IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA
IN THE KOGI STATE JUDICIAL DIVISION
HOLDEN AT LOKOJA
ON TUESDAY 21ST DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE SINMISOLA O.
ADENIYI
SUIT
NO: NICN/LKJ/03/2021
BETWEEN:
ALISON ABUTU IDOKO……………………………CLAIMANT
AND
1. 
KOGI STATE GOVERNMENT JUDICIAL
SERVICE COMMISSION………………….
2. THE CHIEF JUDGE OF KOGI STATE ………. DEFENDANTS
(Chairman, Kogi State Judicial
Service Commission)
Legal Representation:
Simon Musa Esq., for Claimant
O.W. Obaedo Esq., for Defendants
J
U D G E M E N T
By a Complaint
and Statement of Facts filed in this Court on 22/02/2021,
and by an Amended Statement of Facts filed by the leave of Court
on 16/03/2022, the Claimant claims against the Defendants jointly
and severally the reliefs set out as follows:
i. A
DECLARATION that the annual salaries the Defendant (sic) paid the Claimant for
each of the years from 2006-2019 are less than his earned annual salaries.
ii. A
DECLARATION that the Claimant is entitled to the grand total balance of his
earned salaries owed him by the Defendants from 2006-2019 in the sum of N15,159,332.90
or any sum as may be adjudged by the Court to the Claimant’s total balance of
earned salaries owed by the
Defendants.
iii. AN
ORDER of this Court directing the Defendants to pay the Claimant his balance of
earned salaries in the sum of N14,874,582.90 or any sum adjudged by the Court
to be Claimant’s total balance of earned salaries from 2006 to 2019.
iv. 10%
monthly interest rate on judgment sum commencing from the date of judgment
until payment of the entire judgment sum is defrayed.
v. GENERAL
DAMAGES in the sum of N100,000,000.00 only for the financial imbalance and
hardship occasioned the Claimant as a result of failure of the Defendants to
pay him his earned salaries.
2. The case commenced de novo on 16/10/2024.
The testimony of the Claimant is that he was employed by the 1st Defendant as
Assistant Registrar at GL 06/1 on 18/03/1992. According to the Claimant, when
he voluntarily retired his from service on 31/01/2020, he was on GL 14/9 and his
last Office/Duty Station before his retirement was at the Inspectorate Office,
Idah; that on 25/11/2020, his record of service was given to him upon handing
over the office to his successor, one Hon. Kadiri Yusufu. The Claimant’s Letter
of Offer of Temporary Appointment, Letter of Offer of Pensionable Appointment
and Handover Note were respectively tendered in evidence as Exhibit C1,
Exhibit C1A, Exhibit C4.
3. The Claimant alleged
that it was revealed from his record of service that the computation of his
salary was only from 2006 to 2019 and further alleged that the Defendants did
not pay his earned annual salary for the said years. The Claimant testified
that throughout his service years with the 1st Defendant and till date, he
maintains a United Bank for Africa (UBA) account with number 1003121978 for
payment of his monthly salaries and that upon discovery of the discrepancies in
his earned annual salary, he obtained his bank statement of account from UBA for
the period under consideration.
4. The Claimant in
his further testimony catalogued his record of service which includes
the years of his
service, the grade levels, salaries earned, salaries paid and the unpaid
balance of his salary. The Claimant testified that the facts as stated in his
claims were extracted from the record of his service that spanned from year
2006 to year 2019 from the registry of the Defendants which contained the
various amount that he earned and that the various amount that was paid as
salaries were obtained from his bank statement. The Record of Service with Last
Pay Certificate - Exhibit C5 and Document, titled, Detailed Statistics of money
paid into Claimant’s account – Exhibit
C6, were tendered in support of his case.
5. The Claimant also
testified that he joined the Kogi State Judiciary Staff Co-Operative Thrift and
Credit Society and further made analysis of the savings, deductions and loans
from the said Cooperative account and from the said analysis, he alleged that a
total balance of N14,874,582.90, is being owed by the Defendants as his unpaid
salary. He further contends that the Defendants have refused to make the
payment in spite of the letters of demand written to them. The report of the
Claimant’s Cooperative account, Authority for payment of Pension/Gratuity,
Letters of Demand by Claimant’s solicitors, Defendants’ Reply to Solicitor’s letters
were respectively tendered in evidence as Exhibit C9, Exhibit C10, Exhibit
C7, Exhibit C7A, Exhibit C8 and Exhibit C8A. Also
tendered as Exhibit
C11 is the Claimant’s UBA Statement of
Account by CW2, one Joseph Agimgwu, the subpoenaed witness from United
Bank for Africa. Documents relating to the Claimant’s account with
UBA were also tendered as Exhibits
C2, C3, C3A and C3B.
6. The Defendant
joined issues with the Claimant by filing a Joint Statement of Defence
on 07/10/2021, and by leave of Court an Amended Joint
Statement of Defence to which a Counter-Claim was
subjoined was filed on 24/10/2023. In summary, the Defendants denied
that the Claimant rose to Grade Level 14/09 and that he earned an annual sum of
N4,836,000. DW1, one Idris Yakubu Danjuma, testified that by the
Claimant’s last pay certificate, he voluntarily retired on Grade Level 14/03;
that the record of service tendered by the Claimant does not reflect his correct
record of service and alleged that the purported record of service which is at
variance with his last pay certificate was a forged document.
7. DW1 further
testified that the Claimant had deceitfully removed the documents which
contained the breakdown of his monthly earnings, allowances, tax deductions,
indebtedness from the Directorate; that the Claimant has refused to return the said
documents in spite of the letter written to him requesting for a return of the
documents and that the fraudulent action of the Claimant is being investigated
by the Defendants. DW1 further denied that the Defendants are indebted to the
Claimant in any sum whatsoever. The following documents were tendered by the
Defendants: Record Card of the Claimant – Exhibit
D1, Cooperative Report of the Claimant – Exhibit D2 and Letters of Promotion of the Claimant – Exhibits D3 and D3A.
8. The testimony of
one Ibrahim Adinoyi as DW2, is that due to lack of funds, promotions within the
Judiciary, for a long time have no financial backing; that it was stated in the
letter of promotion issued to the Claimant and other members of staff of the
Defendants that promotions are subject to availability of funds from the State
Government and that due to unavailable funds, the Judiciary Staff Union of
Nigeria, Kogi State Chapter and the Defendants had entered an oral agreement that promotion should not be withheld but that
members of staff who are due for promotion are to be promoted without pay. DW2
contends that the Claimant’s calculation of his earned salaries was incorrect because
increase in salaries after promotion is subject to availability of funds. DW2
further alleged that the Claimant deliberately and mischievously refused to
state his actual monthly salary within the said period that is being claimed.
9. The Defendants
urged the Court to dismiss the entirety of the Claimant’s claims as being
frivolous, vexatious and unmeritorious. Whereof, the Defendants counter-claims
against the Claimant
as follows:
i. An
Order directing the Claimants (sic) to pay to the Defendants a total sum of
N3,000,000.00 (Three Million Naira) being the legal professional fee incurred
by the Defendants in the defense/prosecution of this suit.
ii. An
Order directing the Claimants (sic) to pay the Defendants the sum of N500,000.00
(Five Hundred Thousand Naira) being the cost and expenses incurred in the
logistics and filing of this suit.
iii. Interest
of 10% per annum on the various sums payable to the Defendants from the date of
judgment until payment is either effected or the judgment is executed.
iv. The cost of filing and maintenance of this
defense.
10. At the close of
plenary trial, parties filed and exchanged their final written addresses in the
manner prescribed by the Rules of this Court. In the final address deemed filed
on 27/01/2026, counsel for the Defendants, O. W. Obaedo Esq. formulated a sole
issue for determination, viz:
“Whether
on the facts and evidence before this Honourable Court, the Claimant has
sufficiently proved his case against the Defendants as required by law as to be
entitled to the reliefs being sought.”
In the final address
filed on behalf of the Claimant on 23/01/2026,
the Claimant’s counsel, Simon Musa
Esq., distilled two issues as arising for determination in this suit,
that is:
i. From the entire
circumstances of this case, whether the Claimant was paid
his
annual earned salary by the Defendants from the year 2006 to 2019,
the
period under consideration.
ii. Whether the Claimant
proved his case on the preponderance of evidence to entitle him to the reliefs
sought in this suit.
11. In the light of
the reliefs claimed and the evidence adduced by parties on record, it is my
view that the issues as formulated by Defendants’ counsel 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 this issue, 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.
12. I should state from the onset that
the case put forward by the parties is substantially documentary evidence. In
that circumstance, the focus of the Court is directed principally at the
documents admitted as exhibits as the yardstick to access the oral evidence
adduced by the witnesses. 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, add or
vary the provisions contained in a document. See Section 128(1) 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.
13. From the evidence on record, there is
no dispute that the Claimant voluntarily retired from the service of the 1st
Defendant on 31/01/2020. However, the Defendants contest the Claimant’s claims
for salary allegedly earned from the period between 2006 – 2009. The Defendants
further contend that the purported record of service, Exhibit C5, upon which
the Claimant hinged his claims is at variance with the last pay certificate and
alleged that the Claimant had fraudulently obtained and forged the said record
of service.
14. Now, the law is settled and as
correctly submitted by Claimant’s counsel, that when a party raises an
allegation of fraud or other criminal offences, in its pleading, a rule of law
requires that such allegations must not only be specifically pleaded and
supported with particulars but must also be proved. In other words, where
irregularity and/or fraud is alleged, it is not only to be particularized and
pleaded but it has to be distinctly proved. The reason is to enable a party
defending the allegation to understand the case he is facing and prepare his
defence. See Akin Omoboriowo & Ors Vs Chief Micheal Adekunle Ajasin
[1984] 1 SCNLR 108; High-Grade Maritime Ltd Vs First Bank Nig Ltd [1991]
1 NWLR (Pt 167) 290; Ogah Vs Ikpeazu & Ors [2017] 5-6 SC (Pt 1) 1
15. Now, the knotty question, begging for
an answer is whether the Defendants have effectively raised and successfully
proved that Exhibit C5, the record of service was forged by the Claimant as
alleged? Forgery has been defined as the act of making a false document or
altering a genuine document for same to be used. The burden and standard of
proof in cases involving forgery is on the person alleging and the standard
like in criminal matter is beyond reasonable doubt even if it is alleged in a
civil matter. See Agi Vs PDP & Ors [2016] SC (Pt 1) 74; Modibbo
Vs Usman [2020] 3 NWLR (Pt 1712) 470.
16. I have perused through the Amended
Joint Statement of Defence with a fine toothcomb, with the aim of deciphering
compliance or violation of the above displayed positions of the law. In paragraphs 15, 16, 17, 20, 21 and 29 of the Amended Joint Statement of Defence,
the allegation of the Defendants is that upon the service of his notice of
retirement, the Claimant retrieved the original record of his service and in
spite of the request of the Chief Registrar to return same, he refused to
submit the duplicate copy with the Defendants; that the records the Claimant
deceitfully taken away from the Directorate of the Defendants contained the
details of his income/earnings; that the said record of service reflecting that
the Claimant retired on Grade Level 14/09 is at variance with his last pay
certificate; and therefore alleged that the purported record of service which
does not reflect the true records of the Claimant, was either doctored or
forged to mislead and pervert the cause of justice.
17. By my understanding, the allegation
of forgery of Exhibit C5 by the Defendants
is premised on the ground that the
Claimant retrieved the original record of his service and the Defendants have
not been able to ascertain or verify the contents of the file because of the
Claimant’s refusal to return the documents. The Defendants’ further contention
is that the Claimant’s Grade Level as stated in Exhibit C5 is at variance
with the Grade Level as stated on the
last pay certificate.
18. From the evidence on record, by the
correspondences in Exhibits C7, C8, C7A and C8A, between the Claimant’s
solicitors and the Government of Kogi State, a complaint was made by the
Claimant’s solicitor and in the reply written on behalf of the Defendants, a request
was made to the Claimant to return the original documents that were taken by him
to enable the Defendants ascertain his claims. There is no evidence that the
Claimant responded to the request for the return of the documents.
However, I am quick to state that failure
to return the documents does not translate to prove that the record of service,
Exhibit C5 was forged by the Claimant. While testifying under
cross-examination, the Claimant had categorically denied forging the document.
Furthermore, forgery or fraud is not allowed to be inferred from the facts, it must
be distinctly proved beyond reasonable doubt. From the foregoing therefore, my
finding is that the Defendants have failed to discharge the burden to prove
forgery of Exhibit C5 as alleged against the Claimant. Failure of the
Defendants to discharge the burden is a flagrant defilement of the law. And I
so hold.
19. Now, I should restate the
universal evidential principle that the burden of proof in any case is on the
person who desires a Court to give judgement as to any legal right or liability
dependent on the existence of facts which that person asserts or who will fail
if no evidence were given on either side. See Section 133 of the Evidence
Act 2011. I am also not unmindful that declaratory reliefs 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 Zurmi Vs Okonkwo & Anor [2018] LPELR-46964 cited by Defendants’
counsel.
20. In further defence to the Claimant’s claims
for his unpaid salary for the period between 2006 -2019, the Defendants averred
that due to lack of funds, promotion in the 1st Defendant is without pay and further
averred that it was clearly stated in the letters of promotion issued to the
Claimant that payment or increase of salary upon promotions are subject to the
availability of funds from the State Government. The testimony of DW2 while
answering questions under cross examination by the Claimant’s counsel is that
there was no payment or increase of salary as at the time the Claimant was in
service.
21. Now, I had painstakingly examined the
documents relating to the Claimant’s employment and record of service. As
contained in Exhibit C5, the Claimant’s promotions between the years 2006 –
2019 occurred on the following dates: 01/01/2006, 01/01/2009, 01/01/2012. The
increments of the said promotions were also stated in the exhibits. However, in
Exhibits D3 and D3A, copies of the Claimant’s letters of promotion, it was
remarked on Exhibit D3 that, “no salary arrears payable”, and in Exhibit
D3A, the remark is, “the financial benefit will be effective from January,
2016 depending on availability of fund from the State Government.” The
Claimant did not file a Reply to Amended Joint Statement of Defence in rebuttal
of the Defendants’ assertion.
22. There is no general proposition of
law that failure to file a Reply to rebut an averment in a Statement of Defence
is tantamount to an admission. However, where a Defendant by the pleadings sets
out a case which cannot be met by mere denial and which has not been taken care
of by the averments in the Statement of Facts, it is a matter of utmost
prudence, if not necessity, to file a Reply to the Statement of Defence. See Egesimba
Vs Onuzuruike [2002] 15 NWLR (Pt 791) 466. Where a Claimant fails
to file a Reply to averments in a Statement of Defence which have not been
taken care of by averments in his Statement of Facts, he would be deemed
to have admitted the averments in the Statement of Defence See Adeleke Vs
Aserifa [1986] 3 NWLR (Pt 30) 575; Iwuoha Vs NIPOST [2003]
8 NWLR (Pt 822)
308, Ansa Vs Ntuk [2009]
9 NWLR (Pt 1147) 557.
23. The Claimant’s averments in the Amended
Statement of Facts did not take care of the averments of the Defendants that
the payment of increment of salary upon his promotion is based on availability
of funds as stated in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of the Amended Joint
Statement of Defence. While answering questions under
cross-examination, the further testimony of the Claimant is that he was aware
that his promotion letters contained details of his positions and the increment
in salary. This testimony further established in Exhibits D3 and D3A. Failure
of the Claimant to file a Reply thus amounted to an admission of the facts
pleaded in the Amended Joint Statement of Defence. And I so hold.
24. Now, under Section 135 of the
Evidence Act, the burden of proof is on the party who makes an
allegation of fact and who would fail in the action if no evidence at all were
given. In
labor relations, an employee can only claim if an entitlement is shown. An
entitlement is shown by reference to the law that gives it, the document
stating that the entitlement was agreed upon between the contracting parties or
the conditions of service governing the relationship of the employer and
his/her employee. In the case of Mr. Mohammed Dungus & Ors Vs ENL
Consortium Ltd [2015] 60 NLLR (Pt
208) 39, this Court cautioned that it may be fatal if, in proving an
entitlement, and even if the instrument is referred to, the employee does not indicate the clause, section, article or
paragraph that grants the entitlement claimed given that the employee should
not expect that it is the Court that will fish for the relevant article that
substantiates the claim prayed for. This is the context within which the
Claimant can succeed in the present case.
25. Having held that the Claimant is
deemed to have admitted that the increment of his salary was unpaid due to
unavailability of funds from the State Government, the Claimant must show to
this Court the instrument or document that specified his claims and how the
sums being claimed are to be calculated. Again, did the Claimant show to this
Court any evidence on how his claims in Exhibit C6 was computed, for the amount
being claimed? The answer to this poser is in the negative. It is noted that
the said exhibit was prepared and computed by the Claimant without reference to
the document that specified his claims. On the basis of the foregoing analysis, I must hold
that the Claimant has failed to adduce any shred of evidence whatsoever to
sustain or substantiate his claims against the Defendants.
26. Now, to
the Counter-claim, have the Defendants discharged
the burden of proving the entitlements being claimed? There is no doubt that a Counter-Claim is a separate and distinct claim
from the main claim. This is so because even if the main claim fails or is
withdrawn or struck out, the Counter-Claim would survive. To put it
differently, the same standard of proof required to prove the main claim is
also required to prove the counter-claim. See Attorney - General of Lagos State Vs Attorney - General of the
Federation [2004] 12 SCNJ 1; Ogli Oko Memorial Farms
Limited & Anor Vs Nigeria Agricultural and Co-operative Bank Ltd & Anor [2008]
4 SCNJ 436.
27. The Defendants averred that the Claimant’s case is frivolous and
vexatious and the counter- claim is basically for cost
of filing the suit. As correctly submitted by the Claimant’s
counsel, the Defendants seem to have abandoned the counter-claim as no evidence
was adduced to prove the counter-claim and the Defendants’ counsel did not
canvass any argument in support of same.
28. Perhaps, I should further
state that in Nwanji Vs Coastal
Services Ltd [2004] 36 WRN 1 at 14-15, it was held that it is improper,
unethical and an affront to public policy to have a litigant pass the burden of
costs of an action including his solicitor’s fees to his opponent in the suit.
Therefore, I think that on the current state of law, the claim for legal fees
for representing the Counter-Claimant’s action and for defending the Claim does
not form part of the action that can be granted. Without further
ado, the Defendants’ Counter - Claim fails in its entirety. And I so hold.
29. In the final analysis, it is the judgment of this Court that the
Claimant’s claims and the Defendants’ counter-claim lack merit and substance.
Both the Claimant’s claims and the Defendants’ counter-claims are accordingly
dismissed. Parties shall bear their respective costs.
Judgment is hereby entered accordingly.
SINMISOLA
O. ADENIYI
(Hon. Judge)
21/04/2026