In support of his argument, counsel further cited Order 45 Rule 3(1) and (2) of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure Rules) 2017. He contended that the unreported case cited is distinguishable from the facts in this case and is therefore inapplicable. He added that the issue of pension canvassed by the defendant is not part of the Claimants’ case.

26.    In conclusion, counsel urged the Court to discountenance the arguments by the defence and grant all the reliefs sought by the Claimants.

27.    I have carefully studied the processes filed in this suit, the evidence adduced by the witnesses and the submissions of counsel on both sides in their final address and have identified the following issue for the effective determination of this suit, to wit;

Whether or not the claimants have established their claim based on the preponderance of evidence.

28.    It is important to note that on the 15th of July, 2021, learned defence counsel’s objected to the admissibility of Exhibits H1(1st Claimant’s Certificate of Return), H3 (Claimants’ solicitor’s letter of intention to apply to the court) and H4 (Edo State Political and Public Officers Emolument Law, 2007)  tendered though CW1 during the course of trial. The Court there and then deferred arguments on same till final written address stage, both counsel however failed to address the court in their final addresses, and as a result, the objection is deemed abandoned and is hereby discountenanced. This Court further notes that Exhibit H4 is a duly enacted law of which this court is bound to take judicial notice, while Exhibits H1 and H3 were duly pleaded, relevant and admissible in law. Also worthy of note is the fact that the evidence adduced with regards to Exhibit H1 were uncontested and admitted. The evidence led by CW1 is that he was issued Exhibit H1 and was duly elected councilor of the defendant, while Exhibit H3 was issued by the claimants’ solicitors to the defendant, notifying it of the claimants’ intention to proceed to court in pursuit of their claims. This Court therefore finds no feature in these Exhibits that detracts from their admissibility, also see Section 12(2) b of National Industrial Court Act, 2016. Consequent upon the above expositions, Exhibits H1, H3 and H4 are not only admissible in law but were duly admitted.  I so hold.

29.    It is trite law that the legal burden of proof initially rests on the party who will fail if no evidence is called in a case See Sections 131, 132 and 133 of the Evidence Act, 2011.

30.    The claimants in this wise retains the initial burden to proof their case, whereby they testified as CW1, CW2 and CW3. The claimants further tendered Exhibits H1-H4, K1, and R1-R2, while the defendant called DW1 in support of its case and tendered no document. The claimants led evidence that the 1st claimant served as an elected Councilor and leader of the defendant’s legislative arm, while the 2nd and 3rd claimant were appointed as a Supervisor and a Special Adviser respectively by the chairman of the defendant from 2013 - 2016. The 1st, 2nd and 3rd claimants further testified that they were entitled to annual basic salaries of N811,300.00, N809,300.00 and N760,076.00 respectively, and backed up these facts with Schedule 2 Part II of Emolument Law.

31.    The defendant on its part contended that the claimants are not entitled to the claim for severance gratuity and furniture allowance at the end of their tenure, and whereas the claimants in proof of their entitlement placed reliance on the Edo State Political and Public Officers Emolument Law, 2007, the defendant argued that the Law relied upon by the claimants is unconstitutional, null and void.

32.    A scrutiny of the Emolument law cited reveals that it was made by the Edo State House of Assembly, the body created under the Constitution to pass same. In Schedule 2 Part III of the Law it is clearly provided as follows:

“With the exception of the State Governor, Chairman and Vice-Chairman of Local Government, all other categories of public officers shall be entitled to 300% of the Annual Basic Salary as Furniture Allowance once during the tenure…”

33.    This provision without doubt forms the basis of the claim of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd claimants, who are qualified under that law, to be paid furniture allowances and severance gratuities at the end of their tenures.

34.    It is worthy of note that the defendant did not deny the entitlements as specifically captured in the law, rather it made a general traverse and further alleged that it was misled by the claimants to pay a sum of N200,000 to each of them, see paragraphs 3, 5, 6, and 7 of its statement of defence where the defendant pleaded that:

“The defendant shall state that all the documents to be relied upon by the claimants were made up and prepared in anticipation of this suit.

The defendant shall state in response to paragraph 11 of the statement of facts that the 2nd and 3rd claimants were never entitled to the furniture allowances claimed.

The defendant shall state in response to paragraph 14 of the statement of facts that the claimants were never entitled to the 300% of their basic severance gratuity (sic) claimed therein.

The defendant shall state in response to paragraph 15 of the statement of facts that the claimants misled the defendant into paying N200,000 to the claimants which sum the claimants were not entitled.”

35.    The defendant further premised its defence on an unreported court of Appeal case Appeal No: CA/A/810/2017 Governor of Kogi State & 3 Ors and submitted thereon that the Edo State Political and Public Officers Emolument Law is not only void but also morally wrong.

36.    It is however worthy of note that a certified true copy of a Court of Appeal authority cited by the defence in this suit was not attached to the defendant’s final address as required under the Rules of this Court. The defence thereby contravened the Provisions of Order 45 Rule 3 of the National Industrial Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017, which provides that:

(1) All Written Addresses shall be concluded with a numbered summary of the points raised and the party’s prayer. A list of all authorities referred to shall be submitted with the Written Address. Where any unreported judgment is relied upon, the Certified True Copy shall be submitted along with the Written Address.

(2) Failure to comply with rules 2 and 3(1) of this Order may render the written Address incompetent.”

37.    In line with the above provision, the failure of the defence counsel to attach the Certified True Copy of the unreported Court of Appeal Judgment to his written address, renders his submissions thereon incompetent.

38.    Furthermore, the primacy of facts available in the instant case reveals that the Edo State Political and Public Officers Emolument law having been made by the competent constitutional authority, is enforceable by this Court. The Court is without doubt to apply the law to the facts and circumstances of each case in order to attain justice, see Olutola v University of Ilorin (2004) LPELR-2632 (SC) where Ejiwunmi JSC held thus:

“It is clearly the duty of a Court that is well seized of the Law to seek to apply it to the facts before it.”

Therefore premised on the above, I hold that the Edo state public and political officers Emolument Law, 2007, having been made by the body constitutionally charged to enact same is valid and subsisting, and has the force of law in Edo State. I so hold.

39.    The defence further contended that the sum contained in the claimants’ reliefs are liquidated money demand which falls under the realm of special damages. On this, I am in agreement with the defence counsel, considering the fact that the law is trite that special damages are required by law to be specifically pleaded and particularly proved. See I.B.W.A. Ltd (Now Afribank Plc) v Hotel Metropole International Ltd. & Anor. (2010) LPELR-4272(CA) where Tsamiya JCA held that:

“…Special Damages are in a class of their own requiring strict proof which can only be proved/established by credible and ascertainable facts which must have been specifically pleaded and of course strictly proved.”

40.    The claimants in this regard, pleaded the sum claimed in paragraphs 10, 11, 12, and 15 of their statement of facts thus:

“The Claimants aver that they were entitled to severance gratuity of N2,433,900, N2,427,900, and N2,280,228 respectively at the end of the tenure in office.

That the 2nd and 3rd claimants aver that they were entitled to furniture allowances of 300% of their basic salaries which is N2,427,900 and N2,280,228 respectively which the defendant neglected/refused to pay.

The claimants aver that they were entitled to and received annual basic salaries as follows N811,300 by the 1st claimant, N809,300 by the 2nd claimant and N760,076 by the 3rd claimant.

The claimants aver that the defendant only paid them N200,000 out of their severance gratuities in two installments on the 14th September, 2018 and 9th January, 2019 of N100,000 each and thereafter reluctantly refused to show interest of paying the balances.”

41. They further led evidence on same in their adopted depositions, see paragraphs 7, 8 and 12 of the deposition of CW1, paragraphs 10, 14 and 15 of the deposition of CW2, and paragraphs 11, 13 and 15 of the deposition of CW3.

42.  A scrutiny of the Emolument Law, in Part II Schedule 2, discloses that the annual basic salary for a Councilor (leader of the house) is N811,300.00k per annum while Supervisors and Special Advisers to Local Governments in Edo State are entitled to N809,300 and N760,076.00k per annum respectively. It was also provided in the same instrument that each of these officers are entitled to 300% of their annual basic salaries as severance gratuities, out of which the defendant paid only N200,000.00 to the claimants as part payment. In addition, the 2nd and 3rd claimants were not paid their furniture allowances, and the only defence offered by the defendant in this regard is that it was misled by the claimants to pay the sum to them, on this, see paragraph 7 of the adopted deposition of DW1. The defendant however did not proffer any proof on how it was misled or other additional evidence in this regard, and as such same is unproven. The evidence of the claimants on this fact stands unrebutted, and can be acted upon by this court. In summary, the claimants have established their claims to the sum stated in their reliefs, and same is calculated as follows:

1st Claimant

Annual Basic Salary = N811,300

Severance Gratuity = 300% of N811,300

N811,300 x 300

     100                       = N2,433,900 less N200,000 = N2,233,900 (Two Million Two Hundred and Thirty-Three Thousand, Nine Hundred Naira).

The 1st claimant is therefore entitled to a sum of N2,233,900 (Two Million Two Hundred and Thirty-Three Thousand, Nine Hundred Naira) as balance of his severance gratuity.

2nd Claimant

Annual Basic Salary = N809,300

Severance Gratuity = 300% of N809,300

N809,300 x 300

        100 = N2,427,900 less N200,000 = N2,227,900 (Two Million Two Hundred and Twenty-Seven Thousand, Nine Hundred Naira);

The 2nd claimant is therefore entitled to a sum of N2,227,900 (Two Million Two Hundred and Twenty-Seven Thousand, Nine Hundred Naira) as balance of his severance gratuity.

3rd Claimant

Annual Basic Salary = N760,076

Severance Gratuity = 300% of N760,076

N760,076 x 300

      100                       = N2,280,228 less N200,000 = N2,080,228 (Two Million Eighty Thousand, Two Hundred and Twenty-Eight Naira).

The 2nd claimant is therefore entitled to a sum of N2,080,228 (Two Million Eighty Thousand, Two Hundred and Twenty-Eight Naira) as balance of his severance gratuity.

43.    In line with the expositions above, I find that the 1st, 2nd and 3rd claimants have established their entitlement to the severance gratuity calculated above. Furthermore, the 2nd and 3rd claimants have also established their entitlement to furniture allowances at the same rate of 300% of their annual basic salary as specified in the Emolument law, that is, the 2nd and 3rd claimants are entitled to a sum of N2,427,900 (Two Million Four Hundred and Twenty-Seven Thousand, Nine Hundred Naira) for the 2nd claimant, and N2,280,228 (Two Million Two Hundred and Eighty Thousand, Two Hundred and Twenty-Eight Naira) for the 3rd claimant as furniture allowance to be paid by the defendant. I so hold.

44.    On the issue of cost of this action, the general rule is that costs follow events and a successful party is entitled to same. The award of costs or its refusal is at the discretion of the Court which is to be exercised judicially and judiciously, see NNPC Pension Ltd. v VITA Construction Ltd. (2016) LPELR-41259(CA): NIPOST V. MUSA (2013) LPELR-20780(CA). The Court is therefore expected to consider the circumstances of each case with the aim to reimburse the successful party for the expenses incurred in the course of the case including the cost of litigation amongst others.

45.  The claimants in proof of this leg of their relief tendered Exhibit H2 which is the receipt for the legal fees paid to their counsel in the sum of Six hundred thousand Naira (N600,000). This court having taken note of this and other factors in this suit considers an award of cost meritorious and hereby award a sum of Three Hundred Thousand Naira (N300,000) against the defendant as cost. I so hold.

46.  In conclusion, I find that the claimant’s action succeeds and I hereby declare and order as follows:

a)     The 1st, 2nd and 3rd claimants are entitled to the immediate release and payment of the balance of their severance gratuities in the sums of N2,233,900 (Two Million Two Hundred and Thirty-Three Thousand, Nine Hundred Naira), N2,227,900 (Two Million Two Hundred and Twenty-Seven Thousand, Nine Hundred Naira), and N2,080,228 (Two Million Eighty Thousand, Two Hundred and Twenty-Eight Naira) respectively.

b)    The 2nd and 3rd claimants are entitled to the immediate release and payment of their furniture allowances in the sums of N2,427,900 (Two Million Four Hundred and Twenty-Seven Thousand, Nine Hundred Naira), and N2,280,228 (Two Million Two Hundred and Eighty Thousand, Two Hundred and Twenty-Eight Naira) respectively.

c)     The defendant is ordered to release and pay the 1st, 2nd and 3rd claimants’ the balance of their severance gratuities in the sums of N2,233,900 (Two Million Two Hundred and Thirty-Three Thousand, Nine Hundred Naira), N2,227,900 (Two Million Two Hundred and Twenty-Seven Thousand, Nine Hundred Naira), and N2,080,228 (Two Million Eighty Thousand, Two Hundred and Twenty-Eight Naira) respectively.

d)    The defendant is ordered to release and pay the 2nd and 3rd claimants’ furniture allowances in the sums of N2,427,900 (Two Million Four Hundred and Twenty-Seven Thousand, Nine Hundred Naira), and

N2,280,228 (Two Million Two Hundred and Eighty Thousand, Two Hundred and Twenty-Eight Naira) respectively.

e)     A cost of N300,000 (Three Hundred Thousand Naira) is hereby awarded to the claimants to be paid by the defendant.

f)      All sums awarded in this judgment is to be paid by the defendant within 30 days from the date of this judgment, failing which the sum shall attract a 10% interest per annum.

 

Judgment is accordingly entered.

 

 

 Hon. Justice A. A. Adewemimo

 

Presiding Judge