IN
THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA
IN
THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION
HOLDEN
AT ABUJA
ON
THURSDAY 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
HIS LORDSHIP: HON. JUSTICE SINMISOLA ADENIYI
SUIT
NO: NICN/ABJ/96/2024
BETWEEN:
1. YAKUBU ANAS MUHAMMAD
2. AMINU ISAH
3. YUSUF ADAMU
4. ABUBAKAR S. YAHAYA
5. AUWL’ HUDU
6. MASUD HASAN
7. HAMISU GAMBO
8. MURTALA ABDU
9. ABDDULLAHI BILA
10. FAHAD MU’AZU
11. SHEHU ABDU CLAIMANTS
12. MUHAMMAD KABIRU ZARYA
13. AUWAL GARBA
14. SAN1 MATO
I5. ADULMUMINI MUSA
16. DAN MUNI UBALE
17. JIBRIN AHMAD
l8. BAKO 1SYAKU
19. SANI A. MAINA
20. BALARABE YAKUBU
21. SARK1 A. GARBA
22. MUHAMMED YAKUBU
23. ABDLLAHI S. RUWA
24. BABANGIDA MUSA ABDULLAHI
25. AUDU LELE
26. SA’IDU GARBA
27. LAWAN SHU’AIBU
28. MAISHANU ABASHE
29. AHMED M. HUDU
30. SANI SHUI AIBU
31. SHUAIBU ISHIYAKU
32. IDRIS SHEHU
33. DOGO MUSA KUBDIYA
34. ABUBAKAR GAGARE
35. ISAH S. ASKA
36. ABDULKADIR A. All CLAIMANTS
37. MUHAMMAD SHEHU FAGUJI
38. ALI ADAMU DOGUWA
39. YALWAJI BABBA ZABI
40. KAWUWA DAHIRU
41. ABDULKADIR USMAN
42. YUSUF ADAMU
43. ADAMU GARBA
44. MUZAMIBILU IBRAHIM
45. ALHAJI ALAHAJI HASSAN
46. ABUBAKAR
ABDULHAMIUID
47. SHUAIBU ABULWAHAB
48. HASSAN ABUBAKAR LAM IDO
49. DAYYABU UMAR
50. HON JAFAR MUHAMMAD TUKUR
51. HON SHARUBUTU HARUNA ALLUNKARFE
52. HON UMAR MUSA DINDIMA
53. HON SIRAJO MUHAMMAD GOJE
54. HON SULAIMAN YAKUBU
55. HON SANI ADAMU CLAIMANTS
56. HON SAFIYANU YAKUBU
57. HON RELWANU SABO UMAR
58. HON RABI’U YUSHEHU
59. HON KABIRU A. ADAMU
60. HON AHMED IBRAHIM
61. HON MUDI MUHAMMED
62. UMAR SAIDU
63. HON LAMARA HARUNA
64. HON DAHIRU MUHAMMAD HABLI
65. HON MUSA IBRAHIM ZANGO
66. HON NASTRU INUWA IL4ILA
67. ALIYU MOHAMMED
BELLO
68. SIRAJO MUHAMMAD ISA
69. YAKUBU MOHAMMED
70. HARUNA S KABIRU
71. SABO GABAS
72. ABDULLAHI
YUNUSA
73. NURA ADAMU
74. YUSUF UZAIRU
75. ADAMU ILTYA
76. YAKUBU SALEH
77. SULAJMAN UMAR
78. IDJ ALI
79. AHAMED ALHASAN
80. ALI M
MAIGIDA
81. SHEHU HASHIMU
82. MUHAMMAD N ABDULKADIR
83. ABDULLAHI WADA
84. KHAMISU LAWAN
85. SALIIIISU DANLADI SANI
86. HAALLIRU AHMMMMED
87. MURTALA MAGAJI ALKALERI
88. SANI ADAMU
89. BAYERO
KANI
90. IBRAHIM
SHEHU
91. SAGIR
TTELA MAI GIDA
92. NAFIU
BADAMASI BELI
93. AMINU
IBRAHIM
94. WALI ADAMU
95. UMAR SALE
YARO
96. MUHAMMED
BAFFA MAKERA
97. SULAIMAN
AHMED
98. AMINU
SHEHU DONGO
99. MUHAMMED
BELLO
100. HARUNA BUBA
101. HALADU M MADUGU
102. MUSA BELLO
103. LAMARA HASSAN
104. SHEHU IBRAHIM
105. ALHAJI IBRAHIM
106. MUHAMMAD AHMAD
107. MUSTAPHA ISHAO ADAM
108.. DAUDA MUSA
109. SANI ADAMU
110. SA’ADU YUSUF
111. USUMA MUSA
112. SULEIMAN USMAN
113. WADA ABBA
114. ISHIYAKU
ALHAJI
115. BALA ADAMU
116. SALISU ,ABASS
117. AUWAL MUSA BABAN LELA
118. ABUBAR NUHU
119. IBRAHIM SAMA ILA
120. DAN’ASABE MALAMI
121. HUSSAINI ADAMU
122. YUNUSA USMAN
123. SULAIMAN SANDA
124. JIBRIN SA ‘ADU SANDA
125. ABDULLAHI UMAR
126. MUHAMMAD ALI
127. MUHAMMAD INUWA PALl
128. HALADU IDRIS
129. SAMA’ILA IBRAHIM
130. ABUBAKAR lDRIS
131. DAHIRU UMAR
132. YUSUF IBRAHIM
134. ADAMU ABUBAKAR
135. DANTANI MIJIN YAWA
136. MUSTAPHA SA IDU
137. SAMMAKO UMAR GALE
138. SHAYIBU ADAMU
139. HON NUHU ABUBAKAR
140. HON UMAR SAMAILA BUNDOT
141. HONB ABUDLAZAK OTHMAAN TAFIDA
143. HON MURTALA SALEH
144. HON DANLAMI MOHAMMED LAME
145. HON HAMISU SALKEH
146. HON MUSA DAUDA
147. YUNUSA ISHAKU MAGAJI
148. HON USUMAN MADAKI
149. HON GARBA SULAIMAN
150. HON SALISU MUHAMMAD
151. HON IBRAHIMNUHU
152. HON NASIRU ABDUL HAMID
153. HON ADAMU JIMPI AHMADU
154. HON
SA’ADU SHEHU
155. HON MOHAMMED ISHAKU
156. HON ABUBKAR ABDLAZIZ
157. HON MUSA MAI ANGUS
158. HON IBRAHIM ISAH KUJFAI
159. HON MURTMA YUNUSA
160. HON TALLE ABDUL SALAM
161. HON AYUBA LADAN
162. HON IDRIS HASSAN
163. HON UMAR ZAKARIYA
164. HON SALE YUNUSA
165. HON AMINU SALEH
166. HON HARUNA A8DU
167. HON ABDULLAHI ADAMU BELLO
168. HON ABDULRASHID A. SABIU
169. IBRAHIM ABUBAKAR
170. IBRAHIM INUWA JAGALWA
171. IBRAHIM MUHAMMAD
172. MUSA ABDULSAM
173. AUWAL HALADU SLILAIMAN
174. ABUIBAKAR MUHAMMAD MANZO
175. SAMA’ILA ALHAJI GAMBO
176. AHMED SALA
177. BASHIR SHU’AIBU
178. UMAR SHANILU
179. YAHAYA A SA’ID
180. SULAIMAN UMAR
181. ABDULLAHI YUNUSA BABA
182. MUHAMMAD MUHAMMAD KAFI
183. ABDULLAHI UMAR BALA.
184. ZAKAR UMAR.
185. AUWAL IDRIS
186. MUHAMMED ALHASSAN.
187. AHMAD S SABO.
188. SALISU WAKILI.
189. MUHAMMED SANI ALI.
190. NUHU WAZIRI.
191. SANI WAZARI.
192. BANDA WAKILI.
193. MOHAMMED MAI GAMBO.
194. MUSA LIMAN.
195. U’DUBO UMAR.
196. SANI ADAMU.
197. IDRIS MUSA.
198. TAI’U INUWA.
199. ALI SA’ADU.
200. USAMA ABDULLAHI.
201. BELLO BABAYO GADAU.
202. ABDURRASHID AHMED.
203. YUSUF IBRAHIM.
204. SULEH DA’AZUMI.
205. UMAR ADIYA.
206. MUHAMMED S UMAR
207. AWAISU MUSA
208. ISAH MUSA
209. RABI’U BALARABE
210. NURA SAI’DU
211. ALI SHU’AIBU
212. SHEHU A. ABDU
213. MUHAMMED MUSTAPHA
214. SAMA’ILA BAKO
215. KABIRU USMAN
216. DAUDA GABO
217. USMAN ABUBAKAR MARBINI
218. AUWAL UMAR
219. RABIU USMAN
220. UMAR ABUBAKAR
221. LAWAN UMAR
222. AHMED YUSUF
223. DAHIRU SULEIMAN
224. HUDU MUSA
225. DAHIRU LAWAL
226. GAMBO ABDU
227. AHMAD SULEIMAN
228. AHMAD A. MASU
229. NASIRU MUHAMMAD
230. YUSUF A. UMAR
231. SANI YA’U
232. MOHAMMED HUSSAINI
233. ISYKU A. ABDU
234. ILYASU IBN AHMED
235. HARUNA SULEIMAN
236. ALHASAN MAJIDADI
237. KAILA ADAMU
238. MUNKAILA ABUBAKAR
239. HASSAN YUSUF
240. ABDULLAHI ABDULKARIM
241. ABDU MAKAMA BUBA
242. FATIMA ADAMU
243. YAHAYA SALE
244. BABA MAINA
245. ZAINAB SANI
246. ALI BABA ABDU
247. AHMED IBRAHIM
248. ISYAKU KAWUWA
249. LUBABATU IBRAHIM
250. GARBA MUH’D
251. BELLO A SANI
252. KABIRU IDRIS
253. ABUBAKAR K JINGI
254. MAIJAMA’A MUSA
255. JIBRIN MUH’D
256. ADAMU UMAR
257. NUHU MUH’D
258. AHMAD GALADIMA
259. KALA BABA
260. HAJJATU AHMAD
261. KABIRU YA’U
262. LUKMAN IDRIS
263. HASSAN BABA
264. YAHAYA SULE ALIYA
265. AHMED MOHAMMED MAIDALA
266. HALADU MUSA
267. ABDULMAJID AHMED
268 AHMED DAHIRU
269. ALIYU UMAR SAID
270 HARUNA MUSA
271. JAMILU A. YAU
272. MUHAMMAD SANI BELLO
273. ADAMU CHADI
274. WADAJI ALIYU
275. HARUNA YAKUBU
276. SANI AHMED
277. BELLO YAHAYA
278. RABIATA HARUNA
279. ABDULHADI ABUBAKAR
280. IBRAHIM ABUBAKAR
281. HALLIU MOH’D GITAL
282. ALIYU ABDULLAHI BULA
283. UMAR YAU
284. DANTALA S. SALE
285. DAHIRU ADAMU
286. MUTTAKA MOH’D HASSAN
287. AMINU IBRAHIM
288. DANAZUMU ABUBAKA
289. IBRAHIM ISA
290. LEPJI KEFAS
291. JAMES I, SHIRIYA
292. ISA WAKILI
293. ISAC BARNABAS
294. BABAYO MANZO
295. JESSEY AMOS
296. UBA M NASARAWA
297. DAI BULUS
298. EMMANUEL YOHANA
299. JOHN MUNZA
300. KEZIYA FARUK
301. JOHN DANIEL
302. ZABS GABA MAMANI
303. SOMSON JONATHAN NZHADI
304. SUNDAY SAMUEL.
305. RUBEN SIMON.
306. JONAR NZALLA
307. HON. ABDULHADI ABUBAKAR
308. HON. DAN’AZUMI ABUBAKAR
309. HON. DAHIRU ADAMU GANSHIYA
310. HON. ALIYU ABDULLSHI BULA
311. HON. RAI’ITA HARUNA KASTIAWA
312. HON. YA’U UMAR
313. HON. HALLIRU MUHAMMAD GITAL
314. HON. AMINU IBRAHIM
315. HON. IBRAHIM ABUBAKAR BILLE
316. HON. JAMES I SHIRYA
317. HON. LAPJI KEFAS
318. HON. BARNABAS ISSAAK
319. HON. MUTTAKA HASSAN
320. HON. DANTALA
SAIFULLA SALE
321. HON. IBRAHIM ISAM
322. HON. ISA WAKILI
323. MUHAMMAD HARUNA
LUDI
AND
1. 
BAUCHI STATE
GOVERNMENT
2. ATTORNEY GENERAL AND
COMMISSIONER FOR
JUSTICE,
BAUCHI STATE
3. THE BAUCHI STATE
MINISTRY FOR LOCAL
GOVERNMENT & CHIEFTANCY AFFAIRS
4. NINGI LOCAL GOVERNMENT
COUNCIL
5. ALKALERI LOCAL
GOVERNMENT COUNCIL
6. DAMBAM LOCAL GOVERNMENT
COUNCIL
7. DASS LOCAL GOVERNMENT
COUNCIL
8. SHIRA LOCAL GOVERNMENT
COUNCIL
9. TORO LOCAL GOVERNMENT
COUNCIL
10. BAUCH LOCAL
GOVERNMENT COUNCIL
11. KIRFI LOCAL
GOVERNMENT COUNCIL
12. JAMA’ARE LOCAL
GOVERNMENT COUNCIL
13. TAFAWA BALEWA
LOCAL GOVERNMENT COUNCIL
14. GIADE LOCAL
GOVERNMENT COUNCIL
15. KATAGUM LOCAL
GOVERNMENT COUNCIL
16. GAMAWA OCAL
GOVERNMENT COUNCIL
17. WARJI LOCAL
GOVERNMENT COUNCIL
18. 
ZAKI LOCAL GOVERNMENT
COUNCIL
19. IGGAS GADAW LOCAL
GOVERNMENT COUNCIL
20. GANJUWA LOCAL
GOVERNMENT COUNCIL
21. DARAZO LOCAL
GOVERNMENT COUNCIL
22. BOGORO LOCAL
GOVERNMENT COUNCIL
23. MISAU LOCAL
GOVERNMENT COUNCIL
Legal
representation:
Chief Gideon
M. Kuttu, SAN with
D. J. Gusen Esq., for Claimants
Hassan U. El-
Yakubu, SAN with
D. M. Bello Esq., for 1st – 3rd Defendants
Wole S.
Agunbiade, SAN
with Lamidi Obaro Esq., for 4th, 6th, 17th, 20th & 21st Defendants
Adedayo
Adedeji, SAN
with O. Igbayilola Esq., for 5th, 7th, 9th &10th Defendants
Abdullai Yahya,
SAN with Jamila
Vokwa Esq., for 8th, 12th 15th, 18th & 19th Defendants
A. I.
Aderogba Esq.,
for11th and 16th Defendants
M. A. Jacob
Esq., for
13th & 22nd Defendants
D. Umar Esq., for 14th and 23rd Defendants
R
U L I N G/J U D G E M E N T
The Claimants served as elected
Councilors in the various Local Government Councils of Bauchi State until their
tenure expired sometime in October 2022. In a nutshell, the Claimants’
grievance is that the payment of their furniture allowance and severance gratuities
as provided by the statutes have remained unpaid in spite of the several
demands made to the 1st Defendant. The Claimants alleged that the refusal of
the Defendants to pay their emoluments have caused them untold hardship.
2. On the basis of the briefly stated facts, the
Claimants took out a Complaint and Statement of Facts on 08/04/2024, wherein
they claimed against the Defendants the reliefs set out as follows:
a. A DECLARATION that the
Claimants being democratically elected Councilors of the various twenty (20)
Local Government Councils of Bauchi State are entitled to the payment of
arrears of their entitlements from October 2020 to October 2022 in the sum of
N1,556,795,400.00 (One Billion, Five Hundred and Fifty-Six Million, Seven
Hundred and Ninety-Five Thousand Four Hundred Naira), by the Defendants, jointly
and severally in accordance with the Revenue Mobilization Allocation And Fiscal
Commission, the Remuneration of Public and Political Office Holders Law and the
Bauchi State Local Government Remuneration Law (2007).
b. AN ORDER of this Honourable
Court that the Claimants being democratically elected Councilors of the various
twenty (20) Local Government Councils of Bauchi State are entitled to the
payment of arrears of their entitlements from October 2020 to October 2022 in
the sum of N1,556,795,400.00 (One Billion, Five Hundred and Fifty-Six Million,
Seven Hundred And Ninety-Five Thousand Four Hundred Naira), by the Defendants, jointly
and severally in accordance with the Revenue Mobilization Allocation And Fiscal
Commission, the Remuneration of Public and Political Office Holders Bauchi
State (2007) and the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended).
c. AN ORDER of this Honorable
Court that the Defendants’ failure, refusal and neglect to pay the Claimants
their lawful entitlements in the cumulative sum of N1,556,795,400.00 (One
Billion, Five Hundred and Fifty-Six Million, Seven Hundred and Ninety-Five
Thousand Four Hundred Naira), for their term in office from October 2020 to
October 2022 is unlawful, illegal and a violation of their rights according to
the laws regulating their service.
d. AN ORDER of this Honorable
Court directing the Defendants to pay the Claimants the sum of
N1,556,795,400.00 (One Billion, Five Hundred And Fifty Six Million, Seven
Hundred And Ninety Five Thousand Four Hundred Naira), being the sum total of
the arrears of emoluments owed the Claimants having served as the
democratically elected Councilors of the various twenty (20) local Government
Councils of Bauchi State from October 2020 to October 2022.
e. AN ORDER of this Honorable
Court directing the Defendants to pay the
Claimants’ ten
percent (l0%) monthly interest on the total sum of the Claimants’ said
emoluments from the September, 2021 (when Claimants’ tenure expired) until
Judgment is obtained, and thereafter a further ten percent (10%) interest on
the said total judgment sum from date of Judgment until full satisfaction of
Judgment.
f. AN ORDER directing the
Defendants to pay the Claimants the sum of N150,000,000.00 (One Hundred and
Fifty Million Naira) only, being cushioning relief for the psychological,
social, political and physical turmoil resulting from failure, refusal and
neglect of the Defendants to pay the Claimants their entitlements when it
became due.
g. AN ORDER directing the
Defendants to pay the Claimants the sum of N25,000,000.00 (Twenty-Five Million
Naira) only, being the cost of this suit.
h. AN ORDER directing all the
Defendants to pay the cumulative judgment debt to the Claimants through their
Solicitors Account as follows:
ACCOUNT NAME: G. M. KUTU & COMPANY CLIENT’S ACCOUNT
ACCOUNT NUMBER: 4011244768
BANK NAME: FIDELITY BANK
i. A DECLARATION that
judgment of the National Industrial Court of Nigerian sitting at Bauchi
delivered on the 21st July, 2023 DOES NOT affect the Claimants in this suit in
anyway whatsoever based on the provisions of the Revenue Mobilization And
Fiscal Commission, Section 7 (1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic Of
Nigeria 1999 (as amended) and the Remuneration Of Public and Political Office
Holders Law 2007 of Bauchi State.
3. Expectedly, the Defendants denied the entirety of
the Claimants’ claims in the Statements of Defence that were separately filed. Also filed alongside the Statements
of Defendant of the 1st – 3rd Defendants; 5th, 7th, 9th and
10th Defendants and 11th and 16th Defendants, are Notices
of Preliminary Objection challenging the
competency of the action and the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the
matter. The
Notice of Preliminary Objection of the 1st – 3rd Defendants filed
on 21/06/2024 and supported by an Affidavit of
eight (8) paragraphs is praying for an Order of Court to strike out the names
of the 1st – 3rd Defendants for non-disclosure of reasonable cause of action
against them. In the Notice of
Preliminary Objection filed on 20/01/2025 and supported by a 5 - paragraph Affidavit,
the 5th, 7th, 9th and 10th
Defendants pray for an Order
of dismissal of the suit in limine for want of jurisdiction and the 11th and 16th Defendants in the Notice of Preliminary Objection
filed on 20/10/2024 also prays for an Order of Court to strike
out or dismiss the suit. The written submissions of the respective counsel were
also filed with the Notices of Preliminary Objection.
4. In
reaction, the Claimants filed separate Counter-Affidavits and written addresses to the respective Notices of
Preliminary Objection on 17/01/2025.
A Further and Better Affidavit of 17 paragraphs was deemed filed by
the 1st – 3rd Defendants on 21/01/2026 and the 5th,
7th, 9th and 10th Defendants’ Reply on Points of Law was
filed on 10/03/2025. Pursuant to Order 18 Rule 2 (1) of the
Rules of this Court, the Notices of Preliminary Objection were
consolidated and heard together.
5. I had carefully considered the
totality of the objections and I had also taken due benefits of the totality of
the written and oral arguments vigorously canvassed by the respective learned
counsel with regard to the objections. I should be permitted to state that I
shall make specific reference only, to the submissions of the respective
learned counsel that I consider as very salient to the determination of the
various issues raised as I deem necessary.
6. Perhaps, the starting point in consideration
of the various Objections is to determine the issue of territorial jurisdiction
canvassed by the counsel for the 11th and 16th Defendants on the institution of
this action at the Abuja Judicial Division of the Honourable Court. Counsel argued
that the Defendants who are all based in Bauchi State had the entire activities
or transactions that culminated in the commencement of this action in Bauchi
State. Citing Order 2 Rule 1 of the Rules of this Honourable Court,
counsel further argued that this Honourable Court lacks the competence to
adjudicate over matters and persons outside its territorial jurisdiction. In
other words, the argument of counsel is that instituting this action in the
Abuja Division of the Court is wrong as the Division lacks territorial
jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter; that the Bauchi Division of this
Court is the appropriate or proper forum for adjudication of this case and
therefore urged the Court to transfer this suit to the Bauchi Division of the
Court.
7. In his Reply on Points of Law,
learned senior counsel for the Claimants argued that the issue of territorial
jurisdiction is purely within the administrative purview of the Honourable
President of this Court. To buttress his argument, counsel placed reliance on Order
1 Rule 10 (2), Order 7 Rule 15 (1) of the Rules of this Court and Section 254C
(1) (k) of the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)
and submitted that the case was properly instituted before this Honourable
Court and urged the Court to so hold.
8. With due respects to learned senior
counsel, the Rules of Court cited in support of his argument are not relevant
to the issue at hand. Order 7 Rule 15 (1) states that filing and service
of processes in the various Divisions is for administrative convenience. Furthermore,
the word ‘Judicial Division” as defined in Order 1 Rule 10 (2) is
subject to other contrary provision (s) in the Rules. It is specifically
provided in Order 2 Rule (1) of the Rules, that the Registry for
filing of Originating process in respect of a matter which the Court has
jurisdiction shall be in any of the Court nearest to where the Defendant
resides, or has presence or in which the Defendant carries on business, which
in the instant case is the Bauchi Division.
9. However, as correctly submitted by
learned senior counsel, by Order 2 Rule 5, any suit that was
commenced in the wrong Judicial Division may be tried in the Division, unless
the President of the Court otherwise directs. I should further state that
failure to comply with any provision of the Rules may be treated as an
irregularity and an application to set aside for irregularity may be allowed
where it is made within reasonable time and before the party applying has taken
any fresh step after becoming aware of the irregularity. See Order 5 Rule
(1) and Rule (2) (2) of the NICN Rules. It is on record that the Statement
of Defence of the11th and 16th Defendants was filed on 10/10/ 2024, the same
day the Notice of Preliminary Objection was filed. Having taken step after
becoming aware of the irregularity, the 11th and 16th Defendants are deemed to
have waived their right. And I so hold. In the circumstances, therefore, the
argument of counsel for the 11th and 16th Defendants on this issue is hereby
discountenanced.
10.
The contention of the 1st - 3rd Defendants in their Objection is that the
Claimants did not disclose any reasonable cause of action against them. The
argument of counsel for the 1st – 3rd Defendants is that
the Claimants are not statutorily and constitutionally employed and the 1st –
3rd Defendants are not under any obligation, legal or moral, to pay furniture
allowance and severance gratuity to the Claimants. Counsel further argued that in
the entire Claimants’ Statement of Facts, no allegation of wrongful act was
made by the Claimants against the 1st – 3rd Defendants. Citing Section 7
(1) – (6) and Section 277 of the 1999 Constitution, counsel further
argued that as creation of the Constitution, Local Government Councils have
financial autonomy or independence and the 1st – 3rd Defendants cannot be
legally responsible for the payment of the arrears of the Claimants’
entitlements. Counsel therefore urged the Court to strike out the case for want
of jurisdiction or in the alternative strike out the names of the 1st – 3rd
Defendants.
11. In opposing the Objection, the
Claimants in paragraphs 3 (v) – (3) (z) (aa – ff) of their
Counter-Affidavit, deposed that the 1st Defendant in Suit No:
SC/CV/343/2024 between Attorney General of Federation Vs Attorney General, Abia
State, had admitted to facts that the State Joint Account is managed by the1st
Defendant through the State Joint Committee for the purposes of appropriating
and releasing monies due to each of the Local Governments in the State. The
Notice of Preliminary Objection and Counter-Affidavit filed by the1st Defendant
(as 5th Defendant) in the said Suit No: SC/CV/343/2024 were annexed as Exhibit
A and Exhibit B.
12. With reference to the written address
in Exhibit B, learned senior counsel argued that the crux of the Claimants’
case is that the 1st – 3rd Defendants have control of the funds of the 4th
-23rd Defendants. He further argued that the statutory provisions and authorities
cited by the 1st – 3rd Defendants are apposite to the instant case and the
Defendants are bound by the law. Learned senior counsel further submitted that
the 1st – 3rd Defendants had joined issues with the Claimants by filing a Joint
Statement of Defence wherein they made admission that they control and manage
the State Joint Local Government account and should not be allowed to approbate
and reprobate. The cases of Ajuwon
& Ors Vs Governor of Oyo State & Ors [2021] LPELR 55339; Nasko
& Anor Vs Bello [2020] LPELR 52530; AG Abia State Vs AG Federation
[2002] 6 NWLR (Pt 763) 264; AG Ogun State Vs AG Federation [2002] 18 NWLR
(Pt 798) 232 were inter-alia cited to buttress his submissions.
13. Now, the principles guiding the Court in determining whether an
action discloses a reasonable cause of action are adequately restated by
learned counsel for the 1st – 3rd Defendants in his submission. In the famous
decision of Thomas Vs Olufosoye [1986] 1 NWLR (Pt 18) 669], “a
reasonable cause of action” is defined as, a cause of action with some
chance of success when only the allegations in the pleadings are considered. In
another sense, a contention that a Claimant's suit discloses no reasonable
cause of action postulates that there is nothing in the Statement of Claim
that
is fit for the adverse party to respond to and for the Court to adjudicate
upon.
14.
The Apex Court further held that so long as the Statement of Claim disclose some
cause of action or raise some question fit to be decided by the Court, the mere
fact that the case is weak and not likely to succeed is no ground for striking
it out; and that where no question as to the civil rights and obligations of
the Claimant is raised in the Statement of Claim for determination as against
the Defendant, the Statement of Claim is bound to be struck out and the action
dismissed. See also Afolayan Vs Ogunrinde [1990] 1 NWLR (Pt 127) 369;
Sodipo Vs Lemminkanen [1992] 8 NWLR (Pt 258) 229; Odubeko Vs
Fowler [1193] 7 NWLR (Pt 308) 637, cited by counsel.
15.
At this juncture, it is pertinent to consider the Objection canvassed by the 5th,
7th, 9th and 10th Defendants, which in the main is premised on the
ground that this Honourable Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this suit. Undoubtedly, the issue
of a Court’s jurisdiction is the bed rock of a case and fundamental to the
question of the competence of the Court adjudicating. Therefore, it is an
exhibition of wisdom to have the issue of jurisdiction or competence determined
first. Indeed, jurisdiction is everything: without it a Court has no power to
take one step in the proceedings beyond merely declaring that it lacks
jurisdiction. See Iwuji & Ors Vs Governor of Imo State
& Ors [2012] LPELR 22824; Dangote General
Textile Products & Ors Ltd Vs Hascon Associates Nig Ltd & Anor
[2013] LPELR 20665;
Rossek Vs A.C.B. Limited
[1993] 8 NWLR (Pt 312) 382.
16.
Suffice to quickly affirm the trite position of the law, as correctly stated by
respective learned counsel, that in order to determine whether or not a Court
can exercise jurisdiction over a matter, it is the facts averred in the Statement of Claim or and the reliefs endorsed therein
alone, that the Court is required to examine and no more. Adeyemi Vs Opeyori [1976] 9-10 SC 31; Tukur Vs Government of
Gongola State [1989] 4 NWLR (Pt 117) 517; Anigboro Vs Sea Trucks (Nig.)
Ltd [1995] 6 NWLR (Pt 399) 35. So, as it is in the instant case, the
Court must restrict itself to the facts deposed by the Claimants in the Statement of Facts and the reliefs sought in determining the
issue of jurisdiction.
17.
The argument of learned senior counsel of the 5th, 7th, 9th and 10th Defendants
is that by the present suit, the Claimants are seeking to relitigate on the
issue on whether or not Local Government Councillors are entitled to furniture
allowance and severance gratuities, which issue has been a subject of
litigation in a plethora of cases before this Honourable Court. In particular
reference is the judgement of this Court per Mustapha Tijani J.,
in Suit No: NICN/BAU/14/2016, between Hon Balarabe Yakubu
Dandija & 2 Ors Vs Government of Bauchi State delivered on 21/07/2025,
learned senior counsel submitted that this Honourable Court in interpreting
Section 6 (1) (d) of the Revenue Mobilization and Fiscal Commission Act (the RMAFC
Act), held that Local Government Councillors are not categorized as Public
Officers as to benefit from payment of salaries and emoluments from the
Consolidated Fund.
18.
Learned senior counsel further submitted that this issue has also been settled
to finality by the Supreme Court in the case of Nwokedi Vs Anambra State
Government [2022] 7 NWLR (Pt 1828) 29, where the Apex Court held
that the Anambra State Public Officers’ Salaries Law that is in pari materia
with the provision of Remuneration of (Public and Political) Office Holders
Bauchi Law 2007, is incompetent. Learned senior counsel also submitted that the
issue of whether Legislative Council of Local Government is recognized by the
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria was considered by the Apex
Court in the Nwokedi case and that the Court held that Anambra State Law No. 7
of 2001 is against the express provision of Section 124 (4) of the 1999
Constitution (as amended).
19.
The further submission of learned senior counsel is that this Honourable Court
is not vested with the jurisdiction to sit on appeal or have advisory
jurisdiction in respect of judgement of a Court of coordinate and argued that
from the reliefs being sought in the present case, the Claimants are urging the
Court to review or exercise advisory jurisdiction on the decision of this Court
in the Hon. Balarabe Yakubu Dandija case. Learned senior counsel also argued
that the judgements of this Court and the Supreme Court are judgement in rem
and that by the doctrine of stare decisis, such judgements are binding not only
on the parties but to the entire world. The cases of Edo State House of
Assembly & Ors Vs Hon. B. Agbebaku [2018] LPELR 45056; Covalent Oil
& Gas Services Ltd & Anor Vs Ecobank Nigeria Plc & Anor [2021]
LPELR 53391; AG Anambra State Vs AG Federal Republic of Nigeria & Ors
[2005] LPELR 13 SC 63; Mr. Akinfela Frank Cole Vs Mr. Adim Jibunoh & Ors
[2016] LPELR 40662; Senator Ademola Adeleke Vs Mr. Wahab A. Raheem & Ors
[2019] LPELR 48729, were cited to buttress his submissions.
20.
In his response, learned senior counsel for the Claimants restated the trite principle
of law on construction and interpretation of Constitution and Statutes and
submitted that broad and literal construction should be given to the
Constitution and Statutes to promote the purpose and not deny any person of his
right to his entitlement. He argued that by the clear provisions of Sections
6, 46 and 254C (1) (k) of the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria
(supra), this Honourable Court has the power and the jurisdiction to hear and
determine the present case and further argued that the Claimants’ have been
denied their entitlements as provided by the Constitution, Federal Act and
State Law. With reference to the allocation formula of renumeration by the
RMAFC Act, the argument of learned senior counsel is further that the Claimants
have locus standi to institute the action against the Defendants; that the
clear usage of the word “political office holders” in Section 32 Part 1
of the Third Schedule of the Constitution is with the intent of
covering for certain political offices which are not clearly stated. Attached
as Annexure GMK1to the Counter-Affidavit, is the allocation
formula of renumeration by the RMAFC Act.
21.
Learned senior counsel also argued that the cases of Danjida and Nwokedi that
the Objectors placed reliance upon are not all fours with the instant case and
as such, the said cases are not binding on the Claimants. Learned senior
counsel argued that applying the said cases to the present case will not only
amount to gross injustice and outright unfairness but doing so will rob this
Court of its inherent jurisdiction and power of developing Nigerian
jurisprudence. In support of his propositions are the cases of Ararume Vs
Ibezim [2021] 8 NWLR (Pt 1779) 511; Onyema Vs Oputa [1978] 6 SC 362;
AG Bauchi State Vs AG Federation [2018] 17 NWLR (Pt 1648) 299.
22. Now, I had examined the totality of
the Claimants’ claims as endorsed in the Statement of Facts. It is not in
dispute that the Claimants served as elected councilors in the various 20 Local
Government of Bauchi State between October 2020 to September 2022. The
Claimants’ case is that they are entitled to furniture and severance gratuity
and as contained in paragraph 33 of the Statement of Facts, the
payment of their Furniture Allowance and Severance Gratuities is hinged on the
Remuneration Package for Political and Public Office Holders of Bauchi State
Law 2007 and Revenue Mobilization Allocation and Fiscal Commission Act.
23. With particular reference is their
claim in paragraph 33 (i) of the Statement of Facts being “a
declaration that the judgement of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria
sitting in Bauchi delivered on 21st July, 2023 does not affect the Claimants in
this suit in anyway whatsoever based on the provisions of the Revenue
Mobilization and Fiscal Commission, Section 7 (1) of the Constitution of the
Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) and the Remuneration of Public
and Political Office Holders Law 2007 of Bauchi State.”
24. On the flip side, the contention of
the 5th, 7th and 9th and 10th Defendants is that by the present case, the
Claimants are re-litigating an issue that this Honorable Court had made a
pronouncement as being incompetent. They further contend that in the Nwokedi
case, the Apex Court had decided that Section 6 of RMFAC Act, which the
Claimants premised their claims
is against the express provisions of Section 124 (4) of the
1999 Constitution (as amended).
25.
I have painstakingly considered the authorities and the Statutes referred to by
the contending sides. As I earlier stated, the Claimants’ case is hinged on the
Remuneration of (Public and Political) Office Holders Law Cap 196 Laws of
Bauchi State 2007, enacted by the Bauchi State House of
Assembly, which purportedly fixed the salaries and emoluments of Chairmen and Councilors
of Local Governments (amongst others). By Section 7 thereof which provides for
interpretation, public and political office holders is defined as the public
and political holders by the Revenue Mobilization, Allocation and Fiscal Commission
whilst remuneration means, a remuneration determined by the Revenue
Mobilization Allocation & Fiscal Commission
26. Now, in the judgement of this
Honourable Court, in the Danjida case, Mustapha Tijani J, held as
follows:
“Also
not in dispute is that the Claimants’ claims are hinged on the provisions of
Remuneration of Public and Political Office Holders, Law 2007 of Bauchi State.
I have, before now, had the opportunity to make pronouncement on the
constitutional validity of these two legislations at two different occasions.
In Dalhatu Ibrahim & 2 Ors Vs Bauchi State Government & Anor (unreported) Suit No:
NICN/BAU/01/2017, the judgement of which was delivered on March 29, 2022, I
held after carefully scrutinizing the
provisions of the Remuneration of (Public and Political) Office Holders law
2007, that Section 2 (i) (ii) (iii), 3 (1) & (2) and (5) of the Law are
inconsistent with the provisions of Section 4 (6) (c) and 124 (4) of the CFRN
1999 (as amended), the Bauchi State House of Assembly lacks the legislative
competence to enact law to prescribe salaries and remuneration for holders of
political offices other than those mentioned under Section 124 (4) of the
Constitution. As a consequence, the provisions of the Bauchi State Law No.12
2007 were declared null and void to the extent of their inconsistency with the
CFRN 1999 (as amended).”
27. The Honourable Court made further
reference to the case of Nwokedi Vs Anambra State Government & Anor
(supra), wherein the Supreme Court considered the issue whether a councilor
comes within the purview of those officers whose salaries shall be determined
and charged upon the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the State by the Revenue
Mobilization Allocation and Fiscal Commission. In the determination of the
issue the Apex Court, His Lordship Aboki JSC, had recourse to Section
6 of the RMAFC Act which stipulates the powers of the Commission
as regards remuneration; and with reference to Part A and B of
the First Schedule to the RMAFC Act, the Apex Court held that
the Section 6 (1) (d) of the RMFAC Act makes no mention
of a Councilor as one of those Public Officers or Political Office Holders to
benefit from payment of salary and emolument from the Consolidated Revenue Fund
and whose salary shall be fixed
by the Revenue Mobilization Allocation
and Fiscal Commission.
28. His Lordship held further:
“The
import of Section 32 (d) Item N, Part 1 of the Third Schedule of 1999
Constitution, as amended, (which in my view, is an assemblage of Sections
84 and 124 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria,
1999 (as amended), as well as Section 6(1)(d) and (f) of the
RMAFC Act, is that the inclusion of Local Government Councilors by the
Anambra State Law No. 7 of 2001, in the List of Political Office Holders or
Public Officers of whom their salaries shall be fixed by the Revenue
Mobilization Allocation and Fiscal Commission and charged upon the Consolidated
Revenue Fund of Anambra State, is at variance with the express provisions of
the 1999 Constitution, as amended.
……….I
am therefore in concert with the Court below, when it affirmed the decision of
the trial Court, that the Anambra State House of Assembly, went on a frolic its
own when it enacted the Anambra State Public Officers' Salaries Law No. 7 of
2001, and purportedly charged the salaries and remunerations of Chairman
of Local Government, Vice Chairman, Secretary to Local Government, Supervisor,
Special Adviser/PA to the Chairman, Leader of the Local Government Legislative
Council, Deputy Leader and Councilors, to the Consolidated
Revenue Fund of the State, notwithstanding that it was at variance with the
express provisions of Section 124(4) of the Constitution of the Federal
Republic of Nigeria 1999, as amended .”
29. The further
submission of learned senior counsel for the 5th, 7th, 9th, and 10th Defendants
in his Reply on Points of Law, is that the judgement of the Apex Court
in the Nwokedi case is judgement in rem and same is binding against the whole
world inclusive of the Claimants in this case. The case of Akeems Vs INEC
& Ors [2024] LPELR 62820, was cited in support of his submission. Learned
senior counsel for the Claimants argued that the office of the Councilor was
provided for under Section 7(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria (as amended) as part of
the Local
Government.
30. Now, the
Apex Court in the Nwokedi case in its decision held that
Councilors are not legislators properly so called as envisaged by the
Constitution in Section 318(1) thereof. The Apex Court further held that
Legislative Council of a Local Government is not mentioned by the Constitution and
by extension, a Councilor is not recognized by the Constitution as a member of
a Legislative House properly so-called and that Section 318(1) of the 1999
Constitution (as amended) defined "Public Service of a
State" to mean the service of the State in any capacity in respect of
the Government of the State and includes service as mentioned in sub-paragraphs
(a) to (g) thereunder.
31. In Ogboru Vs Uduaghan [2011] NWLR (Pt 1277) Pg 727
at 764, the Apex Court enunciated on judgement in rem that:
"A judgment in rem
may be defined as the judgment of a Court of competent jurisdiction determining
the status of a person or thing as distinct from the particular interest of a
party to the litigation............The feature of a judgment in rem is that it
binds all persons, whether party to the proceedings or not. It stops anyone
from raisings the issues of the status or person or persons or things, or
rights or title to the property litigated before a competent Court. It is
indeed conclusive against the entire world in whatever it settles as to status
of the person or property. All persons whether party to the proceedings or not
are estopped from averring that the status of the persons is other than
the Court has by such judgment declared or made it to be."
32. This
Honourable Court in Suit No: NICN/JOS/08/2014, between
Association of Medical Laboratory Scientist of Nigeria & 3 Ors Vs Jos
University Teaching Hospital, judgement delivered on 05/10/2015,
per Hon. Justice Esowe held
as follows:
“To
my mind, the judgement delivered by this Court earlier on (on 23/10/2013 –
NICN/ABJ/128/2012) is like a garment designed for all Medical Laboratory
Scientists employed in the public health service of the Federation. It is a
conferred status that flowed from the relevant Laws. It follows them about and
must be respected by the whole world in Nigeria whenever they are employed to
work in a public place”.
See also Taylor
Woodrow (Nig) Ltd & Ors Vs Aromire & Anor [2023] LPELR
59835
33. In line with the authorities cited
above, it is my view that the earlier judgements of this Honourable Court as it
relates to the parties and the subject matter in the instant case are
conclusive against the Claimants and entire world. Therefore, the Claimants are
estopped from stating that the status of persons is other than the Courts have
by the previous judgements declared it to be. And I so hold.
34. As correctly submitted by learned
senior counsel for the 5th, 7th, 9th and 10th Defendants, it is settled that a
Court of law cannot sit on appeal on a case already entertained and determined
by it. See National Insurance
Corporation of Nigeria Vs Power & Industrial Engineering Company Ltd
[1990] 1 NWLR (Pt 129) Pg 697 at 707. See also the cases of Chief Waghoreghor & Ors Vs Aghenghen
[1974] 1 SC 1, 5 - 6; Koden Vs Shidon [1998] 10 NWLR (Pt 571) Pg 662. The further submission of senior
counsel for the 5th, 7th, 9th and 10th Defendants that the present action as
constituted by the Claimants is an abuse of court process.
35. As it is widely held, abuse
of Court process has no precise definition, and its categories are not closed.
Essentially, the circumstances under which a process of Court is used or
employed and for what purpose, determines whether or not such a process constitutes
an abuse of Court process. In Amaefule Vs The State [1988] 2 NWLR (Pt 75) 156, where the Supreme Court elaborated that abuse of
Court process connotes the employment of judicial process by a party in
improper use in order to irritate and annoy his opponent and to circumvent the
efficient and effective administration of justice. It was also held in N. I. C Vs F. C. I. Company Limited [2007]
2 NWLR (Pt 1019) 610, that the rationale of the law behind the concept of
abuse of Court process is that there must be an end to litigation, and a
litigant should not be made to suffer the same rigor or jeopardy for the same
purpose twice.
36. It is not
in question that the grievance of the Claimants in this case resulted from their
claims of being entitled to the payment of furniture allowance and severance
gratuity by virtue of the Remuneration of (Public and Political) Office Holders Law Cap 196
Laws of Bauchi State 2007 and the RMFAC Act. From these set of circumstances, can the Claimants, by this action, claim
for the payment of their furniture and severance gratuity which this Honourable
Court and Apex Court had made pronouncements? My answer is, an emphatic no! I
must completely agree with the learned senior counsel for the 5th, 7th, 9th and
10th Defendants that the present action is another classical case of abuse of
the judicial process. It must not be allowed to stand. Without
further considering the substance of the issue of statute bar as canvassed in the
preliminary objection of the 11th and 16th Defendants, this Court lacks
jurisdiction to entertain the case. And I so hold.
37. In the
final analysis, having come to the conclusion that the Claimants’ present
action constitutes a flagrant abuse of the judicial process of this Court, the
Objection of the 5th, 7th, 9th and 10th Defendants is upheld; and in effect,
the proper order is a dismissal of the case. This case is hereby accordingly
dismissed. Parties shall bear their respective costs.
Ruling is
hereby entered accordingly.
SINMISOLA O. ADENIYI
(Hon. Judge)
16/04/2026