BACK

NICN - JUDGMENT

 IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT NIGERIA

                                       IN THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION

                                                    HOLDEN AT LAGOS

 

       BEFORE HER LADYSHIP HON. JUSTICE O. A. OBASEKI-OSAGHAE

 

DATE: OCTOBER 28, 2025                                            SUIT NO: NICN/ABJ/150/2014

BETWEEN:

FATIMA BABA AHMED                                                                    CLAIMANT

(Suing for herself and on behalf of Higher National Diploma

Holders in the Public Service of Nigeria)                       -                  

AND

1. FEDERAL CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION           

2. THE HEAD OF THE CIVIL SERVICE OF THE

     FEDERATION                                                                                 DEFENDANTS

3. NATIONAL COUNCIL ON ESTABLISHMENT                                                                                           

4.  ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION

      AND MINISTER OF JUSTICE

REPRESENTATION

Samuel Ogala Esq for the Claimant.

O.D.Ofiyon with D.O.Naiyeju Esq for the 1st Defendant

 

JUDGMENT

Introduction and claims

[1] The Claimant and 4 other persons filed this Complaint in a representative capacity together with the accompanying processes against the Defendants on 5th June 2014. By order of Court the names of the 4 other Claimants were struck off the suit. The Claimant by order of court made on the 18th February 2025, filed a further amended complaint on 24th February 2025 The Claimant is seeking the following reliefs jointly and severally against the Defendants:

1.      A Declaration that by virtue of the publication of the Federal Government White paper on the report of the Presidential Committee on the Consolidation of emoluments in the Public Sector made in December 2006 directing that “the undue dichotomy and ceiling on the salary grade level/ranks attainable by Higher  National Diploma holders should be removed the Claimant and all Higher National Diploma Holders in the Public Service of the Federation with a Higher National Diploma certificates are entitled to a career progression beyond GL14 up to GL17 in the public service of the Federation and that they are also entitled to payment of remunerations in their work places as their counterparts with first degree certificates without any discrimination whatsoever.

 

2.      A Declaration that the refusal of the Defendants to implement the Government white paper on a report of the Presidential Committee on the consolidation of emoluments in the Public Sector made in December 2006 directing that “the undue dichotomy and ceiling on the Salary grade level/ranks attainable by Higher National Diploma Holders should be removed” is illegal, null and void and amount to an unfair labour practice and a violation of the fundamental rights of the Claimants.

 

3.      A Declaration that the refusal of the Defendants to review the scheme of service in view of promoting the Claimants beyond level 14 in the Federal Civil Service since 2006 when the Federal Government of Nigeria accepted the recommendation of the Government white paper on the report of the Presidential Committee on the consolidation of emoluments in the Public sector made in December 2006 directing that “the undue dichotomy and ceiling on the salary grade level/ranks attainable by Higher National Diploma holders should be removed” amounts to an unfair labour practice, discriminatory and a breach of the fundamental rights of the claimants.

 

4.      An order directing the Defendants to implement the Federal Government acceptance of the 2006 recommendation of the Government white paper on the consolidation of emoluments in the Public Sector that “the undue dichotomy and ceiling on the salary grade level/ranks attainable by Higher National Diploma holders should be removed.

 

5.      An order directing the Defendants to review the scheme of service and issue directives to all Government Ministries, Agencies, Parastatals and employees of the Higher National Diploma holders in all Government institutions in Nigeria to remove the ceiling on the salary grade level/ranks attainable by all Higher National  Diploma Holders in their employment and promote the Higher National Diploma Holders beyond level 14 as their counterpart with degree certificates in the Government  Ministries, Agencies, parastatals in all government institutions in Nigeria.

 

6.      An order directing the Defendants to issue directives to all Government Ministries, Agencies, Parastatals and employees of Higher National Diploma Holders in all Government institutions in Nigeria to promote all Higher National Diploma Holders whose promotions have been stagnated on level 14 for years to rank of their counterparts with degree certificates.

 

7.      An order of this Honourable Court directing the Defendants to promote the Claimant who has been stagnated on GL 14 since 2011 till date to the same grade level with her counterparts with degree certificates forthwith.

 

[2] The 1st Defendant filed a memorandum of conditional appearance, and a statement of defence without the accompanying processes on 8th December 2021. The 2nd and 3rd Defendants filed a joint amended statement of defence together with the accompanying processes on 18 February 2022. The 2nd and 3rd Defendants were not present at the trial despite being served with hearing notices.

Case of the Claimant

[3] The Claimant’s case on the pleadings is that she is an employee of the Federal Government of Nigeria and is suing in a representative capacity for herself and on behalf of all Higher National Diploma holders in the public service of Nigeria. The Claimant avers that she is a holder of a National Diploma certificate in Irrigation Engineering and Higher National Diploma certificate in Agricultural Engineering from Kaduna State Polytechnic November 1994. The Claimant averred that she was first employed by the 1st Defendant as an Assistant Technical Officer on the 13th of February 1991 in the Ministry of Water Resources and Rural Development. The Claimant further averred that her last promotion was 26th March 2012 to grade level 14 as Chief Technical Officer; and that her counterparts with degree certificates have enjoyed several promotions. She stated that the refusal of the Defendants to promote her and her colleagues in the public service with Higher National Diploma certificates has resulted in them remaining on Grade Level 14 while their counterparts with degree certificates enjoy promotion and progression in service to Grade Level 17.

[4] The Claimant stated that Mrs. Owolabi Bosede Christiana, and Mr. Umechukwu Chuba who were initially parties to this suit but have since retired from service are Higher National Diploma holders. She further stated that the 1st Defendant employed them both as Higher Technical Officer, and Assistant Technical Officer respectively. The Claimant averred that Mrs. Owolabi Bosede Christiana’s qualifications include a Post Graduate Diploma in Water Resources Engineering from the National Water Resources Institute Kaduna in 2004, Post Graduate Diploma in computer science from the Federal University of Technology Minna in 1999, Masters Degree in Civil Engineering from the Federal University of Technology, Minna in 2012, and she is a registered member of the Council for the Regulation of Engineering in Nigeria (COREN). The Claimant stated that Mrs. Owolabi Bosede Christiana last promotion by the 1st Defendant was 13th  November 2006 with effect from the 1st of January 2005 to Grade Level 14 as Chief Technical Officer in the Ministry of Water Resource; and she retired 22nd June 2018 on that level.

 [5] The Claimant averred that Mr. Umechukwu Chuba also holds a a post Graduate Diploma in Geological Sciences (Water Resources) from Nnamdi Azikiwe University Awka in 1995, Master of Business Administration (MBA) in Project Management Technology from the Federal University of Technology Owerri in March 2004, and he is a registered member of the Council for the Regulation of Engineering in Nigeria (COREN), member Nigerian Association of Technologist in Engineering, and a Corporate Member of the Nigerian Mining and Geosciences Society. The Claimant further averred that Mr. Umechukwu Chuba’s last promotion by the 1st Defendant was 1st of January 2005 with effect from 1st of January 2006 to Grade Level 14 as Chief Technical Officer in the Ministry of Water Resources; and he was retired from the service of the 1st Defendant on 16 August 2018. The Claimant averred that despite their qualifications and experience, Mrs. Owolabi Bosede Christiana and Mr. Umechukwu Chuba remained on Grade Level 14 as Chief Technical Officers for 13 years while their counterparts with first Degrees enjoyed promotion up to Grade Level 17.

[6] The Claimant averred that the Federal Government in a bid to harmonize the civil service structure and remove the dichotomy and ceiling on the salary grade level/rank attainable by Higher National Diploma holders adopted the recommendation contained in the government white paper on the report of the Presidential Committee on the consolidation of emoluments in the public sector in 2006. She stated that in paragraph 6.2, government accepted the recommendation and directed that the dichotomy and ceiling on the salary grade level/rank attainable by Higher National Diploma holders should be removed. The Claimant further averred that Government further directed that current scheme of service should be reviewed to reflect the recommendation. The Claimant aver that till date the Defendants whom are saddled with the responsibility of implementing this recommendations since 2006 has failed to act on it and review the scheme of service as directed by the Federal Government. The Claimant stated that the failure of the Defendants to implement the recommendations have greatly affected her career progression and that of all Higher National Diploma holders in the Public Service of the Federation who cannot progress beyond SLG 14 regardless of their qualification.

[7] The Claimant averred that the Federal Executive Council at its 9th meeting of Wednesday, 14th March, 2007 concluded amongst other things that Higher National Diploma certificates would remain legal tender and that Higher National Diplomas graduates would continue to be recognized as the equivalent of first-degree holders without discriminatory remunerations and limits to progression in their work places. The Claimant stated that a two day stakeholders forum was convened by the Federal Ministry of Education from 15th to 16th of June, 2009 on the strategies for the implementation of Government policy on the achievement of parity between Higher National Diploma (HND) and First-Degree Qualifications. The Claimant further stated that the 2nd Defendant had earlier directed that Higher National Diploma holders could run their career to GL 17 and that the discrimination be removed in a letter dated 3rd June 2009 sent to the Corps Marshal of the Federal Road Safety Commission. That by another letter dated 23rd April 2013 addressed to the Sole Administrator Ajaokuta Steel Company, this directive was rescinded and the discrimination against holders of the Higher National Diploma continued. 

[8] The Claimant averred that on the 11th of March, 2013 she instructed her  Solicitors, Falana & Falana’s Chambers to write the 2nd Defendant urging them to comply and implement the various directives of the committees set up to look into the crisis to no avail. That the Claimants’ solicitors further wrote to the 4thDefendant requesting the implementation of the White Paper but the 4thDefendant replied to the effect that he is only to advise the Secretary to the Federal Government whose duty it was to implement same. The Claimant further averred that she and other Higher National Diploma holders took steps to settle this matter out of court with the Defendants as they were reassured of the implementation of the white paper but instead the Defendants issued a circular on the 8th day of September 2016 only approving the entry point for Higher National Diploma holders placing them on GL 08. In another circular dated the 26th of March 2018 , the Defendants issued a clarification on the position of the circular dated 8th September 2016 and gave conditions for progression beyond GL 14 for Higher National Diploma holders contrary to the recommendations of the 2006 white paper and the Federal Executive Council conclusions on the 14th of March 2007. The Claimant states that the Defendants are unwilling to implement the recommendation of the 2006 white paper and the Executive Council conclusions.

[9] The Claimant (CW1) and Mrs. Owolabi Bosede Christiana (CW2) testified. They adopted their statements on oath. CW1 informed the court during cross examination that she had exhausted all the options in the Public Service Rules. That she and other Higher National Diploma holders wrote as a group to the Head of Service and the National Assembly. CW1 told the court that they have been on this issue for parity since President Obasanjo was in office; and that the white paper was issued but the Head of Service failed to implement it. CW1 confirmed that she is aware that promotion is not a right but a privilege. She told the court that after her promotion to level 14 no invitation was extended to her for a promotion for 12 years and that this is the plight of officers with Higher National Diploma in Public Service.

[10] CW2 told the court that she retired from service upon attaining the age of 60; and that she was a party in the case before her retirement. CW2 admitted that no letter was given to her to sue on behalf of the Higher Diploma Holders in Public Service. She admitted that she enjoyed series of promotion up to Grade Level 14. CW2 said she is not aware that the Federal Civil Service Commission cannot implement policies without budgetary appropriation, and the wages and salaries commission.

Case of the Defendants

[11] The 1st Defendant filed a statement of defence without the accompanying processes, thereby filing an incompetent statement of defence. Counsel to the 1st Defendant cross-examined CW1 and CW2 at the trial. The 2nd and 3rd Defendants filed a joint amended statement of defence together with the accompanying processes but took no part in the proceedings and the trial. On the dates fixed for the Defendants to present their case, they were absent from Court. Consequently, the Defendants were foreclosed.

Final Address

[12] Claimant’s final address is dated 18th February 2024 and is filed on 24th February 2025. The Defendant’s did not file final addresses in response to the Claimant’s final address. The Claimant submitted two issues for determination as follows:

a.      Whether by virtue of the Government White Paper on the report of the Presidential Committee on the consolidation of emoluments in the public sector made in December 2006 and the acceptance by the Federal Government and further directive that the undue dichotomy and ceiling on the salary grade level/rank attainable by Higher National Diploma Holders be removed and the further acceptance of this recommendation by the Federal Executive Council of the Federation wherein it was noted that HND certificates would remain legal tender in Nigeria and holders of such certificates would continue to be recognized as the equivalent of first degree holders without discriminatory remunerations and limits to progression in the work place the Claimants are not entitled to career progression and remuneration in the Public Service  of  Federation equivalent of first degree holders without discriminatory remunerations and limits to progression in the work place.

 

b.      Whether by virtue of the Government White Paper on the Report of the Presidential Committee on the consolidation of emoluments in the public sector made in December 2006 and the further acceptance of this recommendation by the Federal Executive Council of the Federation, the Defendants can refuse to implement the said white paper report and Federal Executive Council recommendation, by refusing to review the scheme of service of promoting the Claimant’s beyond level 14 in the Federal Civil Service of the Federation since 2006 till date and said action of not implementing the white paper report does not amount to an act of unfair labor practice, an act of discrimination, illegal, null and void.

 

[13] Learned counsel on issue 1 submitted that the suit is undefended, and that from the totality of the evidence adduced, the Claimant has proved her case. He submitted that the recommendations of a White paper are binding on Government agencies and has the force of law, and where it is passed its implementation is mandatory citing Ogbuji & Ors v. Ogbonna & Ors (2024) LPELR-62168 (SC), Bajowa v. FRN & Ors (2016) LPELR-40229 (CA). He submitted that by the said recommendations, the Claimants progression at work, in salary and grade level beyond Grade Level 14 was automatic from the date the white paper was issued in 2006 and the Defendants had no power or authority to deny the Claimants progression in their work place.

 

[14] Learned counsel on issue 2 submitted that the Defendants are Agents of the Federal Government of Nigeria and must exercise their powers within the limit of the authority or instructions given to them by the principal citing Amasike v. The Registrar General, C.A.C. & Anor (2010) LPELR-456(SC). He submitted that the failure of the Defendants to implement the White paper  is a gross violation of the inalienable right of the Claimants and all Higher National Diploma Holders in the Public Service of the Federation who are entitled to career progression beyond GL 14 from 2006. It was his submission that the Defendants refusal to implement Government recommendations amounts to an act of unfair labor practice, and a discrimination against all Higher National Diploma holders who are entitled to be on equal standing with University Degree holders since 2006. He argued that this violates their rights as Nigerian Citizens who are entitled to be treated fairly and equally with their counterparts. He cited Lafia Local Govt v Executive Govt Nasarawa State & Ors (2012) LPELR-20602 (SC).

[15] Learned counsel submitted that this discrimination is evidenced by the testimony of CW1, CW2 and Exhibits C1- C3 which are unchallenged and the Court is bound to act on same as true and credible citing Nzeribe v Dave Engineering Co. Ltd (1994) LPELR-2141(SC); Osung v. State (2012) LPELR-9720(SC). He then urged the Court to resolve the issues in favour of the Claimants, and grant their reliefs. 

Decision

[16] I have carefully considered the originating processes, the evidence and the submissions in the final address. This is a matter that is undefended. The effect of a party’s failure to file a defence in a claim against him/her is that he/she is presumed to have admitted the case made against him/her by the other party; and a trial court has little or no choice than to accept the unchallenged and un-controverted case placed before it by the Claimant. See Ifeta v Shell Petroleum Development Corporation of Nigeria Ltd [2006] Vol.6, MJSC 123, Consolidated Res Ltd v Abofar Ventures Nig. [2007] 6 NWLR (Pt 1030) 221, Okolie v Marinho [2006] 15 NWLR (Pt 1002) 316. This however does not mean automatic victory for the Claimant because she must succeed on the strength of her case and not rely on the fact that there is no defence before the Court. The absence of a defence does not exonerate the Claimant of the evidential burden of proof placed on her in Section 131 (1) & (2) Evidence Act 2011, see also Ogunyade v Oshunkeye [2007] 15 NWLR (Pt 1057) 218.

[17] The claims of the Claimant and those she represents are in the main declaratory. The burden of proof in establishing declaratory reliefs to the satisfaction of the Court is heavy in the sense that such declaratory reliefs are not granted even on admission of the Defendants where the Claimant fails to establish her entitlement to the declaration by her own evidence. In other words, a declaration of right against the Defendants cannot be made on admission, neither can it be made in default of pleadings or failure to file a defence. The Claimant has to succeed on the strength of her own case only if the Court is satisfied by evidence, and not on the fact that the suit is undefended, see Dumez v Nwakhoba (2008) 18 NWLR (Pt 1119) 361 at 373-374, GE International Operations Nig Ltd v Q Oil & Gas Services Ltd [2016] 10 NWLR (Pt 1520) 304. The Claimant must adduce credible evidence worthy of belief. Evidence does not become credible merely because it is unchallenged, see Akalonu v Omokaro [2003] 8 NWLR (Pt 821) 190, Chabasaya v Anwasi (2010) LPELR-839 (SC).

 

[18] The issues that arise for determination are as follows:

1)     Whether the Defendants have failed to act on the directive of Government in the White paper that the dichotomy and ceiling on the Salary Grade Level/ Rank attainable by Higher National Diploma holders should be removed?

 

2)     Whether the Claimant and those she represents have adduced credible evidence that entitles them to the declarations sought?

[19] The law is settled that in the determination of employment rights, it is the employee who complains that his/her employment contract has been breached that has the burden to place before the Court the terms and conditions of his/her employment that provide for his/her rights and obligations, see See Buka Modu Aji v Chad Basin Development Authority & Anor [2015] 3-4 SC (Pt. III) 1 at 15, Oforishe v Nigerian Gas Co Ltd (2017) LPELR-42766 (SC), Nigeria Security Printing & Minting Plc v Charles Umoh [2022] LPELR-56924 (CA), Kablemetal Nig Ltd v Ativie (2002) 10 NWLR (Pt 775) 250, Okomu Oil Palm Co v Iserhienrhien [2001] 6 NWLR (Pt. 710) 660 at 673.

[20] The Claimant has placed before the Court her National Diploma certificate (Exhibit C1), Higher National Diploma (Exhibit C2), NYSC certificate (Exhibit C3), letter of temporary appointment (Exhibit C4), appointment gazette (Exhibit C5), notification of promotion (Exhibit C6), Higher National Diploma of CW2 (Exhibit C15), NYSC certificate of CW2 (Exhibit C16), appointment letter of CW2 (Exhibit C17), CW2 post graduate diplomas (C18 and C19), CW2 Masters Degree (Exhibit C20), CW2 notification of promotion (Exhibit C21), CW2 COREN certificate (Exhibit C22). The Claimant has also placed before the Court the White Paper December 2006 (Exhibit C7), extract from conclusions (Exhibit C8), stakeholders report and communiqué (Exhibits C9 and C13), letter to Corp Marshal (Exhibit C10), circulars (Exhibits C11 and C12), counsel requests for certification (Exhibit C14).

[21] The Claimant (CW1) was appointed on 13th February 1991 as Assistant Technical Officer on Salary Grade Level 06/1 in the Federal Ministry of Water Resources (Exhibit C4). I find that the Claimant is a civil servant/public officer. Aside from her letter of appointment, and that of CW2, there is no other document placed before the Court that contains the terms and conditions governing their appointment, and the schemes of service. In other words, the Claimant who is a civil servant/public officer has not placed before the Court the Public Service Rules and the schemes of service that govern her appointment, and the appointment of those she represents. The law places the evidential burden on her, see Buka Modu Aji v Chad Basin Development Authority supra.  CW2 was appointed as Higher Technical Officer Salary Grade Level 08 step 2 with effect from 25th May 1989 (Exhibit C17). I find that CW1 and CW2 were appointed into the Technical Officer Cadre.

[22] The Government in the White Paper on the Report of the Presidential Committee on the Consolidation of Emoluments in the Public Sector December 2006 (Exhibit C7) accepted the recommendation that for the purpose of relativity, entrants into the Public Service “must have the full opportunity to reach the highest grade if they are found competent.” Government directed that: “ The undue dichotomy and ceiling on the Salary Grade Level/Rank attainable by Higher National Diploma holders should be removed.” In evidence is a circular signed by the Head of Service (Exhibit C11) stating that the National Council on Establishments at its 39th meeting on 22nd July 2016 approved the entry point/salary placement of GL. 08 for all candidates appointed into the service with Higher National Diploma (HND), obtained from Higher Institutions accredited by the National Board for Technical Education (NBTE).

[23] The Claimant has also placed before the Court a circular (Exhibit C12) issued by the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation. It is reproduced as follows:

CIRCULAR

                                                                        HCSF/SPOS/ODD/NCE:100/S.8/T

                                                                        The Presidency,

                                                                        Office of the Head of the Civil Service

                                                                        of the Federation,

                                                                        26th March, 2018

 

CLARIFICATION ON THE REVIEW OF SALARY ENTRY POINT FOR HOLDERS OF HIGHER NATIONAL DIPLOMA (HND) IN THE CIVIL SERVICE

 

Following several request for clarification of the provisions of circular ref. no. HCSF/EPO/EIR/CND/100/S.T/98 of the 8th September, 2016 and to ensure uniformity in interpretation, it has become necessary to reiterate that the National Council on Establishments (NCE) approved an enhanced entry point of salary Grade Level 08 for all Higher National Diploma (HND holders in the Civil service).  However, serving officers who possess the HND are required to fulfill the conditions specified in the scheme of service and extant rules for progression beyond SGL 14 and/or conversion into the officer cadre.

2.         Such officers can use the additional post Graduate Diploma (PGD) as a bridge to acquiring Master’s degree in the relevant field to qualify them for entry into the officer cadre.  Those who possess the professional qualifications and membership of professional bodies approved by the National Council on Establishment (NCE) and included in the Scheme of Service such as the Council for the Regulation of Engineering in Nigeria (COREN), the Institute of Chartered Accountant of Nigeria (ICAN), the Association of National Accountants of Nigeria (ANAN) etc., in addition to the HND are eligible for conversion into officer cadre and advance beyond SGL.14.

3.         Please bring the contents of this circular to the attention of all concerned.

Ndubuisi Osuji

Permanent Secretary (SPSO)

For: Head of the Civil Service of the Federation

 

[24] The above circular speaks for itself. It explains how the HND holder can advance beyond Grade Level 14. Both circulars reveal that after the White Paper, there was an enhanced entry point for Higher National Diploma (HND) holders to salary Grade Level 08 in the Civil service. Furthermore, the conditions for conversion to the officer cadre that will enable advancement beyond Salary Grade Level 14 is stated. The circular expressly states that serving officers who possess the HND are required to fulfill the conditions specified in the Scheme of Service and the Public Service Rules, use additional post Graduate Diploma (PGD) as a bridge to acquiring a Master’s degree in the relevant field to qualify for progression beyond Salary Grade Level 14 and/or conversion into the officer cadre. It goes further to state that “those who possess the professional qualifications and membership of professional bodies approved by the National Council on Establishment (NCE) and included in the scheme of service such as the Council for the Regulation of Engineering in Nigeria (COREN), the Institute of Chartered Accountant of Nigeria (ICAN), the Association of National Accountants of Nigeria (ANAN), in addition to the HND are eligible for conversion into officer cadre and advance beyond SGL.14.

[25] All of these are steps taken by the Defendants towards implementation of Government directives in the White Paper that the dichotomy and ceiling on the Salary Grade Level/Rank attainable by Higher National Diploma holders should be removed. The Claimant has alleged that after her promotion to Salary Grade Level 14 no invitation was extended to her for a promotion for 12 years. Aside from the Claimant’s HND certificate, she has not placed any evidence before the Court to show that she fulfilled the conditions specified in the Public Service Rules and the scheme of service; and that she obtained additional qualifications specified in the circular for progression beyond Salary Grade Level 14 and/or conversion into the officer cadre. There is no evidence before the court that the Claimant applied for conversion to the officer cadre and that she was denied. There is evidence that CW2 while in service obtained the additional qualifications specified in the circular. However, she did not testify and there is no evidence that she applied for conversion to the officer cadre was denied this by the 1st and 2nd Defendants; neither did she state that she had fulfilled the conditions specified in the Public Service Rules and the scheme of service. It is the responsibility of the Claimant, CW2, and all the officers with HND certificates represented in this suit to meet the conditions specified in the circular, and apply for conversion to the officer cadre to enable progression beyond Salary Grade Level 17.

[26] The Claimant asserts that she was not invited for promotion and has spent 12 years on Grade Level 14 because the Defendants refused to implement the Government directives in the White Paper. This is not supported by evidence. It would be wrong for the 1st and 2nd Defendants to invite the Claimant and those she represents for a promotion exercise when they have not met the requirements stipulated in the circular, the scheme of service, and the Public Service Rules that would qualify them for promotion. From the evidence placed before the court by the Claimant, conversion from the technical cadre to the officer cadre is a step to be taken for progression. This is not a denial of promotion. The Claimant by her own evidence admits that promotion is not a right, but a privilege. CW2 testified that she enjoyed series of promotions to Salary Grade Level 14, but failed to produce evidence that she applied for conversion from the Technical cadre to the Officer cadre to enable her progression before she retired from service and was refused conversion and promotion. The failure of the Claimant’s to place before the Court the Public Service Rules, and the Schemes of Service governing their appointment has not helped their case.

[27] From the totality of the evidence, I find that the Defendants have implemented the Government directives in the White Paper; and I so hold. The Claimant and all the officers represented in this suit have failed to prove their case.

[28] Consequently, all the Declarations sought by the Claimant and those represented fail, and they are refused. The Declarations having failed, the ancillary orders sought in reliefs 4, 5, 6, and 7 must also fail having no foundation, see Olayemi v. FHA (2023) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1872) 445 at500, Para E (SC); Ogoke v. Nduka (2020) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1715) 509 at 529, Paras A-G (CA); Sunko (Nig) Ltd v. Skye Bank Plc (2017)12 NWLR (Pt. 1579) 237 at 270, Paras F-H (CA); Nwaogu v Atuma (2013)11 NWLR (Pt. 1364)117 at 156, Para D (SC).

 [29] The Case is dismissed. Each party is to bear its own costs.

 

Judgment is entered accordingly.

 

 

____________________________

Hon Justice O. A. Obaseki-Osaghae