IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE JOS JUDICIAL DIVISION

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HONOURABLE JUSTICE I.S GALADIMA

 

DATE: 5TH JUNE 2025                                                               SUIT NO: NICN/JOS/10/2024

BETWEEN:

1.        JILKAT GAMBO JAMES

2.           HARUNA KAMALUDEEN

3.           SYLVANUS NANYIL PATIENCE                                             

4.           MAKPLANG DASBAK D.

5.           MANYAS KIM DAYAS

6.           MARTIN GOLBE GOKAT

7.           FABIAN DANGLAT SHALSEN                                                  APPLICANTS

8.           SUNDAY JOSHUA YELWA

9.           NAFOR UCHAM MALLAH

10.        ELISHA DORCAS GYANG

11.        ROSE JEREMIAH MAFUYAI

12.        ISHAKU SHIKDIMA T.

13.        ABARI SANDRA MOSES

14.        FELIX YOHANNA VWAMSE

 

AND

1.        GOVERNOR OF PLATEAU STATE

2.        ATTORNEY GENERAL OF PLATEAU STATE                                    RESPONDENTS

3.        COLLEGE OF ARTS, SCIENCE AND

   REMEDIAL STUDIES

 

REPRESENTATION:

·        NANTOK DASHUWAR; E.S BUF; M.L. KYEMANG FOR THE APPLICANTS.

 

·        PHILEMON DAFFI (HAG); SABO LONGJI (DIRECTOR CIVIL LITIGATIONS PLATEAU STATE MOJ) ; P.N. DASHAK; K.B. BAWUN; M.P MWANSAT FOR THE RESPONDENTS

 

JUDGMENT:

1.        Between October 2022 and February 2023, the applicants (referred to as claimants by the parties), accepted offers to fill several roles at the College of Arts, Science, and Remedial Studies (the 3rd respondent). After they began work, the 1st respondent (as the Governor of the State of Plateau and Visitor to the institution), suspended their appointments and later announced their termination. The applicants maintain that those terminations were unlawful and beyond the 1st respondent’s authority, and that they have not received any salaries since January 2023. The respondents, for their part, insist the employments were irregular, deny owing any back pay, and ask the court to dismiss the suit in its entirety.

QUESTIONS FOR DETERMINATION:

2.                 The applicants’ originating summons was duly filed on 21/3/2024 wherein they seek the determination of the following questions:

                                        i.      Whether the 1st respondent is possessed of or clothed with the powers or authority to unilaterally suspend, terminate, nullify or in any way interfere with the employment and appointment of the applicants through Exhibits D and E, the applicants having been in the service and employment of the 3rd respondent.

                                      ii.      By virtue of the various letters of appointment issued to the applicants attached as Exhibits A1 – A14, whether the applicants are not entitled to maintain and retain their employment with the 3rd respondent in line the extant laws regulating their employment with the 3rd respondent.

                                   iii.      Whether the failure and refusal of the 3rd respondent to pay the applicants their salaries and allowances thereby retaining same from the month of January 2023 till date or any period of time at all is not unlawful, unjust, illegal and a violation of the 3rd respondent’s duties and obligations.

3.                 The applicants thus seek the following 10 reliefs:

1.     A declaration that the 1st respondent has no power or authority to suspend, terminate, nullify or in any way interfere with the employments and appointments of the applicants duly engaged in the services and employment of the 3rd respondent.

 

2.     A declaration that the purported termination, nullification and cancellation of the employment and appointment of the applicants by the 1st respondent through exhibits D and E, is unlawful, illegal, null and void with no legal effect whatsoever.

 

3.     A declaration that the applicants are entitled to maintain and retain their respective employments with the 3rd respondent in line with the extant laws regulating their employment with the 3rd respondent.

 

4.     A declaration that the failure and refusal of the 3rd respondent to pay the applicants their respective salaries and allowances thereby retaining same from the month of January 2023 to date is unlawful, unjust, illegal and in violation of the 3rd respondent’s duties and obligations.

 

5.     An order setting aside the purported suspension and subsequent termination, nullification and cancellation of the applicants’ various appointments and employments made by the 1st respondent through the publications made at his instance attached as Exhibits D and E, same having been done ultra vires and therefore unlawful, null and void.

 

6.     An order reinstating the applicants back to their respective positions as staff and employees of the 3rd respondent in line with their respective letters of appointments attached as exhibits A1 to A14 respectively.

 

7.     An order directing the respondents to pay the applicants their respective monthly salaries and allowances as specified by the terms of their employment from the month of January 2023 till date, as follows:

a.      2nd – 10th applicants, each the sum of N1,407,470.00 annually, paid in monthly instalments of N117,289.00 per month each.

 

b.     1st, 11th – 13th applicants, each the sum of N873,551.00 annually, paid in monthly instalments of N72,795.91

 

c.      14TH applicant, the sum of N378,391.00 annually, paid in monthly instalments of N31,532.62

 

8.      An order of perpetual injunction, restraining the respondents, whether by themselves, their agents, privies, assigns or representatives howsoever described, from victimizing, terminating or interfering with the applicants’ respective appointment and employments with the 3rd respondent, without any wrongdoing or violations of the terms of service on the part of the applicants.

 

9.     N50,000,000.00 (Fifty Million Naira) general damages against the Respondents jointly and severally for the collective pain and suffering imposed on the applicants by the respondents.

 

10.                     Costs of this suit as may be assessed by this honourable court.

 

4.                 The originating summons is supported by an affidavit of 27 paragraphs deposed to by the 1st applicant, 7 documents were exhibited therein and lettered A1 – A14, B, C, D, and E.

 

5.                 The applicants went on to file a motion for interlocutory injunction on 21/3/2024.

 

6.                 The respondents jointly brought a notice of preliminary objection dated 30/4/2024 but filed on 2/5/2024.

 

7.                 The respondents filed a memorandum of conditional appearance. They also filed a counter affidavit of 5 paragraphs and a written address in opposition to the applicants’ motion for interlocutory injunction, all dated 30/4/2024 but filed on 7/5/2024. These processes were out of time but duly regularized vide the respondents’ motion dated 6/5/2024 but filed on 7/5/2024.

 

8.                 The applicants reacted to the notice of preliminary objection in their 13 paragraphs counter affidavit filed on 9/5/2024.

 

9.                 The applicants also filed a further affidavit and a Reply on 14/5/2024.

 

10.           The respondents went on to file a further affidavit and a written address on 16/5/2024 in support of their preliminary objection.

 

11.           Issues were joined at the end of pleadings, and on the 19th May 2025, the parties’ counsel adopted their respective arguments and submissions whereupon this court reserved this judgment to today.

 

APPLICANTS’ FACTS:

12.           In a joint affidavit sworn on March 21, 2024, and a further and better affidavit sworn on May 14, 2024—both signed by the 1st applicant on behalf of himself and the other 13 applicants—the applicants state that they were each employed by the 3rd respondent at various times in 2022. They produced their appointment letters, marked Exhibits A1 through A14, as evidence.

 

13.           The applicants contend that they were duly engaged in providing services to the 3rd respondent in line with their respective employment terms and the 3rd  respondent’s Revised Terms and Conditions of Service for Staff of the College of Arts, Science and Remedial Studies, Kurgwi Law, 2000 (marked as Exhibits B and C respectively).

 

14.           The applicants assert that, following a change of leadership in the 1st respondent’s office, the Governor suspended all Plateau State government staff appointed between October 2022 and May 29, 2023, including themselves.

 

15.           The applicants maintain that, before the suspension, the third respondent failed to pay their monthly salaries from January 2023 and barred them from accessing their work premises.

 

16.           The applicants aver that they are owed salaries as follows:

a.      2nd – 10th Applicants, each the sum of N1,407,470.00 annually, paid in monthly instalments of N117,289.00 per month each.

 

b.     1st, 11th – 13th Applicants, each the sum of N873,551.00 annually, paid in monthly instalments of N72,795.91

 

c.      14TH Applicant, the sum of N378,391.00 annually, paid in monthly instalments of N31,532.62

 

17.           The applicants further contend that, following their suspension, the 1st respondent set up a committee to examine issues surrounding their employment and advise him on the matter. They maintain that none of them were invited to participate in the committee’s meetings, nor was its report ever made public.

 

18.           The applicants contend that the 1st respondent later issued a further publication purportedly terminating their employment at the 3rd respondent’s institution, as evidenced by Exhibits D and E.

 

19.           The applicants contend that the 1st respondent’s decision to terminate their employment was not backed by any regulatory instrument or applicable law governing their service at the 3rd respondent. In response to this alleged termination, they held a meeting on February 9, 2024, at which they appointed several members—including the 1st applicant—to challenge the 1st respondent’s action.

 

20.           The applicants contend that it was not the 3rd respondent who ended their employment, but the 1st respondent—who, they insist, has no authority to hire or dismiss them.

 

21.           Moreover, it was noted that every applicant consented to bringing this action. They maintain that none of them are politicians and that the 3rd respondent lawfully hired them following interviews it conducted.

 

22.           The applicants contend that their roles with the third respondent were permanent and pensionable, and that none of them underwent any disciplinary proceedings before their employment was terminated.

 

23.           The applicants further aver that there was no publication made on the termination of their appointment, safe for the Press Release (Exhibits D and E).

 

24.           The applicants additionally contend that the 3rd respondent is understaffed and requires their services.

 

25.            In total the applicants exhibited 20 documents which were marked as follows:

                                        i.      Letters of appointment for each of the 14 applicants marked as Exhibits “A1 – A14”. 

                                      ii.      The 3rd respondent’s Revised Terms and Condition of Service for Staff, “Exhibit B”.

                                   iii.      The College of Arts, Science and Remedial Studies, Kurgwi Law, 2000, ”marked as Exhibits C respectively.

                                   iv.      Publications purportedly terminating the appointment of the applicants by cancellation and nullification. “Exhibits D and E respectively”.

                                      v.      The overleaf of the 11th and 13th applicants’ appointment letters wherein they signed and indicated their consent for this suit to be instituted on their behalf - “Exhibits 1 and 2 respectively”.

 

RESPONDENTS’ FACTS:

26.           After being served with the originating summons and accompanying processes, the respondents, with the deposition of Binjin Yildep—a litigation secretary in the Plateau State Ministry of Justice—filed a five-paragraph counter-affidavit on May 7, 2024.

 

27.           In their defence, the respondents contend that not every applicant consented to the filing of this suit on their behalf. They further state that the 11th applicant, Rose Jeremiah Mafuyai, and the 13th applicant, Abari Sandra Moses, each swore affidavits denying any involvement in the suit and asserting that it was instituted without first obtaining their consent. The respondents rely on those affidavits, marked Exhibits A and B respectively.

 

28.           The respondents contend that the applicants’ roles were never advertised before their appointments, in breach of the 3rd respondent’s rules and regulations. They further maintain that, as required by the law governing the 3rd respondent, the applicants did not appear before the Appointment and Promotion Committee for interview. The respondents have tendered that law as Exhibit C.

 

29.            Accordingly, the applicants accepted their employment offers on separate dates and proceeded with their documentation with the 3rd respondent. They also mentioned that the applicants did not commence their duties immediately, as specified in their respective employment letters, and that their appointments remained unconfirmed. The respondents submitted these letters of acceptance as evidence, labeled as Exhibit D.

 

30.           The respondents contend that, following the change of government in the State, a fact-finding panel was established to review the legality of the temporary appointments made by the previous administration. That committee found the entire appointment process to be riddled with irregularities. Consequently, the 1st respondent, acting in his capacity as Visitor to the institution, suspended the applicants’ employment.

 

31.           The respondents aver that the applicants were never denied entrance into the 3rd respondent’s premises, which is an open public institution.

 

32.           They further contend that no salaries are outstanding for January 2023, asserting instead that payments for the period January through April 2023 were duly made. In support, they produced a spreadsheet detailing those payments, which they tendered as “Exhibit E.”

 

33.           The respondents further contend that the 1st respondent appointed a preliminary committee both before and after the applicants’ suspension. They allege the applicants were invited to its sittings but failed to attend, and that their suspension was duly communicated via internal notices and external publications.

 

34.           The respondents also contend that, when the applicants were suspended, they were still serving their probationary period and had not yet become permanent employees of the 3rd respondent. Therefore, the institution’s full-service rules did not apply to them. Under the Conditions of Service and the terms of their appointment letters, the applicants were required to complete a two-year probation from their date of appointment—a period that had not expired before they were suspended and later terminated.

 

35.           The respondents contend that they publicly announced the applicants’ suspension in a press release, which they consider to constitute adequate notice.

 

36.           The respondents reject the assertion that the 3rd respondent is understaffed and maintain that the applicants’ appointments were validly terminated.

 

37.           In total, the respondents produced 2 documents before this court, they are:

                                        i.      Affidavits of non-participation of the 11th and 13th respondents- “Exhibits A and B”, respectively.

                                      ii.      The applicants’ letters of acceptance marked as “Exhibit D”.

 

THE APPLICANTS’ COUNSEL’ S WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:

38.           Nantok Dashuwar, Esq., as lead counsel for the applicants, submitted along with the originating summons, a written address dated 23/3/2024 but filed on 21/3/2024, wherein he formulated 3 issues for determination thus:

                                        i.      whether the 1st respondent is possessed of or clothed with the powers or authority to unilaterally suspend, terminate, nullify or in any way interfere with the employments and appointments of the claimants through Exhibits D and E, who have been in the service and employment of the 3rd respondent.

                                      ii.      by virtue of the various letters of appointments issued to the applicants by the 3rd respondent attached as Exhibits A1 – A14, whether the applicants are not entitled to maintain and retain their employment with the 3rd respondent in line with the extant laws regulating their employment with the 3rd respondent.

                                   iii.      Whether the failure and refusal of the 3rd respondent to pay the claimants their salaries and allowances thereby retaining same from the month of January, 2023 till date or any period of time at all is not unlawful, unjust, illegal and a violation of the 3rd respondent’s duties and obligations.

 

39.           Learned counsel addressed together the three issues he had identified for determination. He pinpointed the central question in this suit as whether the first respondent has the authority to terminate the applicants’ employment at the third respondent institution. Counsel then referred the court to paragraph 2(i) of Exhibits A1–A14, arguing that the applicants occupy statutory appointments with the third respondent.

 

40.           Counsel further submits that, under Chapter II(Y)(a) on page 19—titled “Termination of Appointment”—the first respondent has no power to employ, suspend or dismiss the applicants. On the statutory character of their appointments, counsel invokes sections 5(n), 10(1)(b), 33 and 38(10) of the third respondent’s enabling law, together with the authorities in BOB v. The Council, Abia State University Uturu & Anor (2015) LPELR-25611 (CA) and Haruna v. UniAgric, Makurdi (2005) 3 NWLR (Pt. 912) 233 at 275 paras. D–A, to show that any action affecting employment protected by statute must follow the specific legal provisions governing such removals.

 

41.           He contends that, under Sections 5(n), 10(1)(b), 33 and 38(1) of the 3rd respondent’s enabling law, only its Governing Council has the authority the 1st respondent purported to exercise in appointing the applicants. Counsel further submits that neither the College of Arts, Science and Remedial Studies, Kurgwi 2000, nor the 3rd respondent’s Terms and Conditions confer any hiring or dismissal powers on the 1st respondent. Accordingly, any such actions by the 1st respondent are null and void. In support of this position, applicants’ counsel relied on the decision in MOBIL PRODUCING NIGERIA UNLIMITED v. OKON JOHNSON & ORS (2018) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1639) 329 at 359.

 

42.           The applicants' counsel argues that in cases where employment has statutory protection, any wrongful, unlawful, or illegal termination warrants a court order for reinstatement. They reference the cases of OMIDIORA V. F.C.S.C (2007) 14 NWLR (PT. 1053) P.17 AT 32 – 33. PARA. E-A; MOGAJI V. BENUE STATE UNIVERSITY (2022) LPELR-56727 (CA); UMA & ORS V. ANONGO (2021) LPELR-57912 (CA). The counsel urges the court to grant the reliefs requested by the applicants in this case.

 

THE RESPONDENTS’ COUNSEL’S WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:

43.           Accompanying their counter-affidavit, the respondents’ counsel led by the Attorney General of the State, filed a written address dated April 30, 2024 (filed August 9, 2024), in which they set out three issues for determination, as follows:

                                        i.      whether this honourable court can hear this matter in view of the fact that the applicants were employed separately, at different times and for different position?

                                      ii.      Whether this honourable court can hear the matter in view of the fact that the 11th and 13th applicants have dissociated themselves from the suit?

                                   iii.      Whether this honourable court has the requisite jurisdiction to hear this matter in view of the fact that the employments of the applicants have not been confirmed.

 

44.           The respondents’ counsel opened his submissions by asserting that the court lacked jurisdiction. He maintained that this type of dispute could only be brought by an individual litigant—not by multiple claimants in a single suit—and relied on the decision in Ebo-Ade & Ors v Ojo-Oniro & Ors (2018) LPELR-51498 (CA) at pages 7–10, paragraph A. He also argued that, because each of the applicants had a separate employment contract, they were required to file individual actions, citing Padawa & Ors v Jatau (2002) LPELR-5380 (CA) at pages 9–11, paragraph D.

 

45.           On the second issue, counsel submitted that the suit should only have been filed after first securing and recording the consent of each applicant. He relied on AKINBODE v. OYEBAMIJI & ANOR. (2024) LPELR-24410 (CA) and SCHEEP & ANOR v. THE MV SARAZ & ANOR (2000) LPELR-1866 (SC) in support of this proposition.

 

46.           In relation to issue three, counsel submits that every employee must serve a three-year probation, which the employer may extend or end at its discretion. Once, however, the employee’s status is made permanent, the employer cannot lawfully terminate the appointment on a whim. This position is supported by Rule 020303 of the Civil Service Rules.

 

47.           The learned counsel also argues that an employee cannot impose themselves on an employer who does not wish to retain them. The learned counsel points out that the applicants had only served the 3rd respondent for two years and were still in their probationary period. He referenced the case of IBRAHIM & ANOR V. NATIONAL COMMISSIONER FOR COLLEGES OF EDUCATION & ANOR (2017) LPELR-45497 (CA) to support this argument and concluded that the case should be dismissed in the interest of justice.

 

APPLICANTS’ REPLY ON POINTS OF LAW:

48.           Following the respondents’ counter-affidavit and written address, the applicants, in their further affidavit dated 14 May 2024, also filed a Reply on Points of Law. They submitted that the respondents’ legal arguments entirely overlooked the core issues of the suit. As learned counsel for the applicants pointed out, the fundamental question—on which all other issues hinge—is whether the 1st respondent had the power, by means of Exhibits D and E, to interfere with the applicants’ employment.

 

49.           Accordingly, the respondents, having failed to contend or challenge the issues argued by the applicants, have consequently conceded to them. Counsel cites in aid the case law of GOLDEN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD V. STATECO NIG LTD & ANOR (2013) LPELR-22832 (CA). He contends that the 1st respondent cannot exercise a power he does not have.

 

50.           Learned counsel refers this court to Order 13 Rules 1 of the Rules of this court to submit that parties are allowed to file a joint action against a common respondent where:

 

a.     The cause of action is common between the applicants.

b.     The transaction or series of transactions leading to the cause of action are the same.

c.      The rights sought to be asserted by the claimants are the same.

d.     The instrument of evidence sought to be interpreted are the same.

e.     The reliefs sought by the applicants against the respondents are the same.

 

51.           Counsel submits that the respondents’ reliance on Ebo-Ade & Ors v. Ojo-Oniro & Ors (supra) actually bolsters the applicants’ position rather than theirs. He points out that the decision makes clear that parties may be joined in one suit to prevent multiple actions only when they share a common interest or raise the same question of law; it does not apply where each party’s interest in the subject matter is separate and distinct. He also invokes the Court of Appeal’s decision in United Geophysical (Nig) Ltd & Ors v. Osiobe & Ors (2024) LPELR-24528 (CA).

 

52.           Counsel submits that all the applicants have a single cause of action, since they were each terminated by the same instrument. They served under identical tenures, terms and conditions, and raise the same issues and seek the same reliefs against the respondents. Counsel further warns that pursuing separate suits would only multiply the proceedings.

 

53.           With respect to the respondents’ assertion that certain applicants have withdrawn from the action, learned counsel relies on Exhibits 1 and 2 to dispel that argument. He further submits that, even if a few applicants had truly dissociated, it would not impair the court’s jurisdiction to hear the matter; depriving the court of competence on that basis would amount to a miscarriage of justice against those who have diligently prosecuted their claim. At most, any bona fide withdrawal would result only in the excision of the names of the withdrawing applicants.

 

54.           With respect to Civil Service Rule 020303, counsel for the applicants contends that those provisions do not apply to their appointments. Rather, their service is regulated by the College’s Staff Scheme and Terms and Conditions of Service, together with the relevant state laws and edicts. Counsel further maintains that their employment is statutory in character and must comply with the enabling statutes and subsidiary legislation. To illustrate the nature of statutory employment, counsel relies on the Court of Appeal’s decision in BABATUNDE v. Governing Council, Federal Polytechnic, Ede & Anor (2014) LPELR-24236 (CA).

 

55.           He also contends that, even if one assumes (without conceding) that the applicants were still on probation when their employment was ended, the statutory procedures governing their engagement should have been observed and only the true employer has the power to terminate them. Learned counsel submits that the real issue is that the first respondent who purported to dismiss them is not their employer.

 

56.           Regarding whether the applicants were employed following the correct procedure, the learned counsel argues that the respondents have not demonstrated to the court what constitutes the due procedure they are referring to. The counsel urges the court not to make assumptions, as the respondents have not specified the provisions outlining the proper employment procedure for the applicants. The counsel cites the case of AWOLOLA V. GOVERNOR OF EKITI STATE & ORS. (2018) LPELR-46364 (SC) to support this point. The learned counsel further contends that even if the employment procedure was not properly followed, as claimed by the respondents, they are barred from using this argument to undermine the applicants' case, since the 3rd respondent is responsible for adhering to the employment procedure. The counsel references section 169 of the Evidence Act 2004 and the case of BENUE STATE UNIVERSITY V. MOGAJI (2022) LPELR-56729 (CA) to bolster this argument.

 

57.           The applicants' counsel argues that if the court upholds the termination of the applicants' employment by the 1st respondent, it would unjustly allow the respondents to benefit from their misconduct. This is because it is the responsibility of the 3rd respondent, not the employees, to adhere to proper procedures regarding employment. The counsel cited the case of NKECHI & ANOR V. ANYALEWECHI (2021) LPELR-55611 (CA) to support their point.

 

58.           Counsel finally enjoins this court to find in favour of the applicants.

 

RESPONDENTS’ PRELIMINARY OBJECTION

59.           The respondents submitted a notice of preliminary objection dated 30/4/2024 and filed on 2/5/2024. In support is an 8 paragraphed affidavit, and counsel’s written submissions. Within the notice of preliminary objection, the respondents seek the following orders:

a.     An order dismissing this suit for want of requisite jurisdiction.

b.     An order striking out the names of the 11th and 13th applicants in this suit.

c.      And for such further order(s) this honourable court may deem fit to make in the circumstance.

 

60.           The affidavit supporting the motion is sworn to by Binjing M. Yildep, a litigation clerk from the Ministry of Justice in Plateau State. The respondents argued, among other things, that the applicants' employment had not been confirmed, as such confirmation was contingent upon their conduct. They claimed that the applicants were hired without undergoing interviews. The respondents also mentioned that the applicants' employment with the 3rd respondent was political and needed to be annulled, with reemployment conducted through proper procedures. Additionally, they argued that the applicants were hired individually and could not pursue a joint suit. They further noted that the 11th and 13th applicants did not consent to be part of the suit and have applied for new employment.

 

61.           The legal submissions made by the respondents' counsel merely reiterate the arguments presented in support of their counter affidavit to the originating summons. Since these submissions have already been detailed earlier in this judgment, it would be redundant and unnecessary to repeat them here.

 

APPLICANT’S REPLY TO THE PRELIMINARY OBJECTION:

 

62.           After receiving the respondents' notice for a preliminary objection, the applicants submitted a 14-paragraph counter affidavit on 9/5/2024, sworn to by the 1st applicant. This affidavit contains the same facts and exhibits (exhibits 1 and 2) as those in the applicants' further affidavit dated 14/5/2024, which the court had referenced earlier in this judgment. The legal arguments presented by the applicants' counsel in support of the counter affidavit are essentially a repetition of the arguments made in support of the applicants' further affidavit of 14/5/2024 and thus do not need to be repeated here.

 

RESPONDENTS’ FURTHER AND BETTER AFFIDAVIT:

63.           The respondents proceeded to file an 8-paragraph additional affidavit in further support of their notice of preliminary objection. This affidavit was filed on 16/5/2024 and was sworn by Bonjing Michael Yildep. In their brief of arguments, the respondents reiterated that, according to the affidavits of the 11th and 13th applicants, these applicants did not authorize the filing of the suit on their behalf. The respondents claim that the applicants' documents (Exhibits 1 and 2), which supposedly contain the signatures of the 11th and 13th applicants, are not authentic. They further assert that the signatures attributed to these applicants differ from those in their affidavit of non-participation. Other details in this additional affidavit, as well as the counsel’s arguments supporting it, either repeat previously stated facts and arguments or introduce new issues not related to the applicants' counter affidavit. The court must disregard these new facts and submissions.

 

COURT’S DECISION:

64.           I have thoroughly reviewed the documents submitted by both parties in this case and have thoughtfully considered the issues and questions raised by their respective counsel. This court believes that the two central and primary issues requiring comprehensive resolution in this case, which encompass the other issues presented by the counsel, are as follows:

                                        i.      Whether this court lacks requisite jurisdiction to hear and determine this suit.

                                     ii.      Whether considering the facts and evidence before this court, the applicants have proven their claims in this suit?

 

ON ISSUE 1:

65.           Before proceeding, it is important to note that this court previously adjudicated some cases with similar facts and circumstances: Wulkwap Hooman Danjuma and 181 Others v. The Governor of Plateau State and 2 Others (unreported) suit number NICN/JOS/09/2024, with a judgment delivered on 26/9/2024 and Chendu and 99 ors v Governor of Plateau State and ors (unreported) suit number NICN/JOS/08/2024 delivered on 18/11/2024. As legal precedence, those cases will heavily influence my decision in this matter as well.

 

66.           The first issue raises a jurisdictional question, one which principally stems from the notice of preliminary objection of the respondents. It is apposite and trite that the preliminary objection be given the foremost attention at this stage since it challenges the jurisdiction of this court to hear and determine this suit. Thus said, issue no. 1 being a jurisdictional matter merits the pride of place of being taken first for the simple reason that it is a threshold issue - BRONIK MOTORS LIMITED AND ANOTHER V. WEMA BANK LIMITED (1983) 1 SCNLR (P. 296); OKOYA V. SANTILLI (1990) 2 NWLR (PART 131) P.172.

 

67.           The respondents challenge the jurisdiction of this court to hear and determine this suit on three fronts, as gleaned from the grounds upon which they premise their objections. The said grounds are reproduced hereunder:

1.     That the honourable court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain this suit.

Particulars

a.      That the applicants were employed by the 3rd respondent, but their appointment were yet to be confirmed by the respondent.

b.     That their employment was not advertised before the exercise commenced.

c.      That no interview was conducted by the appointment and promotion committee as envisaged by the law creating the institution.

2.     That the 11th, and 13th applicants be struck out from the suit.

 

 

Particulars

a.      That the consent of the 11th and 13th applicants was not sought and obtained before the suit was filed on their behalf.

b.     That the 11th and 13th applicants have dissociated themselves from this suit.

 

3.     That this suit cannot be sustained by the applicants jointly

Particulars

a.      That the applicants were employed separately and not jointly.

b.     That the applicants were employed at different times.

c.      That the applicants were employed for different positions.

 

68.           For the determination of their preliminary objection, the respondents advanced three issues—all of which were adopted by the applicants’ counsel. They are:

                                        i.      Whether the court can entertain this matter in view of the fact that the applicants were employed separately, at different times and for different positions;

                                      ii.      Whether this court can hear the matter in view of the fact that the 11th and 13th applicants have disassociated themselves from the suit; and

                                   iii.      Whether this court has the requisite jurisdiction to hear the matter in view of the fact that the employment of the applicants have not been confirmed.

69.           Respecting these issues, first it is clear from exhibits A1 – A14 (Letters of Offer of Employment) that these applicants were offered various employments by the 3rd respondent on different days. In the same vein their letters of acceptance of employment (marked Exhibits D1 – D13) produced by the respondents are dated differently. These documents speak for themselves, as it is well established that documentary evidence is the best evidence, for the reason that it speaks for itself – A.G  BENDEL STATE v. U.B.A ltd (1986) 4 NWLR (PART 37) 547; AKINBISADE v. THE STATE (20060 17 NWLR (PART 1007)184 SC. In the face of these documentary evidence before this court, the applicants were employed at different times in the 3rd respondent institution. 

 

70.           The respondents contend that these applicants cannot sue jointly since they were employed separately and not jointly. They also based their argument on the ground that the applicants were employed in different positions in the 3rd respondent institution. In my mind, it will be overbearing for each of these 14 applicants to institute separate but similar actions in this court, seeking the same reliefs against same parties. This court and indeed all courts are duty bound to exercise their powers in preventing multiplicity of suits by utilizing the instrumentality of joinder of parties to determine such matters in a single suit. See: AKPAMGBO OKADIGBO & ORS. V. CHIDI & ORS. (2015) LPELR- 24564 (SC).

 

71.           At this point, I would like to note that the respondents have both misunderstood and misapplied the authority of EBO-ADE & ORS V. OJO-ONIRO & ORS (Supra), which they heavily relied upon. In fact, this authority actually endorses and encourages joint action, even though its facts differ from those of the current case. Therefore, it is essential to state that, considering the circumstances of this suit, the applicants are appropriately before this court under joint action, and I affirm this position.

 

72.            Secondly, this court observes that the respondents contend that the 11th and 13th applicants did not consent to this suit being instituted on their behalf. However, the respondents did not attach the 2 affidavits of non-participation they referred in their affidavit in support of the notice of preliminary objection. The said 2 affidavits are instead, produced in their counter affidavit in response to the applicants’ originating summons. It must be emphasized that these documents are in the file of this court, although in the counter affidavit against the originating summons. Regardless of the omission, the said affidavit of non-participation of the 11th applicant (Rose Jeremiah Mafuyai) and 13th applicant (Abari Sandra Moses) are noted and duly recognized by this court, as the court is at liberty to use documents in its file to adjudicate over a matter. SEE: IKEME & ANOR. V. SULAYMAN & ORS. (2022) LPELR – 58258 (CA).

 

73.           In the applicants’ counter affidavit in opposition to the respondents’ notice of preliminary objection, the applicants produced 2 documents, which they refer to as the overleaf of the letters of employment of the 11th and 13th applicants. Each of these documents contains the inscription “With My Consent”, a name, a mobile phone number, a date and a signature. The applicants produced these documents in the bid to controvert and dislodge the respondents’ claim that the 11th and 13th applicants did not consent to this suit being instituted on their behalf.

 

74.           The applicants’ efforts to extricate the claim by the respondents regarding the said affidavits of non-participation by the 11th and 13th named applicants in this suit, can be seen from their paragraphs 5, 6, and 7 of the counter affidavit in opposition to the notice of preliminary objection which read as follows:

 

(5). Upon receipt of a copy of the preliminary objection of the defendants, I discovered that the defendants deposed that the 11th and 13th applicants denied giving consent for the filing of the instant suit and that they deposed to affidavit to that effect.

 

(6). I have not seen copies of the said affidavits however; I personally received photocopies of the appointment letters of the 11th and 13th applicants upon which they signed and consented to the filing of the instant suit when we all agreed to file the suit challenging the Governor’s power to terminate our employment. The overleaf of their respective appointment letters where they signed, granting their consent is hereby attached and marked as Exhibits 1 and 2 respectively.

 

(7). To satisfy my curiosity on the truth or otherwise of the deposition contained in the defendant’s affidavit, I posted a notice on our Whatsapp platform where all the applicants are members, inviting any person who desire to discontinue the suit for him or herself to contact our counsel and discuss terms so that our counsel can formally take steps, but till date none of the applicants has showed up.

 

75.           It should be noted at this juncture that it appears there is no denial of the fact that these affidavit of non-participation were deposed to by the respective 11th and 13th applicants. I think that it would not be difficult for any applicant whose name is on any of these 2 affidavits of non-participation to actually depose to an affidavit dislodging the ones produced by the respondents. It need be emphasized that there is a presumption of regularity in favour of the respondents with respect to the said affidavits of non-participation before this court. Indeed, section 168 of the Evidence Act provides that “when any judicial or official act is shown to have been done in a manner substantially regular, it is presumed that formal requisites for its validity were complied with”.

 

76.           It is clear that the formal requirements outlined in section 168 entail the deponent being personally present and swearing an oath in accordance with the Act's provisions. Undoubtedly, given the current circumstances, the court will appropriately recognize the evidential value of the affidavits indicating the non-participation of the 11th and 13th applicants.

 

77.           That said, it is important to note that the affidavit of non-participation submitted by the respondents concerning the 11th and 13th applicants will result only in the removal of their names from the suit, as they have expressed no interest in continuing. In other words, the withdrawal or lack of interest from the 11th and 13th applicants does not invalidate the entire suit. This decision is supported by Order 13 Rule 1 of the court's Rules, which clearly addresses the issue of joining applicants or claimants in a single case. The Rules state: "All persons may be joined in one action as claimants in whom any right to relief is alleged to exist whether jointly or severally and judgment may be given for such claimant(s) as may be found to be entitled to relief and for such relief as the claimant may be entitled to without any amendment." Refer also to: IBIGBAMI & ANOR V. MILITARY GOVERNOR, EKITI STATE & ORS. (2003) LPELR-5619 (CA); REGISTERED TRUSTEE, N.A.C.H.P.N V.  M.H.W.U.N (2008) ALL FWLR (PT. 412) P.1013.

 

78.           Accordingly, the 11th and 13th applicants’ names are removed from this suit, and no finding or order in this judgment will in any way affect their rights or interests. I so hold.

 

79.           I also observed that the counsel for the respondents raised more jurisdictional issues in their legal submissions accompanying the respondents’ further and better affidavit to the notice of preliminary objection filed on 16/5/2024. Particularly, they submit that the applicants commenced this suit by originating summons, which they believe to be the wrong procedure. According to them, there are contentious issues between the parties in this suit thus necessitating the use of a formal writ of complaint.

 

80.           In this regard, I wish to emphasize that originating summons is one of the originating processes recognized by this court. SEE: ORDER 3 (1)(b) NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT (CIVIL PROCEDURE) RULES 2017. Order 3(3) of the said Rules which states that: “Civil proceedings that may be commenced by way of originating summons include matters relating principally to the interpretation of any constitution, enactment, agreements or any other instrument relating to employment, labour, industrial relations in respect of which the court has jurisdiction by virtue of the provisions of section 254C of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) or by any Act or Law in force in Nigeria.”

 

81.           The position of the law as enshrined in the rules of this court gained judicial blessing in numerous case laws. Oguntade, JSC stated in PAM & ANOR V. NASIRU MOHAMMED & ANOR (2008) 16 NWLR (PART 1112)1 as follows: “It is trite therefore that originating summons is the appropriate procedure where what is in dispute is the simple construction or interpretation of document in respect of which pleadings are unnecessary”.

 

82.           I have briefly reviewed the affidavit supporting the applicants' originating summons. I am confident that the applicants' right to the reliefs they seek in this case stems from the same incident, specifically, the alleged termination of their employment by the 1st respondent. Additionally, the legal question concerning the 1st respondent's authority to terminate the applicants' employment is consistent for all applicants. These are the primary issues in this case, which are clearly employment-related matters that this court is constitutionally authorized to hear and resolve. Other issues, at most, are secondary. Refer to section 254C of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended).

 

83.           This case revolves around issues concerning the employment of the applicants, specifically focusing on the statutory authority of the 1st respondent to terminate their employment. The primary concerns involve the statutory powers of the 1st respondent regarding the applicants' employment and the nature, terms, and conditions of that employment. These questions can be resolved by examining relevant statutes, regulatory instruments, and employment documents. I find no issue with the applicants' use of an Originating Summons.

 

84.           The respondents further dispute this court’s jurisdiction, arguing that although the applicants were on the payroll of the 3rd respondent, their appointments had not yet been formally confirmed. They contend that the positions were never advertised prior to the recruitment exercise and that the Appointments and Promotions Committee did not conduct the mandatory interviews prescribed by the institution’s founding law.

 

85.           At page 12 of their written address in support of the preliminary objection filed on 2/5/2024, counsel for the respondents submitted that any employee still within a two-year probationary term may be terminated at the employer’s discretion before attaining permanent status just like in a master/servant relationship. Relying on Rule 020303 of the Civil Service Rules, they pointed out that a probationary officer must, during that period, pass any prescribed examinations and complete the probation satisfactorily in the eyes of the appointing authority before becoming eligible for confirmation. On that basis, they argued, none of the applicants has yet served two years with the respondents, so their claimed reliefs are premature, and the suit is unripe for adjudication.

 

86.           In his written submissions at paragraph 28, counsel for the applicants pointed out that even the respondents acknowledge that only the actual employer can lawfully terminate a probationary appointment—and here the governor is not that employer. He submitted that, notwithstanding his office, the 1st respondent has no authority to suspend or terminate the applicants because he is not a party to their contracts with the 3rd respondent. Counsel further emphasized that the applicants’ appointments fall under the college’s own revised Terms and Conditions of Service—approved by the Council of the College of Arts, Science and Technology, Kurgwi, Plateau State and annexed to the substantive application—not the civil service rules cited by the respondents.

 

87.           Notably, the respondents abandoned their remaining objection—that this court should decline jurisdiction because the state government never advertised the positions and the 3rd respondent’s Appointments and Promotions Committee never interviewed the applicants. Obviously, when a defendant claims that a pre-employment requirement was not satisfied, he bears the burden of proving that allegation with concrete facts and applicable law. Having defaulted in reinforcing their arguments with both facts and law, that ground of objection is deemed abandoned and is hereby struck out.

 

88.           In considering whether the respondents lawfully ended the applicants’ probationary employment, the court agrees that an employer may terminate or dismiss a probationary employee only for just cause and in strict compliance with any employment contract or the statute establishing such position. The applicants’ exhibit—a copy of the College’s revised terms and conditions of service effective March 14, 2019—confirms this. Under Section III, page 14, paragraph “N,” item 3, it provides that if, at any time during probation, the Council finds a staff member unfit for service, the appointment may be terminated on three months’ notice (or three months’ salary in lieu) for senior staff, and one month’s notice (or one month’s salary in lieu) for junior staff.

 

89.           This court therefore concurs with the applicants’ counsel that only the employer may terminate an employee’s contract. Accordingly, the court must decide whether the 1st respondent was empowered to act in that capacity, an issue that will be addressed under the second issue identified for determination. At present, the respondents have not sufficiently proven that the civil service rules govern the applicants’ contracts of employment.

 

90.           Moreover, no provision in the civil service rules or in the revised terms and conditions of the 3rd respondent has been shown, nor have I found any basis, to justify the applicants’ termination on the ground that they were probationary staff. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the applicants’ claim is not premature, and this court retains jurisdiction to hear the matter. The third and final limb of the objection is therefore overruled and dismissed. See also Kanyip PNICN’s observations in NICN/ABJ/173/2024 (Sunday Nyam Bot & Ors v Nigeria Christian Pilgrims Commission), delivered 19/2/2025, at p.10, para.47.

 

91.           Ultimately, the respondents’ preliminary objection succeeds only insofar as it removes the 11th applicant, Rose Jeremiah Mafuyai, and the 13th applicant, Abari Sandra Moses, from this action on account of their non-participation. All other objections to the court’s jurisdiction are hereby dismissed.

 

ON ISSSUE TWO:

92.           Respecting this issue, the court is tasked with deciding if the applicants have substantiated their claims and are rightfully entitled to the reliefs they are seeking. It is crucial to highlight that, in addressing issue number 2, the court will focus on the questions the applicants have presented for determination and resolve them accordingly. The questions posed by the applicants through the originating summons are as follows:

                                        i.      Whether the 1st respondent is possessed of or clothed with the powers or authority to unilaterally suspend, terminate, nullify or in any way interfere with the employment and appointment of the applicants through Exhibits D and E, the applicants having been in the service and employment of the 3rd respondent.

                                      ii.      By virtue of the various letters of appointment issued to the applicants attached as Exhibits A1 – A14, whether the applicants are not entitled to maintain and retain their employment with the 3rd respondent in line the extant laws regulating their employment with the 3rd respondent.

                                   iii.      Whether the failure and refusal of the 3rd respondent to pay the applicants their salaries and allowances thereby retaining same from the month of January 2023 till date or any period of time at all is not unlawful, unjust, illegal and a violation of the 3rd respondent’s duties and obligations.

 

93.           Considering these issues, the court finds it appropriate to address questions 1 and 2 together, as they are closely related. Essentially, these questions aim to determine whether the 1st respondent possesses the necessary authority to terminate the applicants' employment and, if not, whether the applicants are entitled to retain their positions at the 3rd respondent institution.

 

94.           It is essential to always remember that under the current Nigerian legal framework, a claimant in a civil case is responsible for bearing the burden of proof. Until this burden is met, the respondent or defendant may not need to provide any evidence. In other words, the party alleging a violation of rights or claiming entitlement to legal rights or remedies must succeed based on the strength of their evidence. The standard of proof required is the balance of probabilities, as outlined in sections 131 and 135 of the Evidence Act 2011. Additionally, it is well-established that for a claimant to win a case of wrongful termination, they must demonstrate the terms and conditions of the contractual relationship and specify how the defendant breached these terms. For further reference, see: KATTO v. CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA (1999) 6 NWLR (PART. 607) 390 – 394.

 

95.           To support their claims, the applicants leaned on the affidavit accompanying the Originating Summons, their additional affidavit, and arguments from their counsel. In paragraph 5 of the applicants' affidavit supporting the originating summons, they assert that they fulfilled their responsibilities with the 3rd respondent in accordance with its revised Staff Terms and Conditions, as well as the College of Arts, Science and Remedial Studies, Kurgwi Law, 2019.

 

96.           Exhibits A1 – A14 is luminous of the state of the applicants’ nature of employment and status.  I deem it imperative to reproduce the similar paragraphs 2(i), (ii), (iii), (iv) of Exhibits A1 – A14 (Offer of Appointment Letters). These are as follows:

1.     Your appointment would be subject to the following conditions:

(i). That you will be subject in all respect to the provisions of

the law establishing the college and to the conditions of service stipulated in the scheme of service and other Regulations governing the appointment of Senior Staff, as may be made or reviewed by the Governing Council from time to time. 

 

(ii). That you serve a period of two (2) years of probation initially after which you may be considered confirmation based on your satisfactory performance.

 

(iii). That you or the college may terminate your appointment by three months’ notice or by payment of three months’ salary in lieu.

 

(iv). That the college may terminate your appointment without compensation in line with the provisions of the Conditions of Service and/or the law establishing the college.

 

97.           To emphasize clearly, the information above applies similarly to exhibits A1 - A14, differing only in the dates, employees' names, job titles, employment levels, salaries, and other personal details. From the facts presented in the pleadings by both parties, it is clear that there is no disagreement regarding the applicants being employed by the 3rd respondent. The respondents have not contested this fact.

 

98.           The respondents argue that the applicants' employment were plagued with irregularities and were not established through proper procedures. It is also undisputed that the 1st respondent allegedly terminated the applicants' employment. The only point of contention is the respondents' assertion that the applicants were lawfully dismissed by the 1st respondent following due process, which involved forming a preliminary committee before and after the applicants' suspension.

 

99.           It is needful to state that there are three categories of employments, these are: a pure master/servant relationship under the common law; employment where the office is held at pleasure; and employment protected by statute. SEE: IDERIMA v. R.S.C.S.C. (2005) 7 SC (PART 111) 135; OLANIYAN v. UNILAG (1985) 2 NWLR (PART 9) 599.

 

100.      When an employment is one at the pleasure of the employer, it is said to be at will. Hence, the employer reserves the discretion to disengage the employee capriciously regardless of tenure of the office in the contract. This was well captured in the case of OLANIYAN & ORS v. UNIVERSITY OF LAGOS (SUPRA) AT 599/612.

 

101.      On the other hand, it is trite that where an employment is one with statutory flavor, the employer and employee relationship is governed by a statute or a regulation derived from a statute. The apex court while expounding the law in the case of IMOLOAME V. WEST AFRICAN EXAMINATIONS COUNCIL (1999) 9 NWLR (265) 303 stated as follows: “there is an employment with statutory flavor when the appointment and termination is governed by statutory provision. It is accepted that where the contract of service is governed by provision of statute or where the conditions of service are contained in regulation derived statutory provisions, they invest the employee with a legal status higher than the ordinary one of master and servant. They accordingly enjoy statutory flavour”.

 

102.      Having considered the legal framework, we can now pose the following questions:

(a) Is the 3rd respondent an entity established by statute?

(b) Does the relevant statute or its accompanying regulations explicitly govern the employment of the applicants in question?

 

103.      It is undeniable that the 3rd respondent, the employer of the applicants, was established by statute: A Law to provide for the establishment of the College of Arts, Science and Remedial Studies, Kurgwi 2000. The applicants assert that their employment is governed by the 3rd defendant's Terms and Conditions for Staff, as noted in Paragraph 5 of the Affidavit in Support of the Originating Summons. These facts remain uncontested.

 

104.      Concerning the status of the applicants' employment with the 3rd respondent institution, I am completely confident that their employment is governed by statutory provisions. This remains true despite the respondents' assertions that the applicants were still in the probationary phase when their employment was allegedly terminated. The appellate court's decision in the case of BABATUNDE V. THE GOVERNING COUNCIL FEDERAL POLYTECHNIC, EDE & ANOR (Supra) is relevant here, and I will quote the pertinent part of the judgment, which states:

“the question that determines whether an employment has statutory flavour is not whether  the status of the employee is on the higher echelon or low ladder of the service. It is also not determined by whether an employee is on probation or a permanent or a confirmed employee. It is rather whether the term of engagement is controlled and determined by statute as relating engagement and termination.”

 

105.      The relevant sections of the 3rd respondent's General Terms and Conditions of Service for Staff (Exhibit B) are outlined in Section III(y)(1)(a). This section states that an appointment can be terminated before its scheduled end date by the Council, in accordance with the Law and the Statutes. A similar clause is included in paragraph (iv) of exhibits A1 – A14 (Letters of Offer of Employment). The key question here is whether the applicants' employments with the 3rd respondent were terminated in line with the enabling statute and the existing regulations of the 3rd respondent.

 

106.      To resolve this, I shall reproduce the relevant portion of exhibit D (Press Release by the Government of Plateau State), which states inter alia as follows:

 

“PRESS RELEASE

His Excellency, the governor of Plateau State Barr. Caleb M. Mutfwang has approved the dissolution of the Governing Council of the Plateau State University, Bokkos with immediate effect, Similarly, the Governor has also approved the removal of the following Heads of Tertiary Institutions:

 

1.     Plateau State University, Bokkos

2.     Plateau State Polytechnic, Barkin Ladi

3.     College of Education, Gindiri

4.     College of Health Technology, Zawan

5.     College of Health Technology, Pankshin

 

All affected should take note and hand over any government property in their possession to the next most Senior Officer of the Institution immediately.

In addition, the Governor has approved the cancellation of recruitments earlier conducted by Tertiary Institutions in October 2022 and early 2023 that haven under suspension. Consequently, applicants for an all-inclusive recruitment for all Tertiary Institutions will be advertised…  ”

 

107.      The pleadings from the parties in this case provide additional clarity to the question. Paragraphs 6, 10, 11, and 12 of the applicants’ affidavit supporting the originating summons state:

“6. Upon the change in leadership in the office of the 1st respondent proceeded to announce the suspension of all the staff of the Plateau State Government and other statutory agencies newly employed from October 2022 till 29th May, 2023, including the applicants.

 

10. after our purported suspension from the service of the 1st respondent, the 1st respondent constituted a committee allegedly to look into the issue of our employment and advise him among other terms of reference.

 

11. none of us the applicants was invited nor interviewed or heard from by the said committee and the outcome of the assignment of the committee was never served on us or made public till date

 

12. subsequently, by another publication by the 1st respondent, the 1st respondent purported to terminate our employment and appointment from the services of the 3rd respondent by announcing its cancellation and nullification…”

 

108.      In response to these averments by the applicants the respondents aver in paragraphs 4(i), (j), (o) and (p) as follows:

 

“4(i). That paragraph 6 is not true and state that because of the said change of leadership in the state, a panel of investigation was set up by the 1st respondent to investigate the legality of the applicants’ temporary employment.

 

4(j). in further response to paragraph 6, based on the panel’s investigation, the 1st respondent who is the visitor of the institution (3rd respondent) looked at the report of the panel and consequently suspended the applicants employment which employment process was marred by irregularities.

 

4(o). we admit paragraph 10 of the applicants’ affidavit.

 

4(p).that I know of a fact that paragraph 11 is not true and state that the Committee invited the claimants during its investigation, but the applicants failed to honour the committee’s invitation.”

 

109.      Based on the statements in the pleadings from both the applicants and the respondents, it is clear that the 1st respondent allegedly suspended the applicants and later claimed to terminate their employment through certain publications. This suspension by the 1st respondent is central to the case, raising the question of whether the 1st respondent had the rightful legal authority to terminate the applicants' employment.

 

110.      The applicants strongly contest the 1st respondent's authority to dismiss them. It is a well-established principle that the entity that hires has the authority to fire, which is a fundamental rule of employment. This court previously determined that the 3rd respondent is the actual employer of the applicants, and indeed, the one recognized by the applicants as their employer. However, the respondents claim that the 1st respondent acts as the visitor to the 3rd respondent, which they argue justifies the decision to terminate the applicants' employment.

 

111.      Given the substantial evidence presented by the applicants in this case, the responsibility to disprove now moves from the applicants to the respondents. It is the respondents' duty to demonstrate the legitimacy of the authority exercised by the 1st respondent in allegedly terminating the applicants' employment. The appellate court, in the case of ALIYU & ORS v. YOLA & ORS (2022) LCN/16188 (CA), clarified the obligation of a litigant to substantiate their claims, stating:

“the burden is on the plaintiff to establish his claim. This is the evidential burden of proof. It is only after the plaintiff has adduced sufficient credible evidence that the burden of proof would shift to the defendant. The shifting burden of proof is enacted in Section 136 of the Evidence Act 2011 and it provides that the burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on the person who wishes the Court to believe in its existence unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person. But the burden may in the course of a case be shifted from one side to the other. As explained in ADIGHIJE v. NWAOGU (2010) 12 NWLR (PT.1209) 419 @ 463: “Section 137 of the Evidence Act, 2004 (now Section 133 (1) Evidence Act, 2011)”.

112.      Regarding the respondent's defense claiming that the applicants were still on probation at the 3rd respondent institution at the time their employment was terminated, Exhibits 1A – A14 provide important insights into the issue of probation and related matters. At this point, it's pertinent to reproduce the relevant section of paragraph 2(ii) from the applicants' employment offer letter:

“ That you serve a period of two (2) years’ probation initially after which you may be considered for confirmation based on your satisfactory performance.”

 

113.      The applicants did not specify the exact dates of their suspension or the alleged termination of their employment. However, from the pleadings, it is evident that the employment letters (Exhibits A1 – A14) are dated between October 2022 and February 2023. This case was filed on March 21, 2024, approximately one year and five months later (less than two years). I concur with the respondents' assertion that the applicants' employment was allegedly terminated during their probationary period.

 

114.      I want to reemphasize at this point that the applicants being on probation did not nullify or remove the rights associated with their statutory employment. Such employment must be handled according to the statutes and relevant instruments of the 3rd respondent institution. For more on the status of the applicants’ employment within the 3rd defendant institution, refer to: BABATUNDE V. THE GOVERNING COUNCIL FEDERAL POLYTECHNIC, EDE & ANOR (Supra).

 

115.      In my examination, I found no evidence presented to this court indicating that the Governing Council of the 3rd respondent was involved in the alleged suspension and termination of the applicants' employment without notice or compensation.

 

116.      I am aware that the respondents claimed a committee was formed before and after the suspension of the applicants' employment. They also alleged that the applicants were invited to meet with the committee but did not attend. These claims were strongly denied by the applicants in their pleadings. Notably, there is no evidence presented to this court indicating that these applicants or their representatives were ever invited to any committee meeting. Furthermore, there is no documentation showing the committee's conclusions. This court is not persuaded that the applicants were invited to appear before any committee either before or after their employment was supposedly terminated.

 

117.      As previously noted, the respondents argued that the applicants’ appointments were irregular and unadvertised. They failed, however, to acknowledge that any lapse in following proper recruitment procedures rested with the 3rd respondent, not the applicants. Accordingly, the respondents did not demonstrate how such a precondition—if it truly existed—impacted the applicants’ employment status.

 

118.      The court is not persuaded that the respondents adhered to the statutory and regulatory requirements concerning the discipline of the applicants, particularly regarding their suspension and termination. The alleged suspension and termination of the applicants' employment are deemed unlawful, illegal, null, void, and without any effect. I affirm this position.

 

119.      On the issue of unpaid salaries, the applicants maintain that they have not been paid from January 2023 through the date they filed this suit. The respondents deny this, insisting that all salaries due between January and April 2023 were paid in full and pointing to a spreadsheet as proof—though that document was never before the court. In response, the applicants’ counsel served additional authorities to support their claim for unpaid wages. I have reviewed those decisions and will now deliver my opinion.

 

120.      Aside from the statements made by the applicants in their affidavit, which the respondents refuted in their counter affidavit, there is no evidence, such as an account statement or other documentation, to support the claim that the applicants were not paid their salaries or to indicate the last month in which they received their salaries. It is well-established that evidence serves as the means of proof, and proof is the fundamental purpose of evidence, as noted in ANEKWE V. STATE (2014) ALL FWLR (PART 744) 92 AT 109 (SC).

 

121.      The question of the applicants' unpaid salaries becomes even more doubtful when comparing their pleadings with the evidence they presented. For instance, Exhibit A10, which is the Letter of Offer of Employment for the 10th applicant, Elisha Dorcas Gyang, is clearly dated 6th February 2023. It puzzles the court how this 10th applicant could be among those claiming unpaid salaries from January 2023, given that she was not employed until February 2023.

 

122.      It's crucial to highlight that there is no method to ascertain what the applicants in the instant case received as their monthly salaries, let alone when they were paid. It must be recalled that they chose to commence this action by way of originating summons instead of a general writ of complaint. Therefore, for the court to assume the figures stated in their supporting affidavit are accurate would be speculative even if the respondents did not deny them. The fact that a respondent either acknowledges or fails to defend such a claim is irrelevant, as the claimant is required to provide strict proof of the monetary claim made, and nothing less. This is supported by the decision in NNPC V. CLIFCO NIG Ltd. (2011) 4 MJSC 142 at 174, which stated that "a claim for special damages will not succeed merely due to admission of the claim; special damages are never inferred from the nature of the act complained of... They are exceptional and must be specifically claimed and strictly proven."

 

123.      The term 'strict proof' denotes the necessity for evidence to distinctly support and verify the facts detailed in the statement of facts. This evidence should directly and accurately align with the claimant's assertions. While the required standard isn't excessively high, it demands evidence that is appropriate and substantial enough for clear evaluation. This involves offering detailed evidence needed to thoroughly substantiate the pleadings and the calculated amount claimed. The extent of strict proof is significantly influenced by the specific facts and unique circumstances of each case. This burden is satisfied only when credible evidence is presented, allowing for a precise assessment or quantification of the alleged losses or damages. Refer to OFEM AND ORS V. UBANA OBETAN (unreported) suit number NICN/CA/11/2018 Per Kado, J judgment delivered on 18/8/2022. Also, Chendu and ors v. Governor of Plateau State and ors (unreported) suit number NICN/JOS/09/2024 on pages 36/37 paragraphs 110 to 111.

 

124.        The dearth of credible and compelling evidence to support this claim of salary in arrears by the applicants is fatal to the case of the applicants, unfortunately for them. Consequently, this court is not convinced that the applicants are being owed salary from January 2023 – date. I so hold.

 

125.      Essentially, the second issue for determination is partially resolved in favor of the applicants. As a result, the first question in the originating summons, which asks, "whether the 1st respondent has the power or authority to unilaterally suspend, terminate, nullify, or otherwise interfere with the employment and appointments of the applicants through Exhibits D and E, given that the applicants were employed by the 3rd respondent," is answered negatively.

 

126.      Question 2 of the originating summons which is, “by virtue of the various letters of appointment issued to the applicants attached as Exhibits A1 – A14, whether the applicants are not entitled to maintain and retain their employment with the 3rd respondent in line with extant laws regulating their employment with the 3rd respondent”, is answered in the affirmative.

 

127.      Question 3 of the originating summons which is “whether the failure and refusal of the 3rd respondent to pay the applicants their salaries and allowances thereby retaining same from the month of January 2023 till date or any period of time at all is not unlawful, unjust, illegal and a violation of the 3rd respondent’s duties and obligations,” is answered in the negative.”

 

128.      It must be reiterated before I conclude that the applicants filed a motion seeking interlocutory injunction from this court. The said motion and all accompanying processes dated 21/3/2024 and filed on the same date are hereby struck out, having been overtaken by the event of this judgment.

 

129.      To emphasize clearly, I would like to state the reliefs now granted by this court thus:

a.     A declaration that the 1st Respondent has no power or authority to suspend, terminate, nullify or in any way interfere with the employments and appointments of the applicants duly engaged in the services and employment of the 3rd respondent.

 

b.     A declaration that the purported termination, nullification and cancellation of the employments and appointments of the applicants by the 1st respondent through exhibits D, and E, is unlawful, illegal, null and void with no legal effect whatsoever.

 

c.      A declaration that the applicants are entitled to maintain and retain their respective employments with the 3rd respondent in line with the extant laws regulating their employments.

 

d.     An order setting aside the purported suspensions and subsequent terminations, nullifications and cancellations of the applicants’ appointments and employments made by the 1st respondent through the publications made at his instance attached as exhibits D and E, same having been done ultra vires and therefore unlawful, null and void.

 

e.     An order reinstating the applicants back to their respective positions as staff and employees of the 3rd respondent in line with their respective letters of appointments attached as exhibits A1 – A14 respectively.

 

f.       N5,000,000.00 (Five Million Naira only) as general damages against the respondents jointly and severally for the collective pain and suffering imposed on the applicants by the respondents.

 

 

130.      This court awards to the applicants the sum of N500,000.00 cost for filing this suit.

 

131.      This judgement shall be complied with within 30 days, and the monetary sums awarded shall in default of payment, attract a 10% interest per annum until fully liquidated.

 

132.      Based therefore on the above findings, this court is satisfied that the applicants’ case succeeds in part. I hereby enter judgment for them as stated hereinbefore.

DELIVERED IN JOS THIS 5TH DAY OF JUNE 2025.

 

……………………………………..

Hon. Justice I.S. Galadima

Judge.

 

Public access to NICN decisions:

Judgments and reasons for the judgments are published, in full, online at https://nicnadr.gov.ng. NICN decisions are available to the general public shortly after a copy each has been sent to the claimant(s) and defendant(s) in a case.