IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE LOKOJA JUDICIAL DIVISION

                        HOLDEN IN LOKOJA

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: HON. JUSTICE O.O. OYEWUMI

DATE:  28TH OCTOBER, 2022               SUIT NO: NICN/LKJ/06/2021

BETWEEN

1.      AGIH DANIEL ATABO

2.      AWODI MATHEW

3.      EJIGA SALOME OJODUNWENE

4.      ALIH R. ADEJOH

5.      ABU IBRAHIM

6.      IYAJI SHEDRACH

7.      W OCHUILLIAM ADAMU

8.      LABIJA RAPHAEL

9.      MATHEW OCHU GBONE

10. USMAN IDAKWOJI

11. SAMSON ADEMU

12. OGACHEKO PETER

13. ACHEM IBRAHIM DAVID

14. FRANCISCA E. NEGEDU

15. NANCY BABA

16. IDRIS NEGEDU

17. AGONO TIJANI

18. GRACE MAHA……………………………. CLAIMANTS                                              

 

AND

1.      ATTORNEY GENERAL OF KOGI STATE & COMMISSIONER FOR JUSTICE KOGI STATE GOVERNMENT.

(For and on behalf of its agencies and parastatals)

2.      KOGI STATE GOVERNMENT

3.      KOGI STATE UNIVERSAL BASIC EDUCATION BOARD

4.      LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICE COMMISSION.

5.      KOGI STATE PENSION COMMISSION

6.      ANKPA LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA …………… DEFENDANTs

 

REPRESENATION

A.C. Attah Esq with Ali Adah Esq, A.O Abah esq and J.A Iyamabo, Aig (rtd) mni Esq for the Claimants.

Atule E. Stanley Esq with G.O. Sanny Esq and H.U Sadiq Esq for the defendants.

 

JUDGMENT

1.   This action was commenced by a General form of Complaint dated and filed in this Court on the 12th July, 2021, the Claimant claims against the Defendants as follows:

1.      An order of the Honourable Court compelling or directing the defendants to pay to the 1st claimant the sum of N7,031, 751.48k (Seven Million Thirty-One Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty-One Naira Forty-Eight Kobo) only being the 1st claimant’s gratuity as contained in the 1st claimant’s payment of retirement benefits letter of 2nd June 2016.

2.      An order of the Honourable Court compelling or directing the defendants to pay to the 2nd claimant the sum of N6, 334,311.24k (Six Million Three Hundred and Thirty-Four thousand three hundred and eleven Naira twenty-four kobo) only being the 2nd claimant’s gratuity as contained in the 2nd claimant’s payment of retirement benefits letter of 12th October 2016.

3.      An order of the Honourable Court compelling or directing the defendants to pay to the 3rd claimant the sum of N5,708, 037.24k (Five Million Hundred and Eight Thousand Thirty-Seven Naira Twenty-Four Kobo) only being the 3rd claimant’s gratuity as contained in the 3rd claimant’s payment of retirement benefits letter of 13th August 2015.

4.      An order of the Honourable Court compelling or directing the defendants to pay to the 4th claimant the sum of N5,176, 354.32k (Five Million One Hundred and Seventy-Six Thousand Three Hundred and Fifty-Four Naira Thirty-Two Kobo) only being the 4th claimant’s gratuity as contained in the 4th claimant’s payment of retirement benefits letter of 27th March 2018.

5.      An order of the Honourable Court compelling or directing the defendants to pay to the 5th claimant the sum of N5,176, 354.32k (Five Million One and Seventy-Six Thousand Three Hundred and Fifty-Four Naira Thirty-Two Kobo) only being the 5th claimant’s gratuity as contained in the 5th claimant’s payment of retirement benefits letter of 27th March 2018.

6.      An order of the Honourable Court compelling or directing the defendants to pay to the 6th claimant the sum of N5, 176, 354.32k (Five Million One Hundred and Seventy-Six Thousand Three Hundred and Fifty-Four Naira Thirty-Two Kobo) only being the 6th claimant’s gratuity as contained in the 6th claimant’s payment of retirement benefits letter of 9th November 2018.

7.      An order of the Honourable Court compelling or directing the defendants to pay to the 7th claimant the sum of N5, 176, 354.32k (Five Million One Hundred and Seventy-Six Thousand Three Hundred and Fifty-Four Naira Thirty-Two Kobo) only being the 7th claimant’s gratuity as contained in the 7th claimant’s payment of retirement benefits letter of 17th March 2018.

8.      An order of the Honourable Court compelling or directing the defendants to pay to the 8th claimant the sum of N5, 038, 318.21k (Five Million Thirty-Eight Thousand Three Hundred and Eighteen Naira Twenty-One Kobo) only being the 8th claimant’s gratuity as contained in the 8th claimant’s payment of retirement benefits letter of 8th March 2018.

9.      An order of the Honourable Court compelling or directing the defendants to pay to the 9th claimant the sum of N4, 900, 282. 09kk (Four Million Nine Hundred Thousand Two Hundred and Eighty-Two Naira Nine Kobo) only being the 9th claimant’s gratuity as contained in the 9th claimant’s payment of retirement benefits letter of 2nd March 2016.

10. An order of the Honourable Court compelling or directing the defendants to pay to the 10th claimant the sum of N4, 055, 469.12K (Four Million Fifty-Five Thousand Four Hundred and Sixty-Nine Naira Twelve Kobo) only being the 10th claimant’s gratuity as contained in the 10th claimant’s payment of retirement benefits letter of 30th September 2014.

11. An order of the Honourable Court compelling or directing the defendants to pay to the 11th claimant the sum of N5, 176, 354.32k (Five Million One Hundred and Seventy-Six Thousand Three Hundred and Fifty-Four Naira Thirty-Two Kobo) only being the 11th claimant’s gratuity as contained in the 11th claimant’s payment of retirement benefits letter of 20th January 2015.

12. An order of the Honourable Court compelling or directing the defendants to pay to the 12th claimant the sum of N3, 976, 654.89k (Three Million Nine Hundred and Seventy-Six Thousand Six Hundred and Fifty-Four Naira Eighty- Nine Kobo) only being the 12th claimant’s gratuity as contained in the 12th claimant’s payment of retirement benefits letter of 2nd June 2016.

13. An order of the Honourable Court compelling or directing the defendants to pay to the 13th claimant the sum of N3,967, 993.72k (Three Million Nine Hundred and Sixty-Seven Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety-Three Naira Seventy-Two Kobo) only being the 13h claimant’s gratuity as contained in the 13th claimant’s payment of retirement benefits letter of 24th April 2014.

14. An order of the Honourable Court compelling or directing the defendants to pay to the 14th claimant the sum of N5, 176, 354.32k (Five Million One Hundred and Seventy-Six Thousand Three Hundred and Fifty-Four Naira Thirty-Two Kobo) only being the 14th claimant’s gratuity as contained in the 14th claimant’s payment of retirement benefits letter of 16th April 2018.

15. An order of the Honourable Court compelling or directing the defendants to pay to the 15th claimant the sum of N2, 415, 176.80k (Two Million Four Hundred and Fifteen Thousand One Hundred and Seventy-Six Naira Eighty Kobo) only being the 15th claimant’s gratuity as contained in the 15th claimant’s payment of retirement benefits letter of 26th April 2018.

16. An order of the Honourable Court compelling or directing the defendants to pay to the 16th claimant the sum of N1, 295, 079.41k (One Million Two Hundred and Ninety-Five Thousand Seventy-Nine Naira Forty-One Kobo) only being the 16th claimant’s gratuity as contained in the 16th claimant’s payment of retirement benefits letter of 13th October 2016.

17. An order of the Honourable Court compelling or directing the defendants to pay to the 17th claimant the sum of N1, 065, 088.08k (One Million Sixty- Five Thousand Eighty-Eight Naira Eight Kobo) only being the 17th claimant’s gratuity as contained in the 17th claimant’s payment of retirement benefits letter of 17th March 2016.

18. An order of the Honourable Court compelling or directing the defendants to pay to the 18th claimant the sum of N980, 297.28k (Nine Hundred and Eighty Thousand Two Hundred and Ninety-Seven Naira Twenty-Eight Kobo) only being the 18th claimant’s gratuity as contained in the 18th claimant’s payment of retirement benefits letter of 17th March 2013.

19. An order of the Court compelling the defendants to pay the claimants’ all the outstanding arrears of monthly pension illegally withheld by the defendants.

20. Twenty-Five (25%) percent interest of the total judgment sum until final liquidation of the judgment sum.

21. One Million Naira as cost of this suit.

2.   It is the case of the claimants that they were in the employment of the defendants on behalf of the 2nd defendant before retiring from service vide voluntary retirement after attaining thirty -five (35) Years and that their retirement was duly approved by the defendants and thereafter their retirement benefits computed, checked and passed by the Kogi State auditor general for Local Government in accordance with the extant law. That the said duly computed retirement benefits of the claimants are yet to be paid and same are still being unlawfully withheld by the defendants till date. The claimants further stated that prior to the institution of the suit they caused their lawyer to issue and serve pre-action notices on the 2nd, 4th, 5th and 6th defendants for the payment of their respective gratuity but uptil now the defendants still refused and neglected to pay their lawful post- employment benefits hence this suit. Continuing, they stated that except the Court compels the defendants to pay the claimants’ the said benefits, the defendants will never pay noting that they have suffered physical and physiological damages as a result of the defendants’ refusal and neglect to pay the claimants’ benefits.

3.   The defendants in response filed their joint statement of defence dated and filed on the 10th September 2021 and contended that the 2nd defendant is distinct and separate from the 6th defendant, that the 4th defendant deals with all the local Governments in the State and the 3rd defendant is a supervisory body established by the 2nd defendant to manage the affairs of education in Kogi State and to ensure quality education and equally that the 5th defendant has two divisions one of which is Local Government Division of Pension Commission that manages the pension and gratuity of the claimants in this case. it is equally the averment of the defendants that the claimants were not employees of the 2nd defendants neither were they employed on behalf of the 2nd defendant but were employees of the 6th defendants and as such their pension and gratuity was computed by the agencies of the 6th defendant. That retirement of the claimants was not approved by all the defendants but 3rd and 4th defendants on behalf of the 6th defendant. Continuing, the defendants admitted that the claimants’ respective retirement benefits were computed by Auditor General for Local Government and that the failure of the 6th defendant to pay for the gratuity of the claimants is not peculiar to claimants alone but the entire retirees of the Local Government due to paucity of funds at the Local Government and that failure of the 6th defendant to pay gratuity of the claimants is neither willful nor a deliberate denial but it is as a result of the economic situation of the Country not peculiar to Kogi State but Nigeria as a whole.  

4.   Parties during trial urged the Court to invoke the previsions of Order 38 Rule 33 of NIC Rules 2017 to allow them argue their case on record and the Court on the 19th May, 2022 granted the prayers of the parties. As it is customary to do parties filed their respective written addresses with the defendants filing their written address on the 3rd June, 2022 wherein Counsel raised sole issue for determination thus;

Whether there is any cause of action against the 1st -5th defendants in this suit.

      Learned defence counsel submitted that the law is trite that the entity called Nigeria is a state that is run by grundnorm, giving them their validity, powers and functions and that the Constitution clearly delineates the various tiers of government with issues that pertains to the state. he cited in support Sections 7 and 7(3) of 1999 Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended. He equally stated that it is clear that the Local Government is a body separate and distinct from federal and State Government. That only 6th defendant is the proper to sue in the instant case as the 1st -5th defendants are strictly creations of the state and subject to powers conferred on them by the State Government. He cited in support Section 8(1) of the Kogi State Local Government Law 2000. Similarly, the national assembly makes provisions for statutory revenue for the State, the State House of Assembly on the other hand makes provisions for statutory revenue for the Local Government and also provides formula for distribution of revenue between Local Government Councils. He cited in support Section 7 (6) and Section 3 of Allocation of Revenue (Federation Account Act). Furthermore, it is the submission of learned counsel that the 4th defendant is an agency of the 6th defendant responsible for the employment of the claimants, therefore responsible for the employment, salary, pension and gratuity of the Local Government workers. Counsel contended that the claimants have not disclosed any reasonable cause of action against the 1st -5th and in fact to the 6th defendants before this Court to warrant their being joined as parties to this suit. That the claimants’ pleadings and claims are strictly and more against the 2nd defendant, he urged the Court to refuse the claims against 1st – 5th defendants. he cited in support the caseS of Irene Thomas v. Olufosoye [1986] 1 NWLR (Part.18) 668; Cookey v. Fombo [2005] 15 NWLR (Pt. 947) and Nokia West Africa Nigeria Limited v. Mr. Williams Orioha [2016] LPELR-40189 (CA). In conclusion, learned counsel submitted that the claim against the 1st – 5th defendants be refused and dismiss. That the 6th defendant is the appropriate party to sue as the tier of government responsible for the employment and welfare of the claimants.

5.   Also, the claimants filed a final written address on 22nd day of June 2022 wherein learned Counsel formulated lone issue for the Court’s determination viz;

                      Whether the claimant has proved this case to warrant the grant of the reliefs sought in the general form of complaints.

6.      Learned claimants’ counsel submitted that it is the general principle of law that all civil cases or claims are proved on the balance of probabilities and preponderance of evidence. He cited in support the case of Ishola v Union Bank Ltd [2005] 2 SC (Pt. 11) @ 80. That the claimants; case is basically documentary on nature and in law documentary evidence is the best form of evidence that the Court can rely on. He cited in support the case Obiazikwor v. Obiazikwor [200] 37 WRN 106 @ 131 and thus submitted that the claimants’ have proved their entitlement to the reliefs claimed and urge the Court to grant the reliefs as stated on the face of the general form complaint and statement on oath the defendants having admitted non-payment of same as facts admitted need no further proof. He cited in support the case of Nwankwo Oguanuhu & Ors v. Dr. Emmanuel I. Chiegboka [2013] 6 NWLR (Pt. 1351) 588 @ 605; Confidence Insurance Ltd v. Trustee of O.S.C.E [1992] 2 NWLR (PT. 591) 373 Ratio 13. He further submitted that the claimants claim in the instant suit is for the claimants’ benefits (gratuities) which is constitutionally guaranteed. He cited Section 210 (1) and (2) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) and the cases of Ugbede v. N.N.P.C [2016] LPELR-42033 (CA) Pg. 12-18 Paras. D-E; Most Rev. Alfred A. Martins & Ors v. Catherine Kolawale [2011] LPELR-4475 (CA) @ Pg. 17-19 Paras. B-G and Central Bank of Nigeria v. Amao & Ors. [2010] 15 NWLR (Pt. 1219) 271 @ 307 SC. Going further, he stated that on the strength of these authorities the rights of the claimants to their benefits can never be impeded by any means once it has accrued. He urged the Court to enter judgment as per the general form of complaint and statement of claim.

7.      Counsel on behalf claimants’ in response equally filed reply on point of law on 26th June, 2022 wherein he submitted on the issue of non-disclosure of any cause of action against the 1st -5th defendants that it is very clear from the reliefs of the claimants in this suit that claimants are claiming their unpaid gratuities and arears of monthly pension which is a statutory responsibility of the 5th defendant (Kogi State Pension Commission) and that it is an established fact that Kogi State Government co-ordinates all issues of pensions and gratuities of Kogi State through the 5th defendant, therefore making the 1st –5th defendant necessary parties, he cited in support the cases M.N.I Emori Esq v. Hon Egwu Arong Egwu & Anor [2016] LPELR-40123 (CA)  and Poroye & Ors v. Makarfi & Ors [2017] LPELR-42738 SC. He equally argued that from the background of this suit that sufficient cause of action is clearly revealed against the 1st – 5th defendants without which this suit cannot be effectually and fully determine. He cited in support the cases of Bello v. Attorney General of Oyo State [1986] 5 NWLR (Part. 45) 8289 @ 876; Akilu v. Fawehinmi (No.2) [1989] 2 NWLR (Part 102) @ 169; Sugden v. Sugden [1957] ALL ER 300 and Savage & Ors v. Uwechia [1972] 1 ALL ER (Part. 1) 251 @ Pg. 256. Counsel urged the Court to hold that this suit discloses substantial cause of action against all defendants to warrant hearing the suit and grant all the reliefs of the claimants.

 

8.      I have painstakingly read through the processes filed on record, the testimony of their witnesses on record, the documentary evidence as well as the arguments of learned counsel for the parties in support of their respective positions, I find the issues formulated by both learned counsel for the parties relevant in resolving the vexed issues in this suit Viz-

 

1.      Whether there is a cause of action against the 1st to 5th    defendants; and

2.       whether the claimants are entitled to the reliefs sought.

 

 

9.      Now, I will like to first address the contention of the defendants that there is no cause of action against the 1st -5th defendants. The  crux of their grouse is that, the 6th defendant is the only proper party to sue in the instant case as the 1st -5th defendants are strictly creations of the State and subject to powers conferred on them by the State Government. To the claimants on the other hand, that it is very clear from the reliefs of the claimants in this suit that claimants are claiming their unpaid gratuities and arears of monthly pension which is a statutory responsibility of the 5th defendant (Kogi State Pension Commission) and that it is an established fact that Kogi State Government co-ordinates all issues of pensions and gratuities of Kogi State through the 5th defendant, therefore the 1st –5th defendants are necessary parties. The law is long settled as reiterated in the notorious case of Adekoya v. FHA [2008] LPELR-105 SC. A cause of action is the operative fact or facts (the factual situation) which gives rise to a right of action which itself is a remedial right. See also PDP v. Edede [2022] 11 NWLR (PT. 1840)55 @ 110 Parag-G-H; Frozen Foods (Nig.) Ltd v. Ojomo [2022] 14 NWLR (PT. 1850) 299 @ 331 Parag D-G; Idachaba & Ors v. University of Agriculture Markurdi & Ors[2021]LPELR-53081SC. Courts are enjoined to consider the originating processes filed by the claimant in other to deduce whether or not a cause of action has been established against the parties sued. The general Form of Complaint and the Statement of facts are the mirror through which the Court can see if there is a cause of action against the 1st -5th defendants. What are the facts or combination of facts giving rise to a right of action by the claimants against the 1-5th defendants in this case. The facts giving rise to this suit is that the claimants are alleging that the defendants failed to pay their pension and gratuity since their retirement. A peep into the paragraphs of the originating processes evince that the claimants have grouse against all the defendants, the 1st -5th defendants inclusive. Claimants by their averments in paragraphs 1 -12 of the statement of facts averred to facts and series of facts alleging that the defendants at different times have failed in their duties statutory and officially in ensuring the payment of their pension and gratuity. It is in the light of this that I find without any hesitation that the claimants case establishes a cause of action against the defendants. Consequent upon which I discountenance with the assertion of the defendants as same is frivolous. Issue one framed is hereby resolved in favour of the claimants.  

 

10. Addressing issue two, it is trite that when a claimant seeks for a declaratory relief he must rely on the strength of his case and not on the weakness of the case of the defence except where the case of the defendant support that of the claimant that is where it contains evidence that the claimant is entitled to rely on. The law is well established that for a claimant to succeed, he must by evidence put forward evidence satisfying the Court that he is entitled to the declaration sought. See the case of Takori v. Mutawalle [2020] 17 NWLR (Pt. 1752) 187-188 Paras H-B. Now, the claimants’ case is that they were employees of the defendants and were variously promoted before retiring voluntarily from service and that their retirement was duly approved by the defendants, thereafter their post-retirement benefits computed, checked and passed in accordance with the extant law however same is yet to be paid by the defendants till date. In support of their assertion, they frontloaded exhibit C1-C95 (Appointment letters, Offer of Promotion, Notification of appointment letters, pension identity cards, approval letters of retirements from service and retirement benefits letters/computation of retirement benefits letters. It is the contention of the defendants on the other hand that the claimants were not employees of the 2nd defendant but that of the 6th defendant and as such their pension and gratuity was computed by the agencies of the 6th defendant. On their own part the claimants asserted that the approval of their retirement was done by the 3rd and 4th defendants, id est that Kogi State Universal Basic Education Board and the Local Government Service Commission on behalf of the 6th defendant and that the 4th defendant is an agency of the 6th defendant. Now, it is clear from the evidence before the Court that the claimants were employed by the 6th defendant and their appointment confirmed by the same 6th defendant. By exhibits C46 – C81 it is equally clear that the 3rd and 4th defendants approved voluntary retirements of the claimants which led to the computation of their benefits by the Auditor General of local Government, Kogi State and addressed it to Kogi State Pension Board and Bureau for Local Government Pension respectively. It is trite that documents when tendered and admitted in Court are like words uttered and do speak for themselves. See the case of Olowu v. Building Stock Ltd [2018] 1 NWLR (Pt. 1601) 343 SC and Section 128 of Evidence Act 2011. In fact, it is not in doubt as admitted by the defendants vide their paragraphs 16 and 17 of their Joint statement of defence that failure of the 6th defendant to pay the gratuity of claimants is not peculiar to claimants alone but the entire retirees of the local government due to paucity of funds at the Local Government after deducting salaries and pension. The import of this is that in a breath the defendants admit that claimants are entitle to their pension and gratuity while in another breath, they could not meet up with their statutory obligation because of paucity of funds. Clearly deducible from the averments of the defendants is as stated supra, they admit that the claimants are entitle to be paid their pension and gratuity having served the State in the capacities they did, but they have to wait till the government is ready to pay them. If I may ask, would this be in tune with the Constitutional provision which is to the effect that no one, including the defendants should withhold pension and gratuity of any retired Officer. This is because it is their inalienable, inviolable and Constitutional right which should not be withheld or altered to their disadvantage under any guise. See Section 210 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended). The Court in the case of Popoola & Ors v. A.G Kwara State & Ors [2011] LPELR-3608 (CA) Pg. 18-19 Paras. D, has this to say on the provisions of Section 210 of the Constitution;

 

Shorn of any embellishment, Section 210 (1) and (2) provides thus:

210 (1) “Subject to the provisions of Sub-section (2) of this Section, the right of a person in the Public Service of a State to receive pension or gratuity shall be regulated by law.

(2) “Any benefit to which a person is entitled in accordance with or under such law as is referred to in Sub-section (1) of this Section, shall not be withheld or altered to his disadvantage except to such extent as is permissible under any law, including the code of conduct”.

9.     The above provision is very clear and unambiguous. It provides simply that pension or gratuity shall not be withheld under any circumstance or guise. It is inhumane and wicked for a retiree or pensioner to be denied his pension and gratuity upon retirement when he ought to be enjoying the fruit of his labour. Equally, in the case of Central Bank of Nigeria v. Amao & Ors [2010] 15 NWLR (Pt. 1219) 271 @ 307 The Supreme Court Per Onnoghen JSC (as he then was) held thus:

It is important for every organization in this country, including the appellant, to wear a human face in its treatment of the people, particularly the senior citizens, because it will be anybody’s turn tomorrow to be a senior citizen. We must reexamine our attitude towards the senior citizens of this country so as not to make them regret their sacrifice for the nation in whatever capacity. The respondents need to be put to the expenses of litigating this matter in the first place let alone all the way to the Supreme Court.”

        It is equally clear from the Kogi State Government of Nigeria Pension Reform Law 2018, [Herefater called the Law] Part 11, Section 3(2) of the law, pension scheme, applicable to all employees in Public Service of the State, and Local Government Council. The same law establishes the Office of the 5th defendant to enforce and administer the provisions of the 2018 law, coordinate and enforce all other laws on pension and retirement benefits and regulate, supervise and ensure the effective administration of pension matters and retirement benefits in Kogi State, See Section 19 of the law. I find from the above provision that the 5th defendant is vested with the task of ensuring that all pensions and gratuities are paid to pensioners in Kogi State, including Local government staff. The claimants by their Exhibits C 63-C81, has shown that their respective pension and gratuity were computed by the Auditor General in various sums of money as listed at paragraph 12 of their statement of facts as their accrued pension and gratuity. As stated supra the defendants do not deny their entitlement to pension and gratuity. The law is that facts admitted need no further prove. Though, in a declaratory relief as in this instant, admission of the defendant alone will not constitute proof, the onus of prove still rest on the claimants. What more, the claimants have tendered their pension identity cards to evince that they have completed all necessary documentation as retirees. Also, on record are their variously computed entitlements in pension and gratuity. The Court of Appeal again in the case of Ajao v. Permanent Sec. Min of Economic Affairs [2016] LPELR- 41407CA, succinctly captured the true position of the law as it affects the right of retired employees to Pension and gratuity Per Hon. Justice Obaseki-Adejumo JCA thus- ‘Therefore, pension is not merely a statutory right of the Appellant in the instant appeal. Ipso facto it is the fulfillment of a constitutional promise so that the relevant laws or rules made pursuant to Section 210 of the Constitution are enacted for effective execution of the constitutional mandate entrusted to the government. Thus, the payment of pension does not depend on the discretion of the government but is governed by the rules and anyone entitled to pension can claim it as a matter of right." Placing reliance on all the above decisions of the appellate Court that I find without any shadow of doubt that claimants have proven their entitlement to pension and gratuity from the defendants. It is in consequence that I hold that claimants’ reliefs 1 to 19 succeed. Accordingly, the 5th defendant is hereby given an order to forthwith pay the claimants their accrued pension and gratuity since their retirement and continuously as prescribed by law.

 

11. The claimants are by their relief 20, seeking for the award of 25% of the total judgment sum until final liquidation. The law is well established as regards the award of post judgment interest. It is trite that post judgment interest may be awarded even where it is not pleaded as same is statutory and it is at the discretion of the Court.  In the case of Bolanle v. Access Bank [2015] LPELR-40994 (CA), the appeal Court held that the power of a Court to grant post judgment interest is statutory as it derives its root from the Rules of Court and in the instant case, the National Industrial Court Rules. By the provisions of Order 47 Rule 7 of NIC Rules 2017 empowers this Court to grant post judgment interest at a rate not less than 10% per annum. It is in the light of this that I find that relief “20” succeed. Consequently, the defendants are to pay the claimants their gratuity and accrued pension within 30 days of this judgment failing which a 10% simple interest is to be paid per annum on the judgment sum. I so hold.

12.  Finally, respecting relief 21, claimants are praying for One Million Naira cost of this suit. It is trite that a successful party is entitled to cost which should not be denied except for good reasons. See the case of Maya v. Oshuntokun [2001] 11 NWLR (Pt. 723) 62. P. 85 Para. F (CA). The rules of this Court specifically, Order 55 Rules 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 empowers this Court to grant costs of action at its own discretion. The discretionary power of the Court in considering cost is to be exercised judicially and judiciously. It is in exercise of that discretionary power in the instant case that I award the sum of one hundred thousand naira (N100,000.00) as cost. I so award.

13.  Judgment is accordingly entered.

 

 

 

Hon. Justice O. O. Oyewumi

Presiding Judge.