IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE AWKA JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT AWKA.

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE J. I. TARGEMA, PHD

 

DATE: MARCH 4, 2026                   SUIT NO: NICN/AWK/19-47/2022

 

BETWEEN

1.       Mr. Geoffrey N. Osonwa

2.       Mr. Emmanuel K. Nwobu

3.       Mr. Emmanuel Nwagalaku

4.       Miss Edith Anayo Nwoye

5.       Comrade Cyprian Emeka Okolo

6.       Mr. Aloysius Ogbodoa

7.       Mrs. Nkolika L. Ibe

8.       Mrs. Nkolika L. Ibe (suing as next of kin of K. C. Ibe)

9.       Mr. Sylvester Anekwe

10.  Mr. Innocent Agufusi Aguigwo

11.  Mrs. Martha Ekwunife

12.  Mrs. Martha Ukeje

13.  Mrs. Esther Ugheru

14.  Mr. Christopher Asogwa                           

15.  Mrs. Patricia Anigbogu

16.  Mrs. Cecilia Okafor

17.  Mr. Sydney I. Obiakor

18.  Mrs. Martha Ukeje

19.  Mrs. Agatha N. Nwosu

20.  Mrs. Maryrose Nwafor

21.  Mr. Joseph E. Amata

22.  Mr. Anthony Okongwu

23.  Mr. Stephen I. Oraka

24.  Mrs. Veronica Eriamah

25.  Mrs. Georgina Alaso

26.  Mr. Simon E. Nwawube

27.  Mrs. Theresa Nwude                                                           -                       Claimants

 

AND

1.       Governing Council, College of Education, Nsugbe
(now known as Nwafor Orizu College

of Education, Nsugbe)

2.       College of Education, Nsugbe
(now known as Nwafor Orizu College

of Education, Nsugbe)

3.       Provost, College of Education, Nsugbe                                    
(now known as Nwafor Orizu College

of Education, Nsugbe)

4.       Honourable Commissioner,

Ministry of Tertiary Education, Anambra State

5.       Accountant-General of Anambra State

6.       Attorney-General and Commissioner

for Justice, Anambra State                                             -                   Defendants

 

REPRESENTATION

D.A. Udensi, Esq., holding the brief of Dr. K.J. Bielu, Esq., for the Claimant.

Jide Okorji, Esq., for the 1st-3rd defendants.

 

JUDGEMENT

INTRODUCTION

1.       The Claimants in the consolidated suit individually commenced these actions by separate Writs of Summons filed on 15th September 2022. Subsequently, upon an application duly made and by leave of this Honourable Court, the suits were consolidated for hearing and determination. By their Amended Statement of Claim filed on 6th July 2023 in the consolidated suit, the claimants sought the reliefs set out hereunder.

1)    A declaration of this Honourable Court that the claimants are entitled to be paid the arrears of salaries and allowances due to them from the month of July 2001 to March 2004 as staff of the Nwafor Orizu College of Education, Nsugbe.

2)    A declaration of this Honourable Court that the continued seizure and/or withholding of the said salaries from July 2001 to March 2004 earned by the claimants while in the employment of the Nwafor Orizu College of Education, Nsugbe by the defendants is illegal and unlawful.

3)    An order of this Honourable Court directing the defendants to release the said salaries and allowances owed to the claimants from July 2001 to March 2004 forthwith.

4)    An order directing the defendants to pay and/or release the salaries and allowances of the claimants withheld with interest at the prevailing Central Bank of Nigeria interest rate.

5)    The sum of ?500,000.00 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira) as damages suffered by the claimants as a result of the actions of the defendants.

6)    An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from seizing or withholding the said salaries and allowances.

 

2.       In reaction, the 1st 2nd and 3rd defendants entered appearance and filed their statement of defence, list of witness, witness statement on oath, list of documents and copies of the documents and praying the Court to dismiss all the reliefs of the claimants as set out in the claimants’ statement of facts. The defendants subsequently Amended their Statement of defence on the 20th of February 2024.

 

3.       At the trial, the claimants called three witnesses who testified as CW1, CW2 and CW3 respectivelyand the following exhibits were tendered through them:

a.        Exhibit CW1/1: Anambra State House of Assembly Resolution No. ANHA/RES/2020/11 on public petition.

b.       Exhibit CW1/2: Letter of offer of appointment from College of Education, Awka to Mr. Geoffrey N. Osonwa dated 20/11/1980 as a Clerical Assistant.

c.        Exhibit CW1/3: Letter of confirmation of appointment from Anambra State College of Education, Awka dated 8/12/1983.

d.       Exhibit CW1/4: Letter of conversion from Assistant Clerical Officer to Clerical Officer dated 31/7/1986.

e.        Exhibit CW1/5: Letter of promotion to Senior Clerical Officer dated 10/2/1988.

f.          Exhibit CW1/6: Letter of promotion to Assistant Executive Officer.

g.        Exhibit CW1/7: Letter of promotion to Executive Officer dated 26/9/1995.

h.       Exhibit CW1/8: Letter of promotion to Higher Executive Officer dated 25/11/1996.

i.          Exhibit CW1/9: Letter of adjustment of salary to HATISS 8 Step 10 as Senior Executive Officer.

j.          Exhibit CW1/10: Letter of promotion to Principal Executive Officer II dated 15/5/2000.

k.       Exhibit CW1/11: Letter of Harmonization from Principal Executive Officer II on HATISS 9 Step 15 to Chief Executive Officer on HATISS 13 Step 5 (Notional Effective Date 1/1/2008) dated 16/12/2009.

l.          Exhibit CW1/12: Letter from AG Registrar, Nwafor Orizu College of Education, Nsugbe to Osonwa Geoffrey re-notifying retirement dated 25/8/2015.

m.     Exhibit CW1/13: Memo from AG Registrar, Nwafor Orizu College of Education, Nsugbe on notice of retirement dated 19/11/2014.

n.       Exhibit CW1/14: Superseding letter of promotion to Principal Executive Officer II dated 15/3/2000.

o.       Exhibit CW1/17: Query from AG Registrar/Secretary to Council dated 15/10/2001.

p.       Exhibit CW1/18: Letter titled “Rationalization of Staff” dated 16/11/2001.

q.       Exhibit CW1/19: Application for issuance of a certified true copy of the Anambra State House of Assembly Resolution dated 17/3/2004.

r.        Exhibit CW1/20: Anambra State House of Assembly Resolution ANHA/RES/78 dated 17/3/2004 addressed to Secretary to the State Government.

s.        Exhibit CW1/21: Letter from Secretary to the State Government to Comrade G.N Osomwa and Amata JE dated 30/4/2024 regarding application for certified true copy of Assembly resolution.

t.         Exhibit CW1/22: Declaration titled “Nwafor Orizu College of Education, Nsugbe Declaration” dated 15/10/2001.

 

4.       At the end of the claimants’ case, the defendants opened their case on the 21st of October 2025 and called one witness who testified as DW1.  At the end of hearing, parties filed and exchanged their final written addresses which were moved and adopted in Court on the 10th of December 2025.

 

CASE OF THE CLAIMANTS

5.       The case of the claimants in the consolidated suits is that they were appointed as staffs of the College of Education, Nsugbe, now known as Nwafor Orizu College of Education, Nsugbe, and their appointments were duly confirmed. During their period of service, they rose through various cadres and ranks and were members of the Non-Academic Staff Union of Educational and Associated Institutions (NASU). In the year 2001, a trade dispute arose between the management of the College and NASU over the non-payment of outstanding salaries and allowances, including salaries for December 2000, June and July 2001, arrears under the HATISS salary structure, salary increase differentials, and leave allowances. Several letters were exchanged between NASU and the management of the College, including reminders and ultimatums threatening industrial action in the event of continued non-payment.

 

 

6.       Following the failure of the College to settle the outstanding entitlements, members of NASU embarked on a strike in accordance with directives from the national leadership of the Union. The claimants, who participated in the strike, were thereafter queried and subsequently suspended by letters dated 21st October 2001. They were directed to hand over College property in their possession and were purportedly placed on half salary. Some of the claimants were later subjected to rationalization and termination of employment.

 

7.       The matter was subsequently reported to the Anambra State House of Assembly which, after deliberations, resolved on 16th March 2004 that the suspension, rationalization and termination of fifty-five (55) NASU members of staff of the College were unlawful for failure to comply with due process. The House of Assembly directed that the affected staff resume duty unconditionally and that their salaries and allowances from July 2001 to 16th March 2004 be paid. The claimants state that although they were recalled to duty, the defendants failed to comply with the directive on payment of their outstanding salaries and allowances. Instead, the then Commissioner for Education, Anambra State, issued a circular dated 17th June 2004 directing that recalled NASU members execute indemnities, refrain from instituting legal action, and that the affected period be treated as special leave without pay but pensionable.

 

8.       According to the claimants, the defendants relied on the said circular to delay and ultimately refuse payment of their salary arrears and allowances, even up to the point of retirement of many of the claimants. As a result of the continued non-payment, the matter was again brought before the Anambra State House of Assembly which, on 24th September 2020, reaffirmed its earlier resolution and directed the defendants to pay the outstanding arrears within ninety (90) days. Despite this further intervention, the claimants contend that the defendants have persistently refused to pay their outstanding salaries and allowances from July 2001 to March 2004. The claimants state that they have exhausted all available internal mechanisms for resolving the dispute and consequently served a statutory pre-action notice on the defendants before commencing this suit. Aggrieved by the continued withholding of their salaries and allowances, the claimants instituted this action seeking declaratory and injunctive reliefs, payment of the outstand.

 

THE DEFENDANTS’ CASE

9.       The 1st, 2nd, and 3rd defendants’s case is that as a matter of administrative procedure, contracts and other financial obligations of the College are ordinarily submitted to the Anambra State Government for approval and provision of funds, and that the College itself had no power to disburse salaries or other entitlements unless approved by the State Government. According to the defendants, the retirement entitlements of the claimants were approved and paid over by the State Government.  They asserted that the NASU members, including the claimants, refused lawful negotiation and embarked on strike action, despite repeated efforts by the College to persuade them to desist. The defendants further alleged that the strike escalated into physical assaults, with certain claimants, including Mr. Geoffrey N. Osonwa, Comrade Cyprian Emeka Okolo, and Innocent Aguigwo, allegedly encouraging other NASU members to assault staff who complied with College directives. According to the defence, the Police were called to restore order.

10.  The defendants contended that after failing to achieve their objectives through violence, the claimants approached the Anambra State House of Assembly in 2004 to have their employment restored. The College, however, was not involved in these proceedings and had not been invited to present its side, which the defendants submitted was a breach of the principle of audi alteram partem. They further maintained that the College was not bound by any resolution of the House of Assembly and that only directives issued by the Commissioner for Education could compel compliance. The defendants averred that the termination of employment of the NASU members who went on strike in 2001 was lawful and formally executed. The claimants, having waited over one year, purportedly approached the State House of Assembly to seek reinstatement, but this was not due to any illegality on the part of the College. The defendants emphasized that the recall of staff in 2004 occurred under the direction of the Commissioner for Education, who imposed conditions for their return.

 

11.  The defendants raised a statute of limitations defence, arguing that the claimants’ suit was barred under Chapter 134 of the State Proceedings Law of Anambra State 1991. They submitted that some claimants delayed filing action for over eight years while still in service and over six years after retirement, contrary to the time limits prescribed by law. The defendants argued that the claimants’ action was therefore out of time, and they failed to follow prescribed procedures before embarking on industrial action. The defendants alleged  that the claimants had locked the College gate, assaulted staff, and engaged in violence, leading to hospitalization of some staff members. The College, in response, had formally rusticated over sixty staff members. Upon resolution of the strike, the staff involved, including the claimants, signed indemnity forms and pledges not to pursue court action for claims arising from the strike, while obedient staff who had suffered injuries also signed indemnities waiving claims against the striking members. The defendants contended that these documents were binding and would be relied upon at trial.

 

12.  Regarding the claimants’ claims for salaries and allowances, the defendants asserted that each claimant’s entitlements varied according to rank and salary grade, making precise calculation difficult and rendering the claims speculative and uncertain. The defendants further contended that the claimants’ entitlements had either been paid directly on retirement or forwarded to the State Government for approval and payment. The defendants urged the Court to dismiss the claimants’ suit in its entirety, arguing that the claims were barred by limitation, were uncertain and speculative, and that the College’s actions were lawful and in accordance with proper administrative procedures.

 

DEFENDANTS’ SUBMISSIONS

13.  The 1st, 2nd, and 3rd defendants, in their Amended Statement of Defence, denied virtually all the material allegations in the claimants’ Statement of Claim except for certain admissions regarding the employment of the claimants at the College of Education, Nsugbe (now Nwafor Orizu College of Education, Nsugbe), and their membership in the Non-Academic Staff Union of Educational and Associated Institutions (NASU). The defendants admitted that the 1st defendant is the governing council of the College, the 2nd defendant is the College itself, and the 3rd defendant is the Provost and administrative head of the College.

14.  The defendants contended that contracts, financial obligations, and payment of salaries are ordinarily sent to the Anambra State Government for approval, and the College had no power to disburse funds without such approval. They stated that the retirement entitlements of the claimants were duly approved and paid over by the State Government.

 

15.  The defendants denied the claimants’ allegations relating to the trade dispute, industrial action, suspension, rationalization, and the purported unlawful withholding of salaries and allowances. They submitted that the claimants and other NASU members refused to comply with lawful negotiations and embarked on a strike in 2001. The defendants further alleged that during the strike, the claimants, including Mr. Geoffrey N. Osonwa, Comrade Cyprian Emeka Okolo, and Innocent Aguigwo, encouraged other striking staff to assault colleagues who complied with College directives, resulting in injuries that required police intervention.

 

16.  According to the defendants, after the strike failed to achieve its objectives, the claimants approached the Anambra State House of Assembly in 2004 to have their employment restored. The College was not invited to participate in these proceedings and was not heard, which the defendants argued breached the principle of audi alteram partem; that the College is not bound by resolutions of the House of Assembly and that only directives issued by the Commissioner for Education are binding.

 

17.  The defendants maintained that the termination of employment of the NASU members who went on strike was lawful and formally executed. The subsequent approach to the House of Assembly by the claimants was voluntary and did not arise from any illegality on the part of the College. The recall of staff in 2004 was executed under the direction of the Commissioner for Education, who set conditions for their return.

 

18.  The defendants raised the defence of statute of limitations, asserting that the claimants’ action is statute-barred under Chapter 134 of the State Proceedings Law of Anambra State 1991, as some claimants delayed over eight years while in service and over six years post-retirement before instituting this suit.

 

19.  The defendants also highlighted that the strike resulted in physical violence within the College, with gates locked, staff assaulted, and some hospitalized. To resolve the matter, the claimants and other affected staff signed indemnity forms, pledging not to pursue court action relating to the strike, while staff who suffered injuries also signed waivers absolving the striking members of liability. The defendants argued that these documents are legally binding and will be relied upon at trial.

 

20.  Regarding the claimants’ claims for salaries and allowances, the defendants contended that each claimant’s entitlements varied according to rank and salary grade, making precise computation complex and rendering the claims speculative and uncertain. They further submitted that the entitlements had either been paid directly on retirement or forwarded to the State Government for approval and payment. In light of the above, the defendants urged the Court to dismiss the Claimants’ suit in its entirety, contending that the claims are speculative, uncertain, and barred by law

 

CLAIMANTS’ SUBMISSIONS

21.  The claimant framed one issue for determination of the Court, namely: Whether the acts of the 1st to 3rd defendants in withholding the salaries and allowances due to the claimants, premised on their arbitrary suspension and termination, constitute unfair labour practices within the meaning of the National Industrial Court Act, 2006 and relevant provisions of the Constitution.

 

22.  The claimants’ submitted that the evidence in support of their claims was led through two witnesses. The first, CW1, Mr. Geoffrey N. Osonwa, adopted his sworn statement on oath filed on 30th June 2023. He testified that he and the other claimants were both retired and serving staff of Nwafor Orizu College of Education, Nsugbe, and that they were members of the Non-Academic Staff Union of Educational and Associated Institutions (NASU). CW1 stated that in 2001, the members of NASU embarked on industrial action following a trade dispute with the management of the College over outstanding salaries and allowances, including three months’ salaries (December 2000, June and July 2001), ten months arrears of HATISS Table 3 of 1999, arrears of May 2000 salary increase differences, and the balance of the year 2000 leave allowance.

 

23.  They submitted that, CW1 deposed that, instead of resolving the dispute, on 16th November 2001, the defendants purportedly rationalized and suspended three members of NASU, including himself, while approximately fifty-five (55) other members were suspended. This action followed queries issued to the claimants and the management’s refusal to pay the outstanding entitlements. The claimants subsequently reported the matter to the Anambra State House of Assembly, which, after deliberations, by resolution dated 16th March 2004, declared that the suspension and termination of the claimants’ appointments were unlawful, having not followed due process. The resolution directed that the claimants be recalled to duty unconditionally and that all salaries and allowances owed to them from July 2001 to March 2004 be paid within ninety (90) days.

 

24.  That, CW1 further testified to the effect that despite being recalled, the defendants failed to pay the arrears, compelling the claimants to approach the Anambra State House of Assembly again in 2020. The Assembly, by resolution dated 24th September 2020, reaffirmed its earlier resolution, directing the defendants to pay the outstanding arrears of salaries and allowances within 90 days of receipt of the resolution. In support of these facts, that CW1 tendered several exhibits, including but not limited to: Exhibit CW1/1 – Anambra State House of Assembly Resolution No. ANHA/RES/2020/11 on public petition. Exhibit CW1/2 – Letter of appointment from College of Education, Awka, dated 20/11/1980. Exhibit CW1/3 – Letter of confirmation of appointment dated 8/12/1983. Exhibit CW1/4 – CW1/11 – Various letters of promotion and salary adjustment. Exhibit CW1/12 – Letter re-notifying retirement from service. Exhibit CW1/14 – CW1/21 – Query letters, rationalization letters, applications for certified copies of House of Assembly resolutions, and the House of Assembly resolutions themselves. That, during cross-examination, CW1 confirmed receipt of recall letters but stated that the payment of arrears was never effected. He also testified that he and other claimants were forced to sign certain documents under duress, including Exhibit CW1/22, a declaration purportedly restricting the claimants from instituting legal proceedings against the defendants regarding unpaid salaries. CW1’s evidence indicated that the defendants had coerced the claimants into signing documents that unlawfully barred them from seeking judicial redress, despite the defendants themselves having instigated the suspension and rationalization.

 

25.  The defendants’ witness, DW1, admitted that salaries were not paid from July 2001 to March 2004 but sought to justify the delay on account of the strike action. However, DW1 also admitted ignorance of the two resolutions of the Anambra State House of Assembly concerning the dispute, the directives of the Commissioner for Education on recall, and the establishment of committees by the Provost to compute and pay arrears, highlighting a lack of proper administrative follow-through by the defendants. The claimants relied on the following legal provisions and authorities: Section 7(6)(14) & (19) of the National Industrial Court Act, 2006, which directs the Court to have due regard to good or international best practices in labour and industrial relations. Section 254C(1)(f) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), which confers jurisdiction on the National Industrial Court to hear matters relating to unfair labour practices. The case of NUFBTE v Management of Nidoco Nig. Ltd (2008) 11 NLLR (Pt. 28) 70, which held that what constitutes good or international best practices in labour is a question of fact. Aneke Arinze Leonard v Ecobank Nigeria Limited, NICN/EN/49/2019 (unreported) – where the Court held that arbitrary termination, seizure of salaries, coercion, intimidation, and undue influence constitute unfair labour practices. Onumajuru Linda v Eko Crop Plc & ors, NICN/LA/63/2020 (unreported) – confirmed that it is unjust and unfair for employers to rely on documents to bar employees from seeking judicial redress. Longe v First Bank Nig. Plc (2010) Legalpedia (SC) 98815 – reaffirmed that employees suspended and recalled after several months are entitled to arrears of salaries and allowances, and that such claims are not statute-barred if the dispute is ongoing. The claimants distinguished Ngere v Okuruket XIV (2015) All FWLR (Pt. 8000 1360), relied upon by the defendants, noting that it concerned chieftaincy disputes and had no relevance to the instant labour matter. The claimants argued that the defendants’ reliance on the strike as justification for withholding salaries was misplaced, since the strike was lawful, limited in scope, and followed due procedures under NASU directives. Further, the defendants’ coercion of claimants to sign declarations prohibiting access to Court was unlawful and unenforceable.

 

26.  The claimants urged that, based on the evidence and authorities presented that they are entitled to all arrears of salaries and allowances from July 2001 to March 2004. That the defendants’ acts of suspension, rationalization, and withholding of salaries constituted unfair labour practices. That the House of Assembly resolutions and the documentary evidence tendered were sufficient proof of their entitlement. That the reliefs sought in the consolidated suit including declarations, orders for payment of arrears with interest, damages, and perpetual injunctions should be granted in full.

 

COURT’S DECISION

26.            Given the reliefs claimed by the claimants, issues for consideration by the Court are as follows:

1.       Whether the suspension, termination, and rationalization of the claimants by the defendants were lawful and in accordance with due process.

2.       Whether the claimants are entitled to arrears of salaries, allowances, and other benefits for the period of suspension and rationalization.

3.       Whether the claimants are entitled to any general, equitable, or vindicatory reliefs arising from the defendants’ actions.

 

27.            On issue 1, Whether the suspension, termination and rationalization of the claimants were lawful and in compliance with due process.

 

28.            The claimants’ case, as disclosed in their Statement of Facts, is that they were employees of the 1st defendant and members of the Non-Academic Staff Union (NASU); that the industrial action embarked upon was precipitated by the failure of the College to pay outstanding salaries and allowances; and that instead of addressing the grievance, the defendants suspended several members and terminated the appointments of three principal union officials without issuing queries, without constituting any disciplinary panel, and without affording them any opportunity to be heard. They pleaded that these actions were arbitrary, punitive, and contrary to their conditions of service.

 

29.            It is settled law that civil cases are proved on the preponderance of evidence, whether oral or documentary. See Egharevba v. Osagie (2009) LPELR-1044(SC). The burden initially lies on the claimants to establish the wrongful nature of the disciplinary action. Once prima facie proof of non-compliance with procedure is made, the evidential burden shifts to the employer to justify the action taken.

 

30.            From the evidence before this Court, certain facts are not seriously in dispute. There was an industrial action by NASU members in 2001. CW1 and CW2 both testified that the strike was occasioned by non-payment of salaries and allowances. Under cross-examination, CW1 maintained that the strike was sanctioned by the NASU National Secretariat. CW2 confirmed participation but denied any violence or obstruction. Significantly, DW1 admitted that salaries were not paid between July 2001 and March 2004, though he attributed this to the strike. Thus, the existence of an industrial dispute is established.

 

31.             However, the critical question is not whether there was a strike. The issue is whether the defendants complied with due process before imposing suspension and termination.

 

32.            It is trite that where an employment enjoys statutory flavour, or where conditions of service regulate disciplinary procedure, the employer must comply strictly with the prescribed procedure. Any deviation renders the action null and void. This principle has been firmly established in Shitta-Bey v. Federal Public Service Commission (1981) 1 SC 40, Olaniyan v. University of Lagos (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 9) 599, and Bamgboye v. University of Ilorin (1999) 10 NWLR (Pt. 622) 290.

 

33.            Even outside statutory flavour, it is a fundamental principle of labour jurisprudence that where misconduct is alleged, an employee must be confronted with the allegation and afforded an opportunity to respond. The right to fair hearing under Section 36 of the Constitution extends to administrative and quasi-disciplinary proceedings. The essence of fair hearing is that a person must not be condemned unheard. In Garba & Ors v. University of Maiduguri (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 18) 550 (SC), the Supreme Court emphatically held that the right to fair hearing guaranteed under Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution (formerly Section 33 of the 1979 Constitution) applies not only to courts of law but also to administrative bodies, domestic tribunals, and quasi-judicial proceedings where the civil rights and obligations of a person are in issue.

 

34.            In the present case, the defendants did not place before the Court a single document evidencing compliance with any disciplinary process. No query was tendered. No invitation to a Disciplinary Panel was produced. No minutes of any investigative committee were filed. DW1, the sole defence witness, admitted under cross-examination that he was employed in 2021 and had no personal knowledge of the events. He was unable to state whether any query was issued or whether any Disciplinary Committee was constituted. His testimony on the alleged assault of staff was based on records he did not tender and could not particularise.

 

35.            An employer who relies on misconduct bears the burden of proving not only the misconduct but also that the employee was afforded fair hearing. The defendants have failed on both counts. The allegation that the strike involved disruption or assault was not substantiated by credible or admissible evidence before this Court. That particular significance is the intervention of the Anambra State House of Assembly. The documentary evidence shows that the House of Assembly issued a resolution in March 2004 describing the suspension and rationalization exercise as lacking criteria and being punitive in nature, and directed unconditional reinstatement with full benefits. While a legislative resolution is not a judicial decree, it is persuasive evidence that the matter was subjected to independent scrutiny and that procedural irregularities were identified. The defendants did not challenge the authenticity of that resolution nor demonstrate compliance with it in full.

 

36.            Furthermore, CW1 testified that upon recall, the claimants were compelled to sign a declaration (Exhibit CW1/22). He stated that this was done under duress. CW2 denied signing such a declaration. The defence did not lead evidence to show that the document was voluntarily executed or that it constituted a lawful waiver. In labour law, a purported waiver of accrued salary rights extracted under unequal bargaining conditions is treated with caution. Salary earned is a vested right and cannot lightly be forfeited.

 

37.            The evidence also reveals that the suspension and termination followed closely upon the institution of Court proceedings by the union executives. CW1 testified that a restraining order had been obtained prior to termination. This evidence was not rebutted by the defence through documentary contradiction. If disciplinary action was taken in defiance of a subsisting Court order, that would further taint the action with illegality.

 

38.            It is important to emphasize that participation in a strike, even if later adjudged improper, does not automatically justify summary termination without adherence to procedure. Collective industrial action cannot lawfully justify collective punishment without individual consideration of culpability and observance of fair hearing.

 

39.            On the totality of the evidence, this Court finds that the claimants established that they were suspended, terminated, and rationalized without being issued queries, without being invited to any disciplinary panel, and without being afforded opportunity to defend themselves. The defendants, who were in the best position to produce disciplinary records if they existed, failed to do so. The Court is therefore entitled to draw the inference that no such due process was observed.

 

40.            Accordingly, this Court holds that the suspension, termination, and rationalization of the claimants were not carried out in compliance with due process and were therefore unlawful.

 

41.            On issue 2, whether the claimants are entitled to arrears of salaries, allowances, and other benefits during the period of suspension/rationalization.

 

42.            This issue is a natural corollary to the determination under issue 1. Having held that the suspension, termination and subsequent rationalization exercise were unlawful, null and void ab initio, the legal consequence is that the claimants are deemed never to have been lawfully removed from service. The law is settled that where an act is void, it is in law a nullity and of no effect whatsoever. See Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) 2 SCNLR 341; A.G. Rivers State v. A.G. Bayelsa State (2013) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1340) 123. The inevitable implication is that all rights flowing from the subsisting employment relationship remained intact.

 

43.            The evidence before the Court on this issue is both oral and documentary.

 

44.            CW1 testified that upon the purported suspension and rationalization, the claimants’ salaries and allowances were stopped from July 2001. He stated that although their promotions were later harmonized after recall, the arrears of salaries and allowances for the period of suspension were never paid despite repeated assurances. CW2 corroborated this evidence. He stated that the intervention of the Anambra State House of Assembly led to a directive restoring their rights and entitlements, yet the College failed to implement full payment of the accrued arrears. Both witnesses were consistent that while certain retirement benefits were eventually processed by the State Government upon their recall and retirement, the College did not account for or liquidate the arrears covering the suspension/rationalization period.

 

45.            The documentary evidence reinforces this testimony. Exhibit PBE 6, the Resolution of the Anambra State House of Assembly dated 17th March 2004, expressly directed that the salaries and allowances of the claimants seized from July 2001 to the date of recall be paid. The Resolution described the rationalization as “unnecessary and punitive” and further directed that the claimants’ promotions and advancements should not be withheld in any subsequent exercise. This exhibit was admitted without objection and its contents were not successfully impugned under cross-examination.

 

46.            Significantly, the defendants failed to produce any documentary evidence showing that the arrears were computed or paid. During cross-examination, DW1, the Legal Adviser to the College, admitted that he had no personal knowledge of the events surrounding the suspension and rationalization and could not confirm whether the salaries in question were calculated or disbursed. He did not tender any payment vouchers, payroll records, or financial statements demonstrating compliance with Exhibit PBE 6. The law is trite that where evidence given by a party is neither challenged nor contradicted, the Court is entitled to act upon it. See Omoregbe v. Lawani (1980) 3–4 SC 108; Ifeta v. SPDC (Nig.) Ltd. (2006) 8 NWLR (Pt. 983) 585.

 

47.            Beyond the evidential dimension, the legal principle governing entitlement to salary during unlawful suspension is firmly settled. Salary is an incident of a subsisting contract of employment. Where the employer unlawfully prevents the employee from performing his duties, the employer cannot rely on that wrongful act to deny remuneration. In Lafia v. Federal Civil Service Commission (1998) 4 NWLR (Pt. 555) 50, the Court of Appeal held that an employee unlawfully kept out of office is entitled to his full salary and emoluments for the period he was so kept out. Similarly, in Shitta-Bey v. Federal Public Service Commission (1981) 1 SC 40, the Supreme Court emphasized that where removal from office is declared null and void, the officer is entitled to all the rights and privileges of the office as though the purported removal never occurred.

 

48.            The principle is even more compelling in cases of statutory employment. Where an employment enjoys statutory flavour and the termination or suspension is declared void, the employee remains in service in the eyes of the law and is entitled to arrears of salary for the period of unlawful exclusion. See Olaniyan v. University of Lagos (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 9) 599; Bamgboye v. University of Ilorin (1999) 10 NWLR (Pt. 622) 290.

 

49.            In the present case, having found that the suspension and rationalization were unlawful and void, the claimants are legally deemed to have remained in service throughout the period in question. The stoppage of their salaries and allowances was therefore without legal justification. The defendants, who bore the evidential burden of showing payment once non-payment was asserted and supported by evidence, failed to discharge that burden. See Sections 131–133 of the Evidence Act, 2011.

 

50.             Exhibit PBE 6 further strengthens the claimants’ case, as it constitutes an official directive mandating payment of the withheld salaries and allowances. The defendants neither challenged the validity of that Resolution nor demonstrated compliance with it. The Court cannot ignore an uncontroverted document which supports the claimants’ entitlement.

 

51.            Accordingly, the Court finds that the claimants have proved, on the preponderance of evidence, that their salaries, allowances, and related benefits from July 2001 until their recall were withheld and remain unpaid. In law, they are entitled to full restitution of those emoluments.

 

52.            In view of the subsisting employment relationship during the period of unlawful suspension and rationalization, the unchallenged oral testimony of CW1 and CW2, the contents of Exhibit PBE 6, and the absence of any credible evidence of payment from the defendants, this Court holds that the claimants are entitled to the full payment of all salaries, allowances, and other benefits that accrued to them from July 2001 until the date of their recall.

 

53.            On issue 3, Whether the claimants are entitled to general and equitable damages for the unlawful suspension, termination, and rationalization.

 

54.            This issue must be considered in the light of the findings already made by this Court under issues 1 and 2. The Court has held that the suspension and rationalization were unlawful and void, and that the claimants are entitled to arrears of salaries and allowances for the period they were wrongfully kept out of service. The question now is whether, in addition to restitution of earned entitlements, the circumstances of this case justify an award of general damages.

 

55.            The evidence of CW1 and CW2 is again instructive. CW1 testified that the suspension and rationalization disrupted their professional careers and diminished their standing within the institution. He stated that the recall was not voluntary on the part of the College but was precipitated by the intervention of the Anambra State House of Assembly. He further stated that even after recall, the College did not independently regularize their service or pay the arrears due to them. CW2 corroborated this account and described the process leading to recall as irregular and devoid of due process. Their testimonies were not materially shaken under cross-examination.

 

56.            The law is settled that general damages are those which the law presumes to flow naturally from the wrongful act complained of. They need not be specifically pleaded or strictly proved. In Ohuabunwa v. Duru (2009) ALL FWLR (Pt. 450) 1858, the Court held that where a legal right has been infringed, general damages may be awarded to vindicate the right violated, even in the absence of strict proof of special damage. Such damages serve both compensatory and vindicatory purposes.

 

57.            However, it is equally trite that in cases of wrongful termination of employment, particularly where the employment enjoys statutory flavour and the termination is declared null and void, the primary remedy is reinstatement with full benefits, including arrears of salaries. See Shitta-Bey v. Federal Public Service Commission (1981) 1 SC 40; Olaniyan v. University of Lagos (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 9) 599. The rationale is that once the termination is declared a nullity, the employee is deemed to have remained in service, and payment of arrears adequately restores him to his legal position.

 

58.            The Supreme Court in Eze v. Spring Bank Plc (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1278) 113 reiterated that damages in employment matters are generally circumscribed by the nature of the contract and the remedies available thereunder. Where full arrears and benefits are awarded, an additional award of general damages for wrongful termination is not automatic and must be justified by distinct and exceptional circumstances. In the present case, the claimants have established that they were unlawfully suspended and subjected to a rationalization exercise which this Court has found to be void. They have also established that their salaries and allowances were withheld for a considerable period. The withholding of earned remuneration and the uncertainty surrounding their employment status undoubtedly caused inconvenience and distress.

 

59.            Nevertheless, the principal injury suffered by the claimants is the deprivation of salary and employment rights during the period of unlawful exclusion. This Court has already granted full restitution of those entitlements under Issue Two. There is no evidence before the Court of any distinct tortious conduct, malicious prosecution, defamation, or other independent wrong that would justify a substantial additional award beyond restoration of salary and benefits.

 

60.            That said, the arbitrary and punitive nature of the rationalization, as evidenced by Exhibit PBE 6 and the uncontroverted testimony of CW1 and CW2, constitutes an abuse of administrative power. Public authorities are under a duty to act fairly, reasonably and in accordance with due process. The actions of the defendants, having been found unlawful, represent a breach of that duty.

 

61.            In the circumstances, the Court is satisfied that a modest award of general damages is appropriate, not as a duplication of salary arrears, but as a vindication of the claimants’ legal rights and as a deterrent against arbitrary administrative action by public institutions.

 

62.            After a careful consideration of the totality of the pleadings, the oral and documentary evidence adduced, as well as the submissions of learned counsel, and having resolved the issues for determination in favour of the claimants, this Court hereby makes the following orders:

1.       It is declared that the claimants are entitled to be paid all arrears of salaries and allowances due to them from July 2001 to March 2004 as staff of Nwafor Orizu College of Education, Nsugbe.

2.       It is declared that the continued seizure and/or withholding of the said salaries and allowances by the defendants during the same period is illegal and unlawful.

3.        The defendants are ordered to release forthwith all salaries and allowances owed to the claimants from July 2001 to March 2004, in accordance with their respective grade levels and steps at the time.

4.       The defendants are also ordered to pay interest at the prevailing Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) rate on all unpaid salaries and allowances from the date each payment became due until the date of full payment.

5.       Each claimant is awarded ?500,000.00 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira) as general damages for the unlawful actions of the defendants, including the disruption of professional careers, mental distress, humiliation, and the infringement of their right to fair hearing.

6.       The defendants are restrained by perpetual injunction from further seizing or withholding the claimants’ salaries, allowances, or any benefits due from their employment at Nwafor Orizu College of Education, Nsugbe.

 

63.            Judgment is accordingly entered in favour of the claimants.

 

 

 

Hon. Justice J.I. Targema, PhD.