IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA
IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION
HOLDEN IN ABUJA
ON THURSDAY 5TH DAY MARCH, 2026
BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE SINMISOLA O. ADENIYI
SUIT NO: NICN/ABJ/267/2021
BETWEEN:
MR. IDRIS LAWAL ALIM…………………………………………CLAIMANT
AND
- TRANSMISSION COMPANY OF NIGERIA
- HONOURABLE MINISTER OF POWER DEFENDANTS
- FEDERAL CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
- THE HEAD OF THE CIVIL SERVICE OF THE FEDERATION
Legal representations:
Chief Ayotunde Ogunleye, SAN with D. Eyitayo Esq., and C. Umeozor Esq.
for Claimant
P. A. Adewuyi Esq., for 1st Defendant
D. O. Nameju Esq., for 3rd Defendant
S. Adokwe Esq., for 4th Defendant
2nd Defendant not represented
J U D G E M E N T
Until his compulsory retirement, the Claimant was the General Manager (Transmission) of the 1st Defendant. The case of the Claimant is that his compulsory retirement from the 1st Defendant constitutes unfair labor practice and contravenes the conditions of his service with the 1st Defendant. The Claimant alleged that prior to his compulsory retirement, he was not subjected to any form of misconduct that warranted any disciplinary action that may have resulted to his compulsory retirement.
2. On the premises of these summarized facts, the Claimant took out a Complaint and
Statement of Facts filed on 30/09/2021, against the Defendants whereby he claimed the reliefs set out as follows:
1. A DECLARATION that the purported compulsory retirement of the Claimant from the services of the 1st Defendant vides the letter Ref: TCN/HCS/04/HR/2.35/3397/2021 dated 18th August, 2021 constitutes an unfair and or wrongful dismissal, unlawful, illegal, unconstitutional, invalid for being contrary to the 1st Defendant's Conditions of Service of or Officers 2016.
2. A DECLARATION that the Claimant is still in the service of the 1st Defendant and is entitled to salaries, allowances, emoluments and other benefits in accordance with his position before his purported compulsory retirement till August 2023, when he can lawfully be retired from the 1st Defendant's service.
3. An Order of the Honourable Court setting aside the purported letter of compulsory retirement with Ref: TCN/HCS/04/HR/2.35/33971 2021 dated 18th August, 2021 issued to the Claimant for being unjust, unlawful, invalid, unconstitutional, void and of no effect whatsoever.
4. A DECLARATION that the purported notional appointment of the Claimant to the position of General Manager from June 2016 to April 2021 vides letter Ref: TN/HCS/04/HR/2.35/3397/ 2021 dated 18th August, 2021 is unlawful, illegal, unconstitutional, invalid for being contrary to the 1st Defendant's Conditions of Service of Officers 2016.
5. An Order of the Honourable Court directing the immediate reinstatement of Claimant to the service of the 1st Defendant effective from the 18th of August, 2021 with all his rights and entitlements in accordance with condition of service of the employees of the 1st Defendant.
6. An Order of the Honourable Court restraining the Defendants, their
agents, privies howsoever described from harassing or subjecting the Claimant to any form of arbitrariness and/or discrimination on account of this action and or claims before this Honourable Court.
7. An Order of the Honourable Court directing the 1st Defendant to pay
the Claimant the sum of ?9,648,643.02 (Nine Million, Six Hundred and Forty-Eight Thousand, Six Hundred and Forty-Three Naira, Two Kobo) being special damages representing the Claimant salaries and allowances as a General Manager in the service of the 1st Defendant or the period of 1st June 2016 to 30th April, 2021.
8. An Order directing the 1st Defendant to pay to the Claimant the sum of ?100,000,000.00 (One Hundred Million Naira) being general damages against the 1st Defendant for the psychological trauma suffered by the Claimant as a result of the illegal action of the 1st Defendant.
9. An Order compelling the 1st Defendant to pay interest on the said sum at the rate of 21% from the 18th day of August, 2021 till the delivery of Judgment in this matter.
10. An Order compelling the 1st Defendant to pay post judgment interest at the rate of 21% from the delivery of Judgment until the Judgment sum hereof is liquidated.
11. An Order compelling the 1st Defendant to pay the sum of ?5,000,000.00 (Five Million Naira) being cost of all legal services and actions taken by the Claimant as a result of the purported compulsory retirement of the Claimant by the 1st Defendant.
3. The Defendants joined issues with the Claimant and contested his claims by filing separate Statements of Defence. The Amended Statement of Defence of the 1st Defendant was filed by leave of Court on 14/01/2025; the Statement of Defence of the 2nd Defendant was filed on 10/11/2021, the 3rd Defendant’s Statement of Defence was filed on 14/03/2022; whilst the 4th Defendant filed her Statement of Defence on 20/10/2021. It is borne by the records of 08/04/2025 that counsel for the 4th Defendant, Samuel Adokwe Esq., placed reliance on the evidence and documents tendered by the 1st Defendant as the defence of the 4th Defendant. However, the 2nd and 3rd Defendants failed to call any witness in support of their pleadings.
4. As correctly submitted by the learned senior counsel for the Claimant, the law is trite that facts averred to in pleadings must be substantiated by evidence and in the absence of such evidence, the averments are deemed abandoned. See: UBN Plc Vs Astra Builders (WA Ltd) [2010] 5 NWLR (Pt 1186) 1; Skye Bank Plc Vs Akinpelu [2010] 9 NWLR (Pt 1198) 179; Aregbesola Vs Oyinlola [2011] 9 NWLR (Pt 1253) 458; Admin/Exec; Estate, Abacha Vs Eke-Spiff [2009] 7 NWLR (Pt 1139) 97. The cases of Okpoko Commercial Bank Ltd Vs Igwe [2013] 15 NWLR (Pt 1376) 184; NEPA Vs Auwal [2011] 5 NWLR (Pt 1241) 595, cited by the learned senior counsel are also apposite.
5. However, this does not on its own, translate to automatic victory for the Claimant against the Defendants as posited by the learned senior counsel for the Claimant. The law is settled that a Claimant must succeed on the strength of his case and not rely on the weakness of the defence and the absence of evidence by the Defendant does not exonerate the responsibility on a Claimant to prove his claim. See Harka Air Services Ltd Vs Keazor [2006] 1 NWLR (Pt 960) 160; Ogunyade Vs Oshunkeye [2007] 15 NWLR (Pt 1057) 218.
6. The case commenced de novo on 25/01/2024. Upon conclusion of plenary trial, the final addresses were filed and exchanged in the manner prescribed by the Rules of this Court. In the final written address filed on 05/08/2025, counsel for the1st Defendant, P. A. Adewuyi Esq., formulated a sole issue for determination in this suit, that is:
“Whether or not from the totality of evidence adduced before this Honourable Court, the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought in the instant suit.”
Learned senior counsel for the Claimant, Chief Ayotunde Ogunleye, SAN distilled two issues for determination in his written address filed on 04/09/2025, namely:
1. “Whether upon careful evaluation of the facts and circumstances of this case, the purported compulsory retirement of the Claimant by the 1st
Defendant is unlawful, illegal and null and void?
2. Whether the reliefs sought by the Claimant in this suit ought to be granted by this Honourable Court?”
The 1st Defendant’s Reply on Points of Law was filed on 11/09/2025.
7. Upon a proper appreciation of the totality of the pleadings of the respective
parties, the evidence adduced at the trial and the totality of the circumstances of this
case, it is my considered view that the issues as formulated by learned senior counsel
for the Claimant adequately covers the field of dispute in this suit and as such, the
Court hereby adopts same in determining this suit. In proceeding to determine these
issues, I must state that I had carefully considered and taken due benefits of the
totality of arguments canvassed by the respective counsel in the written final
submissions; to which I shall endeavor to make specific reference as I consider needful
in the course of this judgment.
8. At the plenary trial, the Claimant testified in person and tendered in evidence, a total of thirteen (13) sets of documents as exhibits to further support his case. He was duly cross-examined by the respective counsel for the 1st and 4th Defendants. The 1st Defendant in turn fielded her Acting General Manager, Human Resources & Change Management one Mohammed Mani Liman, as the sole witness. He tendered five (5) documents in evidence and was duly cross-examined by the learned senior counsel for the Claimant and counsel for the 4th Defendant.
9. As disclosed from the pleadings, parties are ad idem that the Claimant was employed by the 1st Defendant (formerly known as National Electric Power Authority) on 04/04/1993, to the position of Assistant Manager (Electrical) and that he rose through the ranks to the position of General Manager (Transmission). However, the grouse of the Claimant is that his purported notional appointment as General Manager (Transmission) from 06/06/2016 communicated on 18/08/2016 is unlawful, illegal and void as the relevant laws, particularly the Conditions of Service
of the 1st Defendant forbid notional appointment. Letter of Offer Appointment, Letters of Promotion, Letters of Covering of Duty, Letter of Redeployment, Letters of
Commendation, Memorandum of Payment Advice, Letter of Appointment as Assistant General Manager (Transmission) and Letter of Appointment as General Manager were respectively admitted in evidence as Exhibit C1, Exhibit C2, Exhibit C2A, Exhibit C3, Exhibit C3A, Exhibit C4, Exhibit C6, Exhibit C8, Exhibit C5 and Exhibit C5A.
10. The contention of the Claimant is further that by a letter dated 18/08/2021, effective from 12/05/2021, he was compulsorily retired from the services of the 1st Defendant and that without any cogent reason, he was made to refund four (4) months’ salary from May to August, 2021. The Claimant alleged that he was never been found wanting or subjected to any form of misconduct that warranted any disciplinary measure; that in line with the conditions of service of the 1st Defendant, he was not accorded the mandatory three (3) months’ retirement leave and training and contends that the decision of the 1st Defendant for his compulsory retirement is premature, constitutes an unfair labor practice and contrary to all known procedure of the conditions of service of the 1st Defendant. The Conditions of Service of the 1st Defendant is admitted in evidence as Exhibit C7.
11. The Claimant testified that he wrote a letter of complaint, Exhibit C10, to the 1st Defendant for reconsideration of the unjust retirement and his reinstatement but the complaint did not elicit any positive response. The Claimant alleged that his premature compulsory retirement has caused him serious untold hardship and psychological trauma and prayed the Court to grant his claims. Also admitted in evidence as Exhibit C9, is a letter titled, Re: Demand for explanation and presentation of requisite certificates.
12. Basically, the defence put forward by the 1st Defendant in the Amended Statement of Defence is that, the Claimant was retired on the 12/05/2021, having attained the statutory retirement age of working for 35 years in the public service. As the sole witness of the 1st Defendant, DW1 testified that before the Claimant joined the services of the 1st Defendant, formerly, National Electric Power Authority (NEPA) in 1993, he had worked with the Borno State Rural Electrification Board (BREB) from 12/05/1986.
13. According to DW1, by Exhibit D1, a letter dated 15/04/1994, the Claimant applied to NEPA for the transfer of his service from BREB to NEPA, that pursuant to the said application, NEPA wrote Exhibit D2 , a letter dated 14/06/1994, to request for the pledge and willingness of BREB to transfer the Claimant’s service from BREB to NEPA; that BREB conveyed its approval of the Claimant’s release/transfer of service from BREB to NEPA in Exhibit D3; that having obtained the approval of BREB, Exhibit D4 was written by NEPA to the Claimant to convey the approval for his application for transfer/merger of his service.
14. In his further testimony, DW1 tendered in evidence, Exhibit D5, as the extant regulations governing the employment of the Claimant, that by the said conditions of service, the statutory retirement of an employee shall occur as soon as the employee attains the age of sixty (60) years or thirty-five years of service, whichever is earlier; that by 12/05/2021, the Claimant had been in public service for 35 years and the 1st Defendant had an obligation to retire him on the said date.
15. DW1 testified further that the 1st Defendant inadvertently failed to take cognizance in its record of the 12/05/1986 date as the date of the Claimant’s first appointment and therefore the Claimant was not retired on 12/05/2021; that the error was discovered when the staff audit was undertaken which was after the Claimant had exceeded the statutory years of service; that the Claimant was immediately notified of his retirement and was directed to pay the excess salaries and allowances he had collected from 13/05/2021 to 18/08/2021.
16. DW1 also testified that there is no provision in the 1st Defendant’s conditions of service for a pre-retirement training of a retiring employee; that the Claimant had the obligation to give the 1st Defendant three months’ statutory notice of retirement; that his failure made it practically impossible for the 1st Defendant to allow him to
proceed for the three month’s retirement and training. The 1st Defendant maintained
that the Claimant’s retirement was in accordance with the extant laws governing the Claimant’s employment and urged the Court to dismiss the Claimant’s claims with substantial costs.
17. At this juncture, it is pertinent to determine one or two preliminary issues raised in the written address of learned senior counsel for the Claimant. Citing the provision of Section 37 of the Evidence Act, learned senior counsel submitted that an oral or written statement made otherwise than by a witness in a proceeding or contained in a document which is tendered in evidence for the purpose of proving the truth of the matter stated in the document is hearsay evidence. Learned senior counsel in urging the Court to discountenance Exhibits D1 D2, D3 and D4, argued that the testimony of DW1, not being a witness to the Claimant’s employment or the maker of the exhibits or a person that could be cross-examined to establish the truth or otherwise, amounts to documentary hearsay. The cases of Ugoala Vs The State of Lagos [2021] 3 NWLR (Pt 1763) 263; Danladi Vs State [2019] 16 NWLR (Pt 168) 342.
18. In his further submission, learned senior counsel placed reliance on the provision of Section 39 of Evidence Act (supra) and the cases of Buhari Vs INEC [2008] 19 NWLR (Pt 1120) 391; Ogoro Vs Seven Up Bottling Co Plc [2016] 13 NWLR (Pt 1528) 1, and argued that DW1 not being the maker, the exception to admissibility of hearsay evidence is inapplicable in this case, as the 1st Defendant did not place anything before the Court to satisfy the exceptions; that the Exhibit D4 was never received or acknowledged by the Claimant; that the said exhibit is an afterthought and offends the provision of Section 83 of Evidence Act as same was made by the 1st Defendant in anticipation of or during the pendency of the suit and therefore urged the Court not to attach probative value to the said exhibits.
19. Learned senior counsel also argued that the 1st Defendant is estopped from claiming that the Claimant’s employment commenced in 1986, having led him to belief throughout his career that his employment commenced on 04/04/1993. In support of his propositions, learned senior counsel cited the provision of Section 169 of the Evidence Act (supra) and the authorities of Statoil (Nig) Ltd Vs Inducon (Nig) Ltd [2021] 1NWLR (Pt 1774) 1; Brittania U (Nig) Ltd Vs Chevron (Nig) Ltd [2025] 3 NWLR (Pt 1979) 197. Learned senior counsel finally urged the Court to discountenance Exhibits D1 - D4 and to hold that the Claimant has proved his entitlements to his claims.
20. On his part, the 1st Defendant’s counsel in his Reply on Points of Law submitted that once a document is in existence and such document proves the existence of a fact, such document need not be tendered by the maker of the document to be admissible; that the said exhibits tendered by DW1 are admissible under the Evidence Act being official records made in the ordinary course of duty, forming part of the employment records of the Claimant to prove the occurrence of the events in relation to the Claimant’s transfer of service from BREB to the 1st Defendant.
21. Counsel further submitted that the issues in controversy before the Honourable Court are largely documentary without recourse to oral evidence and having admitted the documents without objection, the documents remain unchallenged and admissible. To buttress his submissions, counsel placed reliance on the provision of Section 39 Evidence Act (supra) and the cases of Tasiu (ATS) Vs Sammani [2019] LPELR 49189; Aiki Vs Idowu [2009] 9 NWLR (Pt 948) 47.
22. Now, I should state that documentary hearsay arises when the evidence given by a witness is documentary evidence of which he is not the maker, and he seeks not just to prove that the document was made but to prove the veracity or truth of its contents. Where a public document is tendered just to show the existence of such document only, though not tendered by the maker, it would not ordinarily be termed hearsay. But where a witness who did not participate in the making of the document ventures to give evidence on the contents of the document and tries to persuade the Court on the truth of its content, it becomes hearsay. See Andrew Vs INEC [2017] LPELR 48518; Zamfara State Judiciary & Ors Vs Maigoro & Others [2021] LPELR 56351.
23. It is settled and as correctly submitted by learned senior counsel for the Claimant
that hearsay evidence, oral or documentary is inadmissible and lacks probative value. See Sections 37 and 38 of the Evidence Act 2011; Okereke Vs Umahi & Ors [2016) LPELR-40035. On the other hand, hearsay exception is any deviation from the hearsay rule, allowing the admission of otherwise inadmissible statements because the circumstances surrounding the statements provide a basis for considering the statements reliable. This is in line with Section 39 of the Evidence Act, 2011 which provides as follows:
“Statements, whether written or oral of facts in issue or relevant facts made by a person,
(a) who is dead;
(b) who cannot be found;
(c) who has become incapable of giving evidence; or
(d) whose attendance cannot be procured without an amount of delay or expense which under the circumstances of the case appears to the Court unreasonable, are admissible under Section 40 to 50.”
24. In AG Rivers State & Ors Vs Amam & Ors [2021] LPELR 56320, OLABODE A. ADEGBEHINGBE, JCA held;
“…in similar circumstances of the effect and application of Section 83 of the Evidence Act, 2011, where the Court stated: "This provision has received the blessing of consistent interpretation, attracting the toga of settled law, that documentary evidence can be admitted in the absence of the maker, relevance being the key to its admissibility. ... The Courts have also held that a document can be tendered by a party to it or by one who has proper custody of it...”
See also Eze Vs Akerele [2016] LPELR 51018.
25. It is on record of the Court that on 30/01/2025, the 1st Defendant was granted leave to substitute one Mr. Aminu Yau, who was said have retired from the employment of the 1st Defendant with Mohammed Mani Liman. The said Mohammed Mani Liman who testified as DW1, the sole witness of the 1st Defendant, though not the maker has official records of the Claimant’s employment. The instant case is an apt example of an exception to the rule of hearsay evidence as provided under Section 39 (d) of Evidence Act. Therefore, the exhibits are not documentary evidence hearsay and there exists no ground not to attach probative value to them. And I so hold.
26. Now, the task the Court is to undertake is to examine the evidence on record as adduced by the Claimant, in order to determine whether or not, the evidence has satisfied the requirement of proof imposed by the provisions of Sections 131 and 132 of the Evidence Act 2011 (as amended), to substantiate the Claimant’s claims as endorsed in paragraph 24 of the Statement of Facts against the Defendants. I consider it pertinent to remark from the outset that the case put forward by the Claimant is substantially documentary evidence. In that circumstance, the focus of the Court is directed principally at the documents tendered as exhibits by parties as the yardstick to access the oral evidence adduced by the witnesses on either side of the divide.
27. This course is in consonance with the established legal proposition that documentary evidence, being the best evidence, is the yardstick or hanger by which to access the veracity or credibility of oral testimony and that extrinsic evidence cannot be admitted to contradict it, add or vary the provisions contained in a document. See Section 128(1) of the Evidence Act 2011 on the issue. See also Skye Bank PLC Vs Akinpelu [2010] 9 NWLR (Pt 1198)179; Ndubueze Vs Bawa [2018] LPELR 43874.
28. The position of law is equally settled that in an action for declaratory reliefs
such as the present case, the Claimant is also duty bound to prove his claims on the strength of his own case. This is essentially so, because declaratory reliefs are not granted on a platter of gold. They are only granted as products of credible and cogent evidence proffered at the instance of the Claimant. See Col. Nicholas Ayanru (Rtd) Vs Mandilas Ltd [2007] 4 SCNJ 388; Nweke Vs Okorie [2015] LPELR 40650. See also cases of Nduul Vs Wayo & Ors [2018] LPELR 45151; Adamu Vs Nigeria Airforce & Anor [2022] LPELR 56587, cited by the 1st Defendant’s counsel.
29. Now, the burden of proof rests squarely on the Claimant to establish that his notional appointment to the position of General Manager and that his compulsory retirement is contrary to the 1st Defendant’s conditions of service and that the action of the Defendants is unlawful, unconstitutional and constitutes unfair labor practice. From Exhibit D1– Exhibit D4, it is evident that the Claimant applied for and was granted a transfer of service from BREB to the 1st Defendant. At paragraph 2 of Exhibit D4, the Claimant’s employment in public service was deemed to be effective from 12/05/1986, the date of his first appointment. By Regulation 13.11 of Exhibit C7/D5, statutory retirement shall occur as soon as the employee attains the age of sixty (60) or thirty-five (35) years of service, whichever is earlier.
30. While answering questions under cross-examination by counsel for the 1st Defendant, the Claimant testified as follows:
“I started my public service on 12/05/1986 with Borno State Rural Electrification Board. On 15/04/1994, I applied for transfer but same was not approved. The application for transfer was made after I joined NEPA (now TCN). It was not approved since I have not seen the approval.”
31. The testimony of the Claimant that the application was not approved since he has not seen the approval is implausible. I am of the opinion that his application would have either been approved or refused and that either way, this would have been communicated or conveyed to him or he would have followed up for the outcome of his application. Furthermore, the evidence of DW1, while answering question under cross-examination by the learned senior counsel is that the acknowledgement of the approval was made on a dispatch book, which cannot be produced considering the length of time.
32. The argument of learned senior counsel is that the 1st Defendant failed to discharge the burden of proving that the Claimant had knowledge or received and/or was notified of the approval of his transfer in Exhibit D4. Indeed, the burden of proving that the Claimant’s application was approved shifted to the 1st Defendant and this was discharged through Exhibit D4, a letter written to convey the 1st Defendant’s approval for his application for transfer. The argument of learned senior counsel on this issue is hereby discountenanced.
33. It is my finding from the foregoing that the Claimant’s statutory retirement age was on 12th May, 2021 and his statutory retirement by the 1st Defendant on the said 12th May, 2021 when he attained the prescribed length of service for his retirement was lawful. And I so hold. In the circumstances therefore, it goes without saying that the Claimant’s claims in paragraph 24 (a), (b), (c), (e), (f) and (h) that are hinged on his claim for unlawful retirement fail. And I so further hold.
34. At paragraph 24 (d) of the Statement of Facts, the Claimant claims for declaration that the purported notional appointment to the position of General Manager is illegal and contrary to the 1st Defendant’s conditions of service. The Claimant did not adduce any evidence on this claim. It is trite that pleadings are merely perceptions of a party and do not constitute evidence of the matters contained therein. See Falese Vs Falade [2021] LPELR-54964; Polaris Bank Ltd Vs Munaish Investment Ltd & Anor [2022] LPELR-58135. The facts as contained in the pleadings of the Claimant are deemed abandoned. And I so hold.
35. The Claimant in paragraph 24 (g) of the Statement of Facts is also claiming for an Order of Court directing the 1st Defendant to pay the sum of N9,648,643.02 being special damages for the Claimant’s salaries and allowances for the period of 1st June, 2016 to 30th April, 2021. It is trite that claim for arrears of salary is a claim for special damages. In law special damages are those claims that are quantifiable and must be specifically pleaded, particularized and proved strictly, before grant is made by the Court. They are distinct and distinguishable from general damages, which are presumed by law and do not require any specific pleading. See Ecobank Vs First Choice Properties Ltd & Anor [2024] LPELR-61793; AG Abia State & Ors Vs AG of the Federation [2022] LPELR-57010(SC), Union Bank Vs Nwanmkwo & Anor [2019] LPELR-46418. The Courts in the cases of highlights held that the burden is on a Claimant to prove special damages, emphasizing that such damages cannot be awarded based on speculation.
36. In the totality, I must and I hereby resolve the issues for determination in this suit against the Claimant. The judgment of the Court, in the final analysis, is that the case of the Claimant is bereft of any cogent evidence whatsoever, this suit must fail. Accordingly, the suit shall be and is hereby dismissed. Parties shall bear their respective costs.
Judgment is hereby entered accordingly.
SINMISOLA O. ADENIYI
(Hon. Judge)
05/03/2026