IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE MINNA JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT ABUJA

 

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HONOURABLE JUSTICE O. Y. ANUWE

 

Dated: 26th March 2026                                   SUIT NO: NICN/MN/77/2024

           

Between:

 

Fatima M. K. Garba                                                              -                   Claimant

 

And

 

1.     Niger State Government

2.     Attorney General of Niger State                                                                       Defendants

3.     Niger State Civil Service Commission                                                                                  

 

Representation:

M. T. Mohammed, with him, Godwin Ozara for the Claimant

Hauwa Jibril (Asst. Director) for the Defendants

 

JUDGMENT

The Claimant instituted this action by a Complaint filed on 19th December 2024. Her claims against the Defendants are as follows:

1.     A declaration that the Claimant was duly employed into the civil service of Niger State and his employment is still subsisting and valid.

2.     A declaration that the continuous withholding of the Claimant's salaries and all other entitlements (including promotions) i? illegal, unconstitutional, null and void.

3.     An order of the Court compelling the Defendants to pay the sum of N1,638,863.84 as the withheld salaries of the Claimant from May 2021 to December 2024.

4.     An order awarding the sum of N5,000,000 exemplary damages against the 3rd defendant.

5.     And for such further order this Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances of this suit.

 

The Compliant was accompanied with a statement of facts, list of witnesses, witness statement on oath of the claimant, list and copies of documents pleaded by the claimant.

 

The defendants filed a joint statement of defence on 11th March 2025 along with a counter claim wherein the defendants claim the following reliefs against the claimant:

1.     An order directing the Claimant to refund the sum of N1,000,841.13 being salaries and allowances erroneously paid to her over the period of 27 months.

2.     An order directing the Claimant to tender an unreserved public apology for misleading the Counter-Claimants and the general public vide three National dailies.

3.     The cost of defending this suit (Solicitor's fees) in the sum of N2,000,000.

4.     The sum of N5,000,000 as general damages.

 

The statement of defence was accompanied with the witness statement on oath of Usman Baba, list of witnesses and list and copies of documents.

 

In the proceeding of 29th October 2024, learned counsels for the parties informed the Court that the parties have agreed to adopt the trial on procedure provided in Order 38 Rule 33 of the Rules of this Court. The request of the parties was granted and parties were directed to file their final written addresses. The written addresses of the parties were filed subsequently. The final written address of the claimant was filed on 17th November 2025 while the defendants filed their final written on 9th January 2026 but deemed on 13th January 2026 in which date the final written addresses were adopted.

 

Rule 33 of Order 38 of the Rules of this Court permits trial on records where parties, at the close of pleadings, agree or consent to adopt the procedure. The procedure in trial on records is that the parties do not call witnesses or evidence but rely only on the pleadings, the frontloaded documents and the written addresses filed on the basis of the documents on record. The parties in this suit having consented to the procedure, this suit will accordingly be determined using the facts pleaded by the parties, the frontloaded documents and the content of the written addresses.

 

CLAIMANT’S CASE:

In the statement of facts, the Claimant pleaded that she is a Civil Servant under the payroll of the 1st defendant. She was employed in 1991 as Home Overseer. She changed cadre to Clerical Assistant in 1996. In 2001, she got a letter of permanent and pensionable appointment. Her entry qualification into the civil service was School Leaving Certificate. The claimant attended the screening exercise in 2021 where the screening committee faulted the claimant’s appointment because her original school leaving certificate was mutilated and dirty. She joined other affected civil servants to the office of the 3rd defendant where they were told to remain patient pending the outcome of the committee. The last salary she was paid was for the month of June 2021 in the sum of N37,068.19. Her unpaid salaries from July 2021 to December 2024 has accrued to the sum of N1,638,863.84.

 

The claimant frontloaded these documents: notification of appointment dated 31/1/1996, letter of permanent and pensionable appointment dated 2/6/2001, notification of appointment dated 10/12/2012, school leaving certificate,

                  

offer of provisional appointment dated 16/2/2005, NCE certificate, pay slip for June 2021 and solicitors’ letter dated 18/11/2024.

 

DEFENDANTS DEFENCE AND COUNTER CLAIM:

In their statement of defence, the Defendants admitted that the claimant was employed by the 1st and 3rd defendants. In the year 2020, the 1st defendant set a screening committee. The claimant appeared before the committee where it was discovered that the claimant ought to have retired from service on 12/3/2019 based on her date of birth she presented. As a result of this, her salary was stopped in accordance with the Civil Service Rules. Since April 2019, the claimant has illegally been receiving month salary, in the sum of N37,068.19, from the defendants as a result of her continuous stay in service after her retirement date. From April 2019 to June 2021, the claimant had illegally received the total sum of N1,000,841.13.

 

No document was frontloaded by the defendants with the statement of defence.

 

CLAIMANT’S REPLY AND DEFENCE TO COUNTER CLAIM

The claimant filed a reply to the statement of defence and defence to the counter claim on 14th April 2025, together with additional witness statement of the claimant. It was pleaded that the date of birth of the claimant on the notification of appointment dated 31st January 1996 is 16th October 1969. This is also the date of birth contained on the claimant’s school leaving certificate. The 12th March 1959 electronically collected by the defendants is not the claimant’s date of birth. As at June 2021, the claimant was 52 years which implies she has 8 more years in service. Also, she was appointed on 1/3/1991 and by June 2021, she was 29 years in service. The claimant frontloaded her declaration of age, which was sworn on 8th July 2016.

 

FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESS OF THE CLAIMANT

The Claimant’s Final Written Address dated 15th November 2025 was filed on 17th November 2025. Four issues were formulated for the determination of the court.

 

ON ISSUE ONE ‘whether the Claimant has been given fair hearing before the purported termination of his appointment’ counsel relied on Chapter 3 Section 4 Rule 03404 of the Niger State Civil Service Rules which outlines the procedures for interdiction for an employment governed by statute, and submitted that the procedures were not followed. Citing the case of KABELMENTAL NIG. LTD vs. ATIVIE (2001) FWLR 640-846 (Pt. 66) Pg. 664 and the case of P.H.C.N PLC vs. OFFOELO (2013) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1344) Pg. 393, counsel submitted that the Claimant was not served any dismissal letter; therefore, his appointment remains subsisting. According to counsel, the claimant was not aware of his alleged dismissal, not until the Defendants made reference to it in their statement of defence.

 

ON ISSUE TWO, ‘whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought’, learned counsel for the claimant, in submitting that the appointment of the Claimant is still subsisting and valid, stated that termination in statutory employment requires strict compliance with relevant laws; and the remedy for such wrongful termination of a statutory employment is reinstatement and payment of accrued entitlements. Counsel cited amongst others, the case of MRS. AKINYOSOYE YEMISI vs. FEDERAL INLAND REVENUE SERVICES (2015) 6 ACELR Pgs. 179 and 192.

 

ON ISSUE THREE, ‘whether Niger State Civil service screening committee can investigate criminal allegation against its employee and adjudicate thereon with conclusion that the claimant’s certificate was forged’, it is counsel’s submission that the defendants cannot be a judge in their own case, and the screening committee cannot investigate or adjudicate criminal allegations such as forgery which is a criminal offense and must be proved beyond reasonable doubt in a competent court. Citing the case of APC vs. OBASEKI (2022) 2 NWLR (pt. 1814) page 282 amongst other cases, counsel emphasized that executive bodies cannot replace courts in determining criminal guilt.

 

FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESS OF THE DEFENDANTS/COUNTER CLAIMANTS

The Defendant’s Final Written Address was filed on 9th January 2026 wherein they formulated Two issues for determination.

 

ON ISSUE ONE “whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought” learned counsel states that the reliefs sought by the Claimant are declaratory in nature and same cannot be granted in the absence of cogent evidence led by the Claimant. Counsel relied on MARANRO vs OYEGOKE (2025) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1980) 447 @ Pg 475-476, PARAS, F-B which emphasizes that a claimant must succeed on the strength of their own case, not the weakness of the defendant’s. According to the defence, the Claimant is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought before this Honourable Court because the dismissal of the Claimant was based on the fake NCE Statement of Result and was also in accordance with the Niger State Civil Service Rules.

 

ON ISSUE TWO, “whether the respondents have established their Counter Claim” according to the defence, a Counter-claim is a sword not a shield, and that a Counter-Claim is to all intents and purposes a separate and independent action in its own right. Counsel urged the Court to resolve the Counter-Claim in favour of the Defendants.

 

DECISION ON THE CLAIMS OF THE CLAIMANT

From the facts pleaded by the parties, the fact that the claimant was employed into the Civil Service of the 1st defendant in 1991 is not in dispute in this suit. The area of dispute is whether the claimant’s employment still subsists and whether she is entitled to the arrears of salaries which she claims in this suit. This issue arose from the first claim of the claimant where she sought a declaration that her employment still subsists. The other claims sought by the claimant, particularly reliefs 2 and 3 regarding her unpaid salaries, are founded on relief 1.  Accordingly, whether the claimant is entitled to other claims sought in this action will depend on whether or not her employment still subsists.

 

In the averments in the statement of facts, the claimant pleaded that during the screening exercise in 2021, the screening committee faulted the claimant’s appointment because her original school leaving certificate was mutilated and dirty. Although the 3rd defendant assured the affected civil servants to be patient pending the outcome of the screening, her salary was stopped, the last salary she was paid was for the month of June 2021. On their part, the defendants pleaded that it was discovered during the screening that the claimant ought to have retired from service on 12/3/2019 based on the date of birth she presented. It was for this reason her salary was stopped in accordance with the Civil Service Rules.

 

From the case of the parties, it is clear that the claimant’s salary was stopped in July 2021. According to the defendants, the date the claimant ought to have retired from service was 12/3/2019 on ground of age and when it was discovered in 2021 that she was still in service, her salary was stopped. In other words, the case of the defendants is that the claimant is no longer in service by virtue of retirement from service having reached age of retirement on 12/3/2019. By the Niger State Civil Service Rules, a civil servant is to retire from service either upon reaching 60 years of age or upon serving for 35 years, whichever comes first.

 

Although the defendants pleaded that the claimant retired on grounds of age, but throughout the pleadings of the defendants, they did not mention the age of the claimant which she presented or the one the defendants claim to have in their electronic system. The defendants also pleaded the declaration of age of the claimant and the electronically collated data of the claimant but did not frontload any of these documents. In fact, the defendants did not produce any document from which to see the date of birth of the claimant which the defendants said they have in their records. The defendants made allegations that the claimant ought to retire from service on 12/3/2019 but did not produce any evidence to substantiate that allegation.

 

I have seen the claimant’s school leaving certificate, the notification of appointment dated 31/1/1996 and the declaration of age frontloaded by the claimant. Her date of birth stated on these documents is 16th October 1969. The defendants did not produce any evidence which contradicts the date of birth of the claimant stated in these documents. The evidence before me shows that the date of birth of the claimant is 16th October 1969. As at March 2019 when the defendants said she ought to have retired, the claimant was 50 years old. Again, as at June 2021 when her salary was stopped, the claimant was 52 years old. The claimant has not reached 60 years of age as at the date the defendants claimed she ought to retire or as at the date her salary was stopped. With regards to years of service, the claimant was employed in 1991. She was 28 years in service as at 2019 and 30 years in service as at 2021. The claimant has not served for 35 years as at the date the defendants claimed she ought to retire or as at the date her salary was stopped.

 

It is clear that the defendants wrongly considered the claimant to have retired from service and stopped her salary. As at July 2021 when the claimant’s salary was stopped, she was not due for retirement from service. The claimant is not due to retire until 16th October 2029 on ground of age or 3rd August 2026 on years of service. The result of these findings is that the claimant’s employment with the 1st and 3rd defendants is subsisting up to the date of this judgment.

 

The claimant was last paid salary in the Month of June 2021. She has not been paid salary from July 2021 to date. In view of the fact that the claimant has not retired from service, I hold that the stoppage of the claimant’s salaries while her employment subsisted, was unlawful. The claimant is still in the service of the 1st and 3rd defendants. She is accordingly entitled to be paid all outstanding salaries from July 2021 to date.

 

In paragraph 15 of the statement of facts, the Claimant computed her outstanding salary from July 2021 to December 2024 to be the total sum of N1,638,863.84. Her salary for the last month she was paid was the sum of N37,068.19. Based on this amount of her last paid salary, the claimant accurately computed the outstanding salaries for the years 2021, 2022 and 2023 in paragraph 15 [a], [b] and [c] of the statement of facts but in paragraph 15 [d], she mentioned the sum of N524,818.28 as the total outstanding for the year 2024. The claimant however did not explain what made the salary for 2024 different from those of the previous years. At the monthly salary of N37,068.19 pleaded by her, the total outstanding for 2024 is the sum of N444,818.29, same for the years 2022 and 2023. The total unpaid salaries for the period July 2021 to December 2024 is the sum of N1,556,863.98 and not the sum of N1,638,863.84 claimed by the claimant.

 

Having found that the claimant’s employment is subsisting, the claimant is accordingly entitled to be paid all the arrears of her salaries from July 2021 to December 2024. Again, the fact that the claimant is still in service till date, she is entitled to be paid her salaries continuously from January 2025 up to date of this judgment by the 1st defendant and 3rd defendants.

 

Having considered all the claims sought by the claimant, I find the claimant proved reliefs 1 and 2 while relief 3 succeeds in part. All other claims fail and are hereby dismissed. The Court makes the following orders in favour of the claimant:

1.     It is declared that the Claimant’s employment with the 3rd defendant in the Civil Service of the 1st defendant is valid and still subsisting.

2.     It is declared that the stoppage of the Claimant's salaries and the continuous withholding of the Claimant's salaries and all other entitlements is illegal, unlawful, null and void.

3.     A consequential order is made directing the Defendants, particularly the 1st and 3rd defendants, to pay the sum of N1,556,863.98 to the claimant, being the total amount of the salaries of the claimant withheld from July 2021 to December 2024.

4.     The 1st and 3rd defendants are also directed to pay to the claimant all her salaries and allowances due and payable to her from January 2025 to date of this judgment.

5.     The payment to be made to the claimant in orders 3 and 4 above must be computed and paid to her within 30 days from today. Should the complete sum or any part of it remain unpaid after the period, the defendants shall pay 10% interest per annum on the sum until final liquidation of the judgment sum.

6.     The sum of N500,000 is awarded in favour of the claimant as cost to be paid by the defendants.

 

DECISION ON THE DEFENDANTS COUNTER CLAIM

In the counter claim, the defendants sought an order directing the Claimant to refund the sum of N1,000,841.13 being salaries erroneously paid to her over a period of 27 months. The basis for this claim is that the claimant ought to have retired from service on 12/3/2019 based on her date of birth she presented. Since April 2019, the claimant has illegally been receiving monthly salary from the defendants as a result of her continuous stay in service until June 2021 when her salary was stopped. From April 2019 to June 2021, the claimant had illegally received the total sum of N1,000,841.13 and the Defendants wants the claimant to refund the total sum received by her.

 

My decision on the case of the claimant is that the claimant has not retired from service in the period the defendants thought she ought to have retired. Her employment is still subsisting. She is accordingly entitled to the salaries paid to her during the subsistence of the employment. I have also considered the other reliefs sought in the counter claim but I do not find any merit in them. The result is that the counter claim lacks merit and it is hereby dismissed.

 

Judgment is entered accordingly.

 

 

Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe

Judge