IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE AKURE JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT AKURE

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HONOURABLE JUSTICE K.D. DAMULAK

DATED THIS 28TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

 SUIT NO: NICN/AK/75/2020

BETWEEN:

DR. JOHNSON ADEBAYO  OJO                                   .....................CLAIMANT

AND

  1. GOVERNING COUNCIL, COLLEGE OF HEALTH 

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, IJERO-EKITI

  1. COLLEGE OF HEALTH SCIENCE AND                 .....................DEFENDANTS

TECHNOLOGY, IJERO-EKITI

  1. SOLE ADMINISTRATOR/PROVOST, COLLEGE 

OF HEALTH SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,

 IJERO-EKITI

 

REPRESENTATIONS

Kolapo Kolade, SAN with Mayokun Ola-Jegede Esq. for the Claimant.

O.O. Akinlabi, Esq. (DPP Ekiti State MOJ) with O.T. Olatunbosun, Esq. (DDLR Ekiti State MOJ) for the 1st defendant.

S.A. Olayemi Esq. for the 2nd 3rd defendants.

 

 JUDGMENT

  1. The claimant approached this Court by a General Form of Complaint dated 22nd November 2020 and filed on 30th November, 2020 accompanied by a statement of facts and other accompanying processes. 
  2. The claimant claimed against the Defendants as follows:
  3. AN ORDER of the Honourable court directing the Defendants to immediately /forthwith pay to the claimant the sum of N41,598,684.00 (Forty One Million, Five Hundred And Ninety Eight Thousand, Six Hundred And Eighty Four Naira) only being his retirement benefits, duly approved by the Ekiti state Governor and adopted and also approved by the 1st Defendant.
  4. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court directing the monthly payment of pensions in the sum of N449,727.75 (Four Hundred and Forty-Nine Thousand, Seven Hundred And Twenty Seven Naira, Seventy Five Kobo) and or as upgraded and or increased by the Ekiti State Governor and adopted and also approved by the 1st Defendant from October.
  5. AN ORDER of this Honourable court directing the payment by the Defendant of post-judgment interest on the said sum of N41,598,684.00 (Forty-One Million, Five Hundred and Ninety Eight Thousand, Six Hundred And Eighty Four Naira) to the claimant at the rate of 10% per annum until final payment.
  6. AN ORDER directing the payment of the sum of N1,500,000.00 (one million five hundred thousand Naira) only being the cost of this action which includes the solicitors fees, filing and the prosecution of this case. 
  7. AND SUCH further or other orders as the Honourable Court May deem fit to make in the circumstances of this case.

 

  1. The 1st defendant filed a statement of defence on 8th February 2021 along with other accompanying processes. It again filed an amended statement of defence along with other processes on 21st December 2021 and subsequently on 7th December 2022 filed a further 1st defendant’s amended statement of defence.

 

  1. Parties at some point for years explored the possibility of amicable settlement of the disputes herein but after almost two years of trying to explore settlement, settlement broke down.

 

 

 

  1. The extant processes before the Court are the Original General Form of Complaint along with its accompanying process, the amended statement of defence of 7th December 2022, the 2nd and 3rd defendant’s statement of defence of 9th February 2021 and the respective reply to the statement of defence of the 1st defendant and 2nd and 3rd defendant respectively filed on 8th October 2021.

 

CASE OF THE CLAIMANT

  1. The claimant in this case testified on 28th May 2025 by adopting his written statement on oath of 30th November 2020 and additional written statement on oath of 8th October 2021 filed along with the original Reply to the statement of defence of defendants. He was subsequently cross examined by learned counsel for the 1st defendant and also learned counsel for the 2nd and 3rd defendants.

 

  1. The claimant maintained that he was originally employed in the old Ondo State but upon the creation of Ekiti State he transferred his service to Ekiti State. 

 

  1. That he was appointed on part-time basis as Principal Lecturer/Head of Department of the 2nd defendant while he was still in the service of the Ido/Osi Local Government of Ekiti State on 31st October 2000 and was subsequently seconded to the Ministry of Health as Chief Lecturer for two years on 23rd May 2011 and was appointed as Acting Provost of the 2nd defendant by the 1st defendant on 7th September 2011.

 

  1.  That the 1st defendant, on 2nd November 2011, approved his absorption into the 2nd defendant and thus accordingly converted and harmonized from Deputy Director to Chief Lecturer.

 

  1. That he was finally released and his service was fully transferred from the Local Government Service Commission on 1st August 2012 as communicated to him through letter dated 30th September 2013.

 

  1. That he was appointed as substantive Provost of the 2nd defendant by the 1st defendant on 27th June 2013 which was renewed via letter dated 23rd June 2017.

 

  1. He voluntarily retired from the service of the 2nd defendant on 30th day of September 2018 and his exit package was approved by both the 1st defendant and the Ekiti State Governor and he was also issued Retirement Clearance Certificate.

 

  1. That he is entitled to claim his full retirement benefits from the 2nd defendant which is the total sum of N41,598,684 representing his retirement benefit and the sum of N449,727.75 as monthly pension and has remained unpaid by the defendants.

CASE OF THE 1st DEFENDANT

  1. The 1st defendant’s witness testified on 14th January 2026 by adopting his written statement on oath of 30th January, 2025. He was cross examined by learned counsel on behalf of claimant and learned counsel on behalf of the 2nd and 3rd defendant

 

  1. The 1st defendant admits that claimant is a retiree but not at all material time the Provost of the 2nd defendant and the 2nd defendant was not claimant’s employer.

 

  1. That the 2nd and 3rd defendants adopted the approval of claimant’s voluntary retirement and waiver of six month retirement notice by the Ekiti State Governor but the adoption of claimant’s N41,598,684 is subject to audit and administrative procedures which claimant refused to submit himself to after invitation.

 

  1. That a Visitation Panel was constituted to review the claimant’s retirement benefit in November 2018 and by a Government Whitepaper issued on January 2019 based on the recommendation of the Visitation Panel reviewed the claimant’s entitlement as follows; Pension; LGSC- N429,510.67; College---N15,632.66 and Total per month-N442,143.33. Gratuity; LGSC--N15,917,160.00; College--N9,533,031.12 and Total-N25,450,191.12.

 

  1. That the above are the entitlement of claimant from the 2nd defendant and Local Government Service Commission as against what claimant is claiming and such is even after approval and vetting by the Accountant General and the Governor.

                                       

  1. That the condition that claimant’s retirement benefit from the 2nd defendant as contained in the Government Whitepaper be subject to vetting and approval of the Accountant General and Governor had not been met before the claimant rushed to Court.

 

  1. That claimant is not entitled to his entire retirement benefits from the 2nd defendant.

 

  1. That by Section 6(1) and (2) of the law establishing the 1st and 2nd defendant  No 3, Ekiti State the 1st defendant is the governing authority of the College and has custody control and disposition of the properties and finances of the College and in its absence, the Commissioner for Health shall perform its functions.

 

  1. That the 1st defendant is the body empowered to pay the retirement benefits of its employees and that before claimant can ask for his retirement benefits, his retirement benefits must have been approved and such approval communicated to claimant. 

CASE OF THE 2ND AND 3RD DEFENDANTS

  1. The 2nd and 3rd defendant witness testified on 14th January 2026 by adopting his written statement on oath of 9th February 2021. 
  2. The 2nd and 3rd defendants admit that claimant is a retiree but denies that at all material times he was the Provost of the 2nd defendant. They also denied that the 2nd defendant was the employer of the claimant. 

 

  1. They also denied that the approval of the claimant’s retirement was communicated to him by any means by the 1st defendant.

 

  1. They also denied that claimant is entitled to claim his full retirement benefit from the 2nd defendant through the 1st and 3rd defendant.

 

  1. They also denied that the 1st defendant approved the sum of N41,598,684 for the claimant  

 

  1. They denied admitting to pay any amount to the claimant and that they never approved the sum of N449,727.75 as claimant’s monthly pension.

 

  1. They also maintained that the 1st defendant is the Governing authority of the 2nd defendant and in its absence the Commissioner for Health shall perform its functions.

 

  1. They continued that claimant voluntarily retired from the services of the 2nd defendant on 30th September 2018 without following due process.

 

  1. That the 1st defendant is the only body empowered to approve and pay the retirement benefits of its employees.

 

  1. That the approval of the claimant’s retirement must have been approved by the 1st defendant and the approval communicated to the claimant before he can demand the payment thereof.

 

 

FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESS OF THE 1ST DEFENDANT

  1. Learned counsel on behalf of the 1st defendant filed his Final Written address on the 30th day of January, 2026 wherein he formulated a sole issue for determination thus; 

Whether on the state of pleadings of the parties before the Court, the evidence led and exhibits tendered, the claimant has been able to prove his case as to entitle him to the reliefs sought?

 

  1. Learned Akinlabi of counsel answered the issue in the negative and urged the Court to dismiss the case of the claimant. I shall make copious references to relevant portion of the final written address in the course of this judgment.

 

 

FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESS OF THE 2ND AND 3RD DEFENDANTS

  1. Learned counsel on behalf of the 2nd and 3rd defendants filed his final written address on 29th January 2026 wherein he formulated a lone issue for determination thus; 

Whether from the totality of the pleadings and evidence before this honourable court, the claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought?

 

  1. Just like learned counsel for the 1st defendant, Olayemi of counsel answered the above issue in the negative. He equally urged the Court to dismiss the claimant’s case against the 2nd and 3rd defendants. I will make cupious references to relevant portions of the final written address in the course of this judgment.

CLAIMANT’S FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESS

  1. Learned silk on behalf of the claimant filed his final written address on 5th day of February 2026 wherein he also formulated a sole issue for determination thus; 

Whether upon the facts and circumstances of this case, the claimant has proved his case and therefore entitled to judgment?

 

  1. Learned silk, Kolapo of counsel answered the above issue in the affirmative and urged the Court to grant the claims of the claimant. I will make references to relevant portions of the address in the course of this judgment.

REPLY ON POINTS OF LAW

  1. Learned Akinlabi Esq on behalf of the 1st defendant filed a Reply on Points of law to the final written address of claimant on 4/03/2026. I will refer to relevant portions of same in this judgment.

COURT’S DECISION

PRELIMINARY OBJECTION OF 1ST DEFENDANT

  1. Learned counsel for the 1st defendant in his final written address raised an objection to the jurisdiction of this Court on the ground that this action is statute barred having been brought after three months prescribed in Section 2 (a) of the Public Officers Protection Law of Ekiti State, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as (POPL). He argued that the claimant is challenging Government’s acts done between January 2019 and November 2020 but brought this suit late.

 

  1. Learned claimant’s counsel sought leave in his final written address to use the said address to address the issues raised by all the defendants in their final written addresses but failed to respond to this germane issue of jurisdiction raised by the 1st defendant in its final written address. This is, to say the least, unfortunate.
  2. It is settled law that where a jurisdictional issue is raised, it must be considered first or timeously before embarking on the merit. This is so because jurisdiction is a radical and crucial question of competence without which a Court lacks the power to entertain a case. See the following cases; L.L. S.P. I. A. Ltd v. MT Tuma (2021) 10 NWLR (Pt1784) 347 (SC) and; A-G., Cross River v. F.R.N. (2019)10 NWLR (Pt. 1681)401@447, Paras G-H (SC). 

 

  1. Our case law is replete with plethora of authorities that if a Court is divested of jurisdiction to determine a case, the proceeding remains a nullity no matter how well conducted. See the case following cases; S.C.C. (Nig.) Ltd v. George (2024)18 NWLR (Pt. 1971)421@462-463, Paras G-D, 476, Paras A-D (SC); Onoita v. Texaco (Nig) Plc (2024)18 NWLR (Pt. 1969)171@186-187, Paras H-A, 195-196, Paras F-A (SC).

 

  1.  By the provisions of Section 2 (a) of the POPL, Ekiti State, actions against public officers like the defendants must be brought within 3 months failure of which such action becomes statute barred. The said provision is however not without its own limitations. The rule will not apply when the action is one that is continuing injury or damage because the cause of action lives until the cessation of the injury.

 

  1. A claim for gratuity and pension is a claim for work and labour done. Gratuity, being a prescribed sum to be paid to a retiree, becomes an earned amount upon retirement. A claim for work and labour done is not caught by the limitation laws. See DR. M. U. ANUOLAM v. THE FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY, OWERRI & ORS (2015) LPELR-25603(CA) where the court held;

Now coming back to the mainstream arguments of this matter, there are about six (6) exceptions to the law, one of which shall engage the attention of this Court in its bid to resolving the issues raised in this Appeal. These exceptions are; 1. Cases of continuance of damage or injury; 2. Where the Public Officer acted outside the colour of his Office or outside his Statutory or Constitutional duties; 3. Cases of recovery of land; 4. Breaches of Contract; 5. Claims for work and labour done; 6. Good Faith."

 

  1. A claim for pension is a claim for a payment which accrues every month and so failure to pay pension every month that it accrues is a new cause of action every month so it is a continuing injury which is not caught by the limitation laws. See OCTOPUS TRUST NIGERIA LIMITED & ORS v. ASSET MANAGEMENT CORPORATION OF NIGERIA (2019) LPELR-47277(CA) in which the Court held;

"The Appellants claim that there cannot be limitation because the injury to them by the Respondent is a continuing one. Indeed, there are some exceptions to the limitation law set by various limitation statutes. These statutory limitations cover cases such as fraud, deliberate concealment by the defendant, or mistake or in a circumstance where there is a continuing injury or fresh damage arising from the same injury. Each fresh damage arising from the same injury or a continuing injury gives rise to a fresh cause of action. The term "continuing injury or damage" is an injury that is still in the process of being committed. See Black's Law Dictionary Pg. 801, 8th Edition.

See also CBN v. Amao (2010)16 NWLR (Pt. `1219)271@295,  

  1. It is in the light of the above that I find that the 3 months period in the Ekiti State POPL cannot be applied to the case at hand for the reasons that it is a claim for work and labour done and it is a continuing injury, the injury has not ceased and the defendants have equally acted without semblance of legal justification. The objection is therefore dismissed as lacking in merit.

OBJECTION TO EXHIBIT SEA 3 ‘TENDERED’

  1. It is noteworthy that learned claimant counsel on 14th January 2026 objected to the admissibility of Exhibit “SEA 3 ‘tendered” and reserved the reason till address. This Court ordered parties to address it on the objection in the final written address. However, learned claimant counsel in his final written address did not address this Court on the reason for the objection to Exhibit SEA 3 ‘tendered’. 
  2. It is the view of this Court that the claimant has abandoned his objection to Exhibit SEA 3 ‘tendered’ having not addressed the Court on the reason for his objection in his final written address as expected. The objection is hereby deemed abandoned. The said ‘Exhibit SEA 3 tendered’ is hereby marked Exhibit SEA 3. 

MERITS OF THE CASE

  1. I have carefully considered the originating process in this case together with the accompanying processes, the amended statement of defence  of the 1st defendant, the statement of defence of the 2nd and 3rd defendants together with the accompanying processes , the evidence led, the exhibit relied upon by parties and the written addresses of the parties. I am of the view that it is best that I adopt the issue as formulated by parties and reframed as;

 

Whether on the state of pleadings and the preponderance of evidence and balance of probabilities, the claimant has made out a case to entitle him to the reliefs sought in this suit?

 

  1. In the instant case, certain facts are not in dispute and which are that; the claimant transferred his service in the year 2011 from the Local Government where he was originally employed to the 2nd defendant and became the Provost of the 2nd defendant before he retired in the year 2018. 

 

  1. As regards the merits of the case at hand, the claimant’s claim is founded on contract of employment. It is not in doubt that the relationship between the claimant and the defendant is one statutorily protected and which must be dealt with according to the dictates of the statute or conditions of service which regulated the employment.

 

  1. The claimant in this case claimed the sum of N41,598,684.00 as his retirement benefits as approved by the Ekiti state Governor and adopted by the 1st Defendant. He also claimed the sum of N449,727.75  as monthly pension. The claimant’s gratuity was however streamlined to the sum of N25,450,191.12 and pension in the sum of N442,143.33 in accordance with Exhibit SEA 3. 

 

  1. The claimant, through his counsel, in court and in the counsel final written address, conceded to the sum of N25,450,191.12 as gratuity and the sum of   N442,143,.33 as monthly pension

 

  1. The defendants have contended in this case that the claimant stayed beyond 35 years as required under the Civil Service Rules. Learned claimant counsel contended in paragraph 4.6 (ix) in his final written address that the conditions of service,  exhibit JOA 19,  provides in chapter Eleven paragraph 11.2 relating to retirement age thus; “the retirement age as obtains in tertiary institutions in the country is hereby compulsorily put at 65 years, notwithstanding the length of service…”

 

 

  1. It is also a fact of general knowledge that is not reasonably open to question that educational institutions in Nigeria like the 2nd defendant do not conform to the rule in the mainstream civil service when it comes to retirement from service. Thus, the specific provision in exhibit JOA 19 putting retirement age in the 2nd defendant as 65 irrespective of the length of service supersedes provision of the Ekiti State Civil Service Rules when it comes to retirement in the 2nd defendant. This issue is equally resolved in favour of the claimant and against the defendants.

 

  1. The next pertinent question is as to qualification of claimant for pension and gratuity from the defendants. The provisions of Chapter Eleven, paragraph 11.2 of JOA19 which is the College of Health Sciences And Technology, Ijero Ekiti, Ekiti State’s Condition Of Service For Academic And Non Academic Staff and which learned counsel for the 2nd and 3rd defendants also relied on in his final written address stipulates thus as regard entitlement to pension and gratuity; 

“To qualify for pension and gratuity, a staff must have served in the public service for a period not less than ten years and must give the required notice of his intention to retire subject to the provision of section 1.14(ii) of chapter one of this conditions of service. Where the whole period has not been at the college the accumulated period of service must have been properly transferred to the College of Health Science and Technology, Ijero- Ekiti” 

  1. The 1st defendant avers in paragraph 14 of the amended statement of defence that by relevant law the claimant is entitled to claim his pension and gratuity from each last place of service despite the fact that he transferred his service to the 2nd defendant. Learned Akinlabi Esq. for the 1st defendant, in paragraph 4.13 of his final written address argued that the above provision of Chapter 11, Paragraph 11.2 of Exhibit JAO 19 is only as to qualification for pension and not who to pay what. Learned 1st defendant’s counsel had placed reliance on Section 15 of the Pension Act as the law which provides that claimant must get his retirement benefit in accordance with years spent in each service. 

 

  1. I quite agree with learned Akinlabi to the extent that the provision is as to qualification for pension and gratuity and that where the whole period of service is not at the college, the person affected to be entitled to pension and gratuity must have transferred the accumulated period of service from the former workplace to the 2nd defendant.  The above provision clearly talks about qualification for gratuity and pension from the 2nd defendant and not as to apportionment of gratuity and pension.
  2. The 1st defendant who would want the Court, by paragraph 14 of its amended statement of defence, to believe that by virtue of relevant laws, the claimant can only get his gratuity from the Ekiti State Local Government Service and the 2nd defendant in accordance with years of service had commended to this Court Section 15 of the Pension Act. He also argued in paragraph 1.08 -1.09 of his Reply on points of law that the said Law supersedes.

 

  1. However, counsel failed to state the year of the said Pension Act being referred to, which ordinarily suggests that it is the extant pension law. However, in paragraph 1.09 of the Reply on points of law, counsel stated the law to be Section 15 of the Pension Reform Act with no year. Section 15 of the Pension Reform Act refers to objects of the Pension Commission. There is no such provision in the extant Pension Reform Act, 2014 whether in its Section 15 or elsewhere.

 

  1. In actual fact, I find the provision referred to and quoted by 1st defendant counsel in  Section 15 of the old Pension Act, Laws of the Federation OF Nigeria, 1990,which provides as follows;

“Where an officer in a pensionable service transfer from the civil service to a Civil Service of a State or voluntary agency teaching service within the Federation or vice versa he shall in respect of his service in each of the Civil Services concerned be entitled to Pension or gratuity apportioned among the various Civil Services concerned in such proportion as corresponds with the duration of his service in each of the respective Civil Services concerned.

 

  1. The pension Act 1990, was repealed by the Pension Reform Act 2004, which has already been repealed by the extant Pension Reform Act, 2014 and is not applicable in this case. The effect of the above is that there is no such law in force which makes claimant entitled to pension or gratuity apportioned in accordance to years of service with each employer. See HON. JUSTICE JAMES AIGBULOKO OYAKHIROME (RTD) V EDO STATE PENSION BOARD & ANOR, Suit NO.NICN/BEN/09/2021 (unreported) a judgment delivered by A. A. Adewemimo J on 28/9/2021 at paragraphs 14, 15 and 16.
  2. In any event, the said Section 15 of the repealed Pension Act as regards apportioning pension and gratuity of an employee on transfer of service in accordance with duration of service has been interpreted by the Supreme Court in one of its unanimous decisions in New Nigeria Dev. Co Ltd v. Ugbagbe (2022)16 NWLR (Pt.1855)101, a case with similar facts as the one in this case. At the Supreme Court, the appellant maintained in its argument that it is only liable to pay claimant’s pension and gratuity for the 4 years he served as its Chief Executive Officer and relied on Section 15 of the repealed Pension Act, 2004, which learned 1st defendant counsel is also relying on in this case.

 

  1. The Court after considering the said Section 15 of the repealed Pension Act particularly at page 134 per Ogunwumiju JSC, (in her lead judgment) held thus; 

On the ancillary issue of who should pay the full pension of the retiring person, the Pensions Act in sections 15 and 16, is not specific on the point whether the last employer should pay all entitlements and seek reimbursement from previous employers or pay only for the period the employee worked for it.

However, it is a principle of labour law regarding the payment of any entitlement to employee be resolved in favour of the employee-in this case the retiree. I cite with approval Chiroma v. Forte Oil Plc Suit No NICN/ABJ/165/2018 delivered on 2/5/2019 by Justice B.B. Kanyip, PhD, Owulade v. Nigeria Agip NICN/LA/41/2012 delivered on 12/7/2016 by Hon Justice B.B. Kanyip, PhD. Thus, the rule of the retiree getting his full pension and gratuity from his last place of employment and the last place to get reimbursed by the previous employer is borne out of the method most practicable and most humane to the employee must prevail” 

  1. Aboki JSC (now retired) on his own part in his contributory judgment at page 140 thereof opined that the appellant cannot enjoy the benefit of the instrument that empowered it to receive into its employment the respondent by way of transfer then turn around to avoid the accompanying liability.

 

  1. By the way, the provisions of Chapter Eleven, paragraph 11.2 of JOA19 in my respectful view clearly entitles claimant to his full Pension and gratuity from the 2nd defendant upon his transfer of service.
  2. Learned counsel for the 2nd and 3rd defendants had argued in paragraph 4.01 (6) that the claimant’s transfer of service contained in a letter dated 11th September 2012 and titled ABSORPTION/CONVERSION/HARMONIZATION cannot in law and in all good conscience be considered a proper transfer of service in view of the fact that the Claimant had already spent more than 33 years (Thirty Three Years) (1978 – 2011) at the State Local Government Service Commission and waiting to retire in year 2013.

 

  1. None of the defendants in their pleadings joined issues with the claimant on the propriety or otherwise of his transfer of service from the Local Government to the 2nd defendant for learned counsel for the 2nd and 3rd defendants to make an issue out of it in his final written address. 

 

  1. In An action wherein pleadings were filed as in this instant, the proper avenue to join issues is the pleadings and not the address of counsel. This is because issues are properly raised and joined by pleadings of parties and not address. More so, address of Counsel, no matter how beautiful it may be, cannot take the place of pleadings or evidence where there is none. See the following cases; Ministry of Land and Survey, Nasarawa State v. Nwafor & Ors (2021) LPELR-56254(CA)1@44-45, Paras F-A; Savanah Sugar Company Ltd v. Wabbey Farms Ltd (2013) LPELR-22129(CA)1@27, Paras A-B. 

 

  1. By the provisions of Section 168 (1) of the Evidence Act, 2011 there is general presumption that when things have been shown to have been done in a manner substantially regular, it stands until the contrary is proved. See; Mamonu v. Dikat (2019)7 NWLR (Pt.1672)495@529-530, Paras H-B (SC) and Emesiani v. Emesiani (2013) LPELR-21360(CA)1@27, Paras B-D. 

 

  1. This presumption, in my view, enures in favour of the claimant as it relates to the transfer of service as evidenced by exhibit JAO 5 (letter of 11th September, 2012) and exhibit JAO7 (the letter of 30th September, 2013).

 

  1. The defendant in this case has not rebutted the said presumption which is in favour of transfer of service of the claimant from one service of Ekiti State to another service of the same Ekiti State in the 2nd defendant. The service of claimant, whether at the Local Government Service Commission or at the 2nd defendant is both to one employer which is the Ekiti State Government. 
  2. By the content of Exhibit SEA 3, the Ekiti State Government Whitepaper which streamline the quantum of claimant’s pension and gratuity and how same is to be paid and by who. at page 27 thereof puts claimant’s entitlement as follows; (i)Pension; the sum of N429,510.67 from Local Government Service Commission and the sum of N15,632.66 from the 2nd defendant; (ii) Gratuity; the sum of N15,917,160.00 from the Local Government Service Commission and the sum of N9,533,031.12 from the 2nd defendant. 

 

  1. In view of the position of the law, the only importance of the white paper is to ascertain the amount the claimant is entitled to as gratuity and pension.

 

  1. Section 210 (1) of the Constitution which protects claimant’s right to pension and gratuity provides that such right shall be regulated by law. Section 210 (2) of the Constitution provides that any benefit to which a person is entitled to under the law regulating pension and gratuity shall not be withheld or altered to his disadvantage except to such extent as is permissible under any law including Code of Conduct. 
  2. The defendants seeking to apply the provisions of Section 15 of the repealed Pension Act, to the claimant who retired under the extant Pension Act is, to my view, the defendant trying to alter the claimant’s right to pension to his disadvantage, which is contrary to the provision of Section 210 (2) of the Constitution.

 

  1. Section 8 of the Law establishing the 1st and 2nd defendants, Law No 8 of 2010, Ekiti State also makes claimant entitled to pension and gratuity. Thus, the right of claimant to pension and gratuity is a constitutionally guaranteed right which is protected by Section 210 of the Constitution and also Section 8(l) of the Law establishing the 1st and 2nd defendant. By the judicial and statutory authorities earlier referred to in this judgment, the claimant should get his full pension and gratuity from the 2nd defendant. 

 

  1. The moment claimant transferred his accumulated period of service in the Ekiti State Local Government to the 2nd defendant, he is entitled to his full pension and gratuity from the 2nd defendant. The defendants cannot enjoy the benefit of the claimant’s service after transferring his accumulated years in the Ekiti State Local Government Service to the 2nd defendant then turn around to avoid the accompanying obligation that follows therefrom.
  2. The 1st defendant had maintained in its statement of defence that the condition that claimant’s retirement benefit from the 2nd defendant as contained in the Government Whitepaper be subject to vetting and approval of the Accountant General and Governor had not been met before the claimant rushed to Court in November 2020. 
  3. By the facts averred in this case, Exhibit SEA 3, which is the Whitepaper was issued since January 2019 and till November 2020 when the claimant came to this Court, which is almost two years after the issuance of the Whitepaper, this is long enough to cause grievance and the claimant was rightly aggrieved.

 

  1. The Apex Court has made pronouncement on the need for employers especially Government controlled ones to treat retirees/pensioners humanely. The Court in the case of CBN v. Amao (2010)16 NWLR (Pt. `1219)271@307, Paras C-H per Onnoghen JSC (now retired) had this to say;

 

It is rather unfortunate that the efforts of the Federal Government to put smile on the faces of the pensioners of the appellant to alleviate their sufferings having regard to harsh economic realities of this country have been almost frustrated by arguments on legal technicalities whilst the people continue to suffer year in year out. It is disturbing because the people involved are senior citizens of this country who have contributed their quota to the development of the nation during their prime, but look at the way an organization like the appellant is treating them…

It is important for every organization in this country, including the appellant, to wear a human face in its treatment of the people, particularly the senior citizens, because it will be anybody’s turn tomorrow to be a senior citizen. We must re-examine our attitude towards the senior citizens of this country so as not to make them regret their sacrifice for the nation in whatever capacity…

  1. It is settled law that while the Court cannot award higher than is originally claimed, the Court can award less than is claimed.  See; Austin Laz Thermoplatic Ind. Ltd v. G.T.B. Plc (2025)15 NWLR (Pt. 2008) 235@262-263, Paras A-H (SC) and; A.G., Cross River State v. A.G., Fed (2005) 15 NWLR (Pt. 947)71@111, Paras E-G, 121, Paras C-E (SC).  
  2. As stated earlier, the claimant originally claimed N41,598,684.00 in his claim before the Court but in the course of proceedings and in his final written address agreed with the 1st defendant to go by the sum of N25,450,191.12 as admitted by the defendants. Having found that the claimant was entitled to his full retirement benefits from the defendants upon his transfer of service, I find that claimant’s relief ‘I’ succeeds to the extent of the sum accepted by claimant. Thus, claimant is entitled to be paid the sum of  N25,450,191.12 by the defendants as his gratuity. 
  3. The claimant’s relief ii also succeeds to the extent of the sum determined by the defendants and accepted by the claimant. Thus the claimant is entitled to the sum of N442,143.33  per month as his pension which sum shall be drawn from the defendants.
  4. As per relief iii, the claimant claims for 10% post-judgment interest on the judgment sum. This Court is empowered by the provisions of Order 47 Rule 7 of the Rules of this Court to grant post judgment interest at a rate not less than 10% per annum. I therefore exercise my discretion in favour of the claimant by awarding 10% post judgment interest on the sum of N25,450,191.12 and the arrears of pension.

 

  1. The claimant vide relief ‘iv’ is asking for the cost of litigation in the sum of N1,500,000. In the case of Cappa and Dalberto (Nig) Plc v. NDIC (2021)9 NWLR (Pt. 1780)1@ 14, Paras G-H the Apex Court held that a successful party is entitled to cost which he should not be denied except for good reasons. The NIC Rules, particularly Order 55 Rules 1,2,3,4 and 5 empowers the Court to grant costs of action at its own discretion. In view of the  number of appearances had and the volumes of processes filed along with the status of claimant’s counsel, I award the sum of N1,000,000 as cost of litigation.

 

 

  1. For the avoidance of doubt, the case of the claimant succeeds and it is hereby declared and ordered as follows;
    1. A DECLARATION that the claimant is entitled to the sum of N25, 450,191.12  as his gratuity from the defendants.
    2. A DECLARATION that the claimant is entitled to the sum of N442, 143.33 per month as his pension from the defendants from October, 2018.
    3. AN ORDER that the defendants pay the claimant the sum of N25, 450,191.12  as his gratuity from the defendants.
    4. AN ORDER that the defendants pay the claimant the sum of N442, 143.33 per month as his pension from the defendants from October, 2018 until his death.
    5. AN ORDER that the defendants pay the claimant the sum of N40, 235,043.03 being arrears of his pension from October, 2018 to April, 2026.
    6. AN ORDER that the defendant pay the claimant the sum of N1, 000,000.00 as cost of action.
    7. AN ODER that the sums of N40, 235,043.03 arrears of pension, N25, 450, 191.12 as his gratuity and cost of N1,000,000.00  be paid within 30 days of this judgment or it shall attract 10% interest per annum.

91. This is the Judgment and it is entered accordingly. 

 

....................................................................

HON. JUSTICE K.D. DAMULAK

PRESIDING JUDGE