IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT ABUJA

 

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HONOURABLE JUSTICE O. Y. ANUWE

 

Dated: 26^th November 2025                              SUIT NO: NICN/ABJ/191/2020

 

Between:

 

1.        Mrs. Eze Veronica Chima

2.        Mrs. Herbert Lilian Ekwutosi                                                 

(Both suing for themselves and as the                                                       Claimants

Administrators of the Estate of the late

Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze)

 

And

 

1.  Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC)                 

2.  Head of Service of the Federation                                                      Defendants

3.  The Federal Civil Service Commission                                                                   

                                                                                                               

Representation:

Benjamin Ogbaini, with him, John Ochoche for the Claimants

Abdulrazak Abdulganiyu, with him, Progress A. Imoudu for the 1^st Defendant

 

 JUDGMENT

The claimants instituted this suit vide a Complaint filed on 3^rd August 2020. With the leave of the Court, the claimants amended the statement of facts a number of times, the last one being the amended statement of facts filed on 10^th March 2023. The reliefs sought by the claimants in the amended statement of facts are as follows:

1.       A declaration that the late Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze was duly appointed and retired as Group Executive Director (Finance & Accounts) of the Defendant (Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation).

2.       A declaration that the late Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze's pensionable years of service in the Federal Civil Service was merged, by virtue of which he became pensionable as a staff of the Defendant upon retiring from the services of the said Defendant.

3.       A declaration that the years of service of the late Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze's pensionable years of service in the Federal Civil Service having been merged, and having retired in the NNPC, he is entitled to be paid his retirement and other benefits due to every staff of his status and standing, retiring and retired from the Defendant, and payable by the said Defendant.

4.       An order directing the 1st Defendant to immediately pay to the Claimants, the retirement and all other benefits payable and due to its retiring, retired and deceased employees of the status and standing of the late Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze who was a Group Executive Director until his retirement, having effectively retired and pensionable from the services of the Defendant.

5.       An order directing the Defendant to pay to the Claimants, all the benefits due and payable to the late Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze a deceased pensionable and retired staff of the Corporation, to the late Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze.

6.       An order mandating the 1^st Defendant to pay the sum of N300,000,000 to the Claimants for the humiliation, psychological trauma, failed health, prolonged illness due to lack of funds for treatment and consequent death of their Principal (Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze) arising from the failure, refusal and neglect of the said 1^st Defendant to pay him his entitlements and benefits upon his being compulsorily retired.

7.       An order mandating the 1st Defendant to pay the sum of N400,000,000 to the Claimants as compensation for the neglect, pain and suffering Mr. Wifred Chukwuemeka Eze was subjected to by the failure, neglect and refusal of the 1^st Defendant to pay Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze his benefits and entitlements as at and when due.

8.       An order mandating the 1^st Defendant to pay the sum of N400,000,000 to the Claimants as general damages for their failure, refusal, delay and neglect to pay Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze his benefits and entitlements upon being compulsorily retired.

9.       An order mandating the 1^st Defendant to pay the sum of N400,000,000 to the Claimants as compensation for the loss of their breadwinner, husband and father due to the 1^st Defendant's neglect, refusal and or failure to pay Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze his benefits and entitlements upon being compulsorily retired.

10.    An order mandating the Defendants to pay the sum of N50,000,000 to the Claimants as costs.

 

The 1^st defendant filed an amended statement of defence on 12^th December 2023 while the 2^nd defendant filed a statement of defence on 2^nd February 2022. The 3^rd defendant did not file any statement of defence in the suit. 

 

This suit was originally assigned to Hon. Justice O. O. Oyewumi, who is now a Justice of the Court of Appeal. In the proceedings of 8^th March 2023, learned counsels for the parties agreed that the matter be argued on record pursuant to Order 38 Rule 33 of the Rules of this court. Based on the consent of the parties, the Court ordered that the suit be argued on record, and directed counsels to file their final written addresses. Hon. Justice O. O. Oyewumi was subsequently elevated to the Court of Appeal. That was when the suit was re-assigned to me. When the suit came before me on 25^th February 2025, counsels for the parties informed the court of the agreement of parties to have the suit tried on record. I also granted the request of parties. The final written addresses of the parties were filed subsequently. The Claimants filed their final written address on 9^th April 2025 while the 1^st Defendant filed its final written address on 16^th May 2025. The Claimants filed a reply on points of law on 30^th June 2025. The 2^nd and 3^rd Defendants did not file final written addresses. The Claimants and the 1^st Defendant adopted their respective Final Written addresses on 3^rd October 2025.

 

Order 38 Rule 33(1) of the Rules of this Court permits parties to, upon the close of pleadings, elect or agree for a trial on record. The procedure in trial on record is that the parties rely only on the pleadings and exhibits frontloaded for the determination of the suit, and thereby dispense with the need for oral testimony and/or cross-examination of witnesses. In view of the procedure in Order 38 Rule 33(1), this suit is to be determined on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and the documents frontloaded with the pleadings. Thus, to determine this suit, the starting point is to examine the facts pleaded by the parties.

 

FACTS PLEADED BY THE CLAIMANTS

In the 3^rd amended statement of facts of the claimants, they averred as follows: Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze, now deceased, was a staff of the 1^st defendant. He held the position of Group Executive Director, Finance & Accounts until he was compulsorily retired from the employment of the 1^st defendant on 7^th August 1995. Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze died on 19^th April 2019. The 1^st Claimant is the only wife and widow of Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze while the 2^nd claimant is the daughter of Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze. Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze died intestate and following his death, the claimants applied for and were issued Letters of Administration, dated 25^th June 2020, over the Estate of Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze. Both claimants are the Administrators of the Estate of the Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze.

 

Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze was appointed into the service of the 1^st defendant vide a letter dated 8^th October 1993 as the Executive Director (Finance & Accounts). By another letter dated 11^th October 1993, the 1^st Defendant conveyed the approval of the Secretary of Petroleum & Mineral Resources for the appointment of Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze as the Acting Group Executive Director, Finance & Accounts in the 1^st defendant. The then Head of State and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Chief Ernest Shonekan, thereafter approved the appointment of Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze as the Group Executive Director, Finance & Accounts of the 1^st defendant vide a press release dated 2^nd November 1993 issued by the Office of the Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Mineral Resources. Following the approval of the appointment of Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze, the Defendant issue him a Letter of Appointment dated 3^rd November 1993 on GSS16 and the appointment was made effective from 2^nd November 1993.

 

In a letter dated 26^th April 1995 and titled "Desecondment", Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze was purportedly deseconded back to the Federal Ministry of Finance. The letter of desecondment prompted the Ministry of Finance to draw the attention of the 1^st Defendant, in a letter dated 23^rd May 1995, to the fact that Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze was not seconded to the 1^st Defendant but was appointed the substantive Group Executive Director (Finance & Accounts) of the 1^st Defendant by the Head of State, Chief Ernest Shonekan. The Ministry of Finance further advised the 1^st Defendant to withdraw the letter of desecondment and recall Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze to resume his normal work with the 1^st Defendant. The Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation, General Services, also wrote a letter dated 14^th June 1995 to the Group Managing Director of the 1^st Defendant to explain that the Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze was not seconded to the 1^st Defendant but that he was appointed as the Group Executive Director, Finance & Accounts by the Head of State. A copy of this letter was forwarded to Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze by the Office of the Accountant General of the Federation vide a letter dated 7^th July 1995. Rather than comply with the directives, the 1^st Defendant retired Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze from service vide the letter dated 7^th August 1995. In another letter dated 29^th August 1995, the 1^st Defendant informed Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze that his entitlements, which include his salary up to and including the 7^th August 1995; three months salary in lieu of notice; cash equivalent of due and/or duly authorized deferred leave; gratuity and entitlements under the 1^st Defendant's pension scheme, are being worked out and that he will soon be advised to collect payment.

 

In a letter dated 19^th May 1997, the Presidency, Office of Establishments and Management Services, clarified the fact that Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze’s services had been merged and his pensionable service is recognized from 1^st February 1962 till 12^th May 2003 when he would have attained 60 years of age but excluding periods of unemployment from 26^th June 1976 to 31^st July 1976 and 1^st August 1977 to 13^th August 1977, which would be non-pensionable. Despite this confirmation and clarification provided by the Office of Establishments and Management Services, the Defendant still refused to pay Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze his gratuity, pension and all other entitlements and benefits due and payable to a retired staff of the Defendant. Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze had written several letters, up to the letter of 17^th August 2017, to appeal to the 1^st Defendant to pay his retirement benefits and allowances but the 1^st defendant refused, and this caused the health of Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze to deteriorate as he had no access to his retirement benefits or to the 1^st Defendant's health facilities. Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze eventually died on the 19^th April 2019 without receiving his retirement benefits and entitlements. After the death of Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze, his family wrote several letters to the 1^st defendant to appeal for the payment of his entitlements but the 1^st Defendant ignored the pleas.

 

The 1^st Defendant denied Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze his right and entitlement to pension or retirement benefits on the grounds that Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze was not pensionable even though this issue had been clarified by the Office of Establishments and Management Services in the Presidency vide the letter dated 19^th May 1997 where it was stated that Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze was pensionable as his pensionable service was recognized from 1^st February 1962 to 12^th May 2003. Prior to his death, Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze had written several letters to the 1^st Defendant appealing for the payment of his salary arrears for the months of April, May, June, July and August 1995 and for his pension and gratuity be paid but none of the letters was honoured.

 

Documents frontloaded by the claimants are as listed in the list of documents filed together with the claimants’ 2^nd amended statement of facts. The documents are 26 in number.

 

FACTS PLEADED BY THE 1^ST DEFENDANT

The facts pleaded by the 1^st defendant are as follows: Late Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze was an ex-staff of the 1^st Defendant who was appointed by the then Head of State and he served as the Group Executive Director, Finance & Accounts for less than two years before he was retired by the Head of State who employed him. The 1^st defendant has not received any directive from the Presidency to reinstate Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze and the 1^st Defendant did not retire him. Late Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze was retired by the Ministry of Petroleum and Mineral Resources acting in compliance with the directives of the Head of State. Mr. Chukwuemeka Eze was an employee of the 1^st Defendant for one year, nine months and five days only. That is from 2/11/1993, he was appointed, to 7/8/1995, when he was retired by the Head of State. The entitlement of Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze in the 1^st Defendant is only limited to the time he worked with the 1^st Defendant in accordance with the 1^st Defendant's employment rules and regulation at the time. The 1^st Defendant never received any letter from the Presidency, Office of Establishments and Management Services on the issue of merger of service of the late Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze. The 1^st Defendant has its rules and regulation guiding the hiring of employees as well as the manner in which those employees who have worked in other agencies of government before being employed by the 1^st Defendant can merge their service years. The 1^st Defendant could not have given effect to the letter dated 19^th May 1997 from the Presidency, Office of Establishments and Management Services, because the letter was not received by the 1^st Defendant.

 

There was no application by late Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze to the 1^st Defendant for transfer of service. For late Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze to transfer his service to the 1^st Defendant, the following procedure must have been followed: he must have applied in writing to the 1^st Defendant; the Management Committee of the 1^st Defendant must review and approve the application; the approval is conveyed by the Group Managing Director of the 1^st Defendant. This procedure was never followed by late Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze. The 1^st Defendant did not fail or refuse to pay Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze’s retirement benefits and allowances. The 1^st defendant did not also cause Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze’s death. The reason for the refusal of the 1^st Defendant to pay the late Mr. Chukwuemeka Eze any pension or gratuity is that he worked with the 1^st Defendant for just one year, nine months and five days, and as a result, he did not quality to enjoy pension under the Pension Scheme of the 1^st Defendant. By the provision of the 1^st defendant’s Conditions of Service, an employee entitled to gratuity and or pension if such employee served the 1^st Defendant for at least 10 years. In paragraph 17 of statement of defence, the 1^st defendant set out the provisions of Section 16.4.8 () of the 1^st Defendant's Conditions of

Service, which provides as follows:

            NON-ELIGIBILITY FOR GRATUITY

            An employee who has less than ten (10) years continuous employment with the Corporation or whose service has been transferred or seconded to the Corporation from any public service of Nigeria and whose period of service are in the aggregate less than ten (10) years shall not be eligible for gratuity under the scheme."

 

The 1^st Defendant did not subject late Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze to any form of inhuman treatment. Late Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze was not entitled to pension and gratuity from the 1^st Defendant because his year of service in the 1st Defendant was below 10 years which was the minimum years of service that could have entitled him to pension and gratuity. The letter dated 19^th May 1997 from the Presidency, Office of Establishment and Management Services was addressed to the Accountant General of the Federation, Federal Ministry of Finance where late Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze worked before he was employed into the service of the 1^st Defendant.

 

The only document frontloaded by the 1^st defendant is its condition of service for its employees.

 

FACTS PLEADED BY THE 2^ND DEFENDANT

The averments made by the 2^nd defendant in its statement of defence are as follows: Section 24 of the Pension Reform Act 2014 is clear as to who is responsible for the Claim in issue in this suit. In order to ensure that Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs) of the Federal Government honor their obligations to their Officers, who worked in the Office of the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation (OHCSF) usually intervene administratively to ensure death benefits of their officers are paid. But with the emergence of the Pension Reform Act 2014 all matters relating to Retirement benefits are administered by the Pension Transitional Arrangements Directorate (PTAD). The 2^nd Defendant is not responsible for the Management of Pension of Retirees nor is it responsible for the death benefits of the Claimants in this suit. The Claimants were informed by the 1^st Defendant via a letter dated 5^th August 2019 that the deceased does not qualify for Pension and gratuity having served the 1^st defendant for only 1 year and nine (9) months instead of a minimum of 10 years and 5years respectively. The 2^nd defendant is not responsible for the payment of the deceased retirement and death benefits nor any entitlement as claimed by the Claimants. The 2^nd Defendant proceeded to claim the following reliefs in the statement of defence:

1.     A declaration that, by the provisions of Pension Reform Act, 2004, and Pension Reform Act, 2014, being the applicable legislations for Employees in any arm of the Federal Civil Service, the 2^nd Defendant is not liable for the death benefits of late Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze being claimed in this suit.

2.     A declaration that, the Claimant cannot validly confer authority on the 2^nd Defendant in 2021 through the institution of this suit to assume responsibility for the death benefits of late Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze is in violation of clear provisions of Acts of Parliament.

3.     A declaration that, by the clear provisions of Pension Reform Act, 2004 and Pension Reform, 2014, which this Court is hereby urged to take Judicial Notice of, the 2^nd Defendant is not liable for any of the Claims of the Claimants in this suit.

4.     A declaration that this Court is established by law and will not act contrary to law to hold the 2^nd Defendant liable to any of the claims of the Claimant in the face of clear provisions of the Pension Reform Act, 2004 and Pension Reform Act, 2014.

5.     A declaration that, the Claimant's case has not disclosed any wrongful act of the 2^nd Defendant under any of the applicable Legislations, and that the 2^nd Defendant is not a necessary party to this suit.

6.     An order dismissing the case the Claimant brought against the 2^nd Defendant on the ground that the Claimant's case has not disclosed any reasonable cause of action against the 2^nd Defendant as required by law.

7.     An order striking out the name of the 2^nd Defendant from this suit on the ground that, the presence of the 2^nd Defendant in this matter affects the proper constitution of the case with respect to parties.

8.     An order that the presence in a suit, of a party against whom there is no cause of action according to the relevant laws, affects the competence of the suit for adjudication.

 

The 2^nd defendant did not frontload any document.

 

FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESSES

The Claimants’ Final Written Address was filed on the 9^th day of April, 2025. Three issues were submitted for the Court’s determination. I have considered and evaluated all the submissions and arguments canvassed in the said Final Written Address of the Claimants. I do not see the need to rehash their contents herein. However necessary reference will be made to them in the course of this judgment.

 

The 1^st Defendant’s Final Written Address was filed on the 16^th day of May 2025. Two issues were submitted for the court’s determination. I have thoroughly considered and evaluated all the submissions and arguments canvassed in the said Final Written Address of the 1^st Defendant. I do not see any need to rehash the contents herein. However necessary reference will be made to them in the course of this judgment.

 

The Claimants also filed a Reply on points of law on 30^th June 2025, the contents of which I have equally considered and evaluated. Any necessary reference will be made to them in the course of this judgment.

 

DECISION

In paragraph 23 of the amended statement of defence filed by the 1^st defendant, the 1^st defendant averred that it shall raise, at the hearing of this suit, the issues whether or not the Claimants have any locus to institute this action and whether or not this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. In issue 1 of the 1^st defendant’s final address, it was submitted that the claimants’ suit is statute barred by the effect of section 12 of the NNPC Act, and that the claimants have no locus standi to institute or maintain this suit. Elaborate arguments were made on the 2 points in paragraphs 11 to 41 of the 1^st defendant’s final address. The claimants’ responses to the 2 points of objection are contained in paragraphs 2.04 to 2.23 of their final written address. I have considered the arguments made by the parties for and against the 2 points of objection.

 

The 1^st defendant relied on section 12 of the NNPC Act, LFN 2004 in its contention that this suit is statute barred. The NNPC Act has been repealed in section 310[1] (e) of the Petroleum Industry Act 2021. As at the date this court was considering the objection of the 1^st defendant, the Act under which the objection was brought was no longer a valid legislation. I cannot therefore use a repealed legislation to determine whether or not this suit is statute barred.

 

On the issue that the claimants lack locus standi to institute this suit, Order 11 Rules 1 and 4 of the Rules of this court grants a right of action on a next of kin or beneficiary or a person appointed as the administrator of the estate of a deceased employee, who died intestate, to claim for the outstanding salary, gratuity, pensions, benefits or any other entitlement of a deceased employee from the employer. The Rule requires the claimant to produce proof of the next of kinship or relationship, or Letter of Administration to be entitled to bring and maintain the action.

 

The claimants have shown in paragraphs 1, 2 and 25 of the amended statement of facts that they are the wife and daughter, respectively, of Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze who died intestate on 19^th April 2019. The claimants also disclosed that they are the Administrators of the Estate of the late Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze. I have seen the Letter of Administration granted on 31^st May 2020 by the Probate Registry of the High Court of Enugu State to the claimants as Administrators of the Estate of Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze. The claimants also showed that Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze was appointed into the service of the 1^st defendant in 1993 and he was retired in 1995. According to the claimants, Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze was not paid his pension and gratuity until he died in 2019. Their claims in this case are principally for the court to determine whether Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze was entitled to be paid pension and gratuity by the 1^st defendant and if the court finds in the affirmative, to make orders compelling the 1^st defendant to pay his entitlements to the claimants, being the beneficiaries and Administrators of his Estate.

 

Where salaries, allowances, pension, gratuity and other benefits is owed to an employee who has died, his next of kin, beneficiary of his estate or an appointed administrator for his estate is vested with the locus standi to sue the employer to recover the outstanding payments. In other words, a claim for outstanding salary, gratuity, pensions, benefit or any other entitlement of a deceased employee survives the deceased employee and can be recovered in an action by the next of kin, beneficiary or the appointed administrator. I find that the claimants have shown sufficient locus standi to institute this suit.

 

The 2^nd defendant filed a statement of defence where it sought a total of 8 claims in paragraph 8 thereof. The claims were not headed or indicated to be a counter claim. The claims set out in paragraph 8 of the statement of defence of the 2^nd defendant are in violation of the provisions of Order 32 Rule 5 of the Rules of this Court and they are accordingly struck out.

 

The parties in this suit, having consented to the procedure of trial on record, this suit will accordingly be determined using only the facts pleaded by the parties and the documents frontloaded by them. I have observed, from the facts pleaded by the claimants and the 1^st defendant, that the issue involved in this suit is simply whether or not the late Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze is entitled to be paid pension and gratuity by the 1^st defendant after his retirement from the service of the 1^st defendant. I think this issue can conveniently be resolved from the pleaded facts and the documents frontloaded by the parties.

 

The case of the claimants is that Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze was appointed into the service of the 1^st defendant in October 1993 and he was retired from the service of the 1^st Defendant on 7^th August 1995. In a letter dated 29^th August 1995, the 1^st Defendant informed Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze that his entitlements, which include his salary up to and including the 7^th August 1995; three months salary in lieu of notice; cash equivalent of due and/or duly authorized deferred leave; gratuity and entitlements under the 1^st Defendant's pension scheme, were being worked out and that he will soon be paid. Since his retirement however, the 1^st defendant failed and refused to pay Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze his gratuity, pension and all other entitlements and benefits due and payable to a retired staff of the 1^st Defendant up till the time Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze died on 19^th April 2019.

 

On its part, the 1^st defendant explained the reason for non-payment of gratuity and pension to Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze. It averred that the refusal to pay the late Mr. Chukwuemeka Eze any pension or gratuity was because by the provision of the 1^st defendant’s Conditions of Service, an employee is entitled to gratuity and or pension if such an employee served the 1^st Defendant for at least 10 years. In the case of Mr. Chukwuemeka Eze, he worked with the 1^st Defendant for just one year, nine months and five days, and as a result, he did not quality to enjoy pension under the Pension Scheme of the 1^st Defendant. The 1^st defendant also averred that late Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze did not transfer his service to the 1^st Defendant.

 

The case of the claimants is all about the failure of the 1^st defendant to pay the pension and gratuity of Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze since he was retired from the service of the 1^st defendant in August 1995. The first thing the claimants are required to establish in this suit to entitle them to an order of this court to compel the 1^st defendant to pay the pension and gratuity of Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze is what entitled Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze to be paid pension and gratuity by the 1^st defendant upon retirement from its service. The claimants however failed to plead any fact showing that the pension and gratuity which they claim on behalf of Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze was due to him by virtue of the terms of his appointment or the condition of service which regulated his appointment or the PSR or any regulation or law. The claimants did not claim for the payment of the pension and gratuity of Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze on the basis of any condition of service. From their pleading, what they solely relied upon for making the claims is the allegation of the merger of the service of Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze.

 

In paragraph 15 of the amended statement of facts, the claimants pleaded that the Presidency, Office of Establishments and Management Services wrote a letter dated 19^th May 1997 where it clarified the fact that Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze’s services had been merged and his pensionable service is recognized from 1^st February 1962 till 12^th May 2003 when he would have attained 60 years of age. In the final written address of the claimants, particularly at paragraphs 1.16, 1.17, 1.27, 2.36, 2.58, 2.59, 2.61 and 2.62, it was submitted that the late Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze was in service from 1^st February 1962 when he joined the Federal Civil Service up to the date he was compulsorily retired from the service of the 1^st Defendant. It was argued that the service of late Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze in the Federal Civil Service was merged with his service in the 1^st defendant and this merger of service made him pensionable in the services of the 1^st Defendant. It was argued that late Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze, having rendered 25 years of services, part of which was in the service of the 1^st Defendant, he is entitled to gratuity and pension from the 1^st Defendant. Counsel for the claimants further argued that where a civil servant transfers or merges his services, he becomes pensionable at the last place of his employment in the public service by reason of the merger of his services. It was the conclusion of learned counsel, relying on the case of NEW NIGERIA DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED vs. DANIEL UGBABE [2022] 16 NWLR [Pt. 1855] 101, that the 1^st Defendant is under obligation to pay Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze’s pension, being his last employer.

 

The implication of the submissions of the learned counsel for the claimants is that the service of Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze in the civil service was merged with his appointment into the service of the 1^st defendant such that the period of his service in the 1^st defendant is a continuation of his service in the civil service. The argument that there was merger of the service of Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze with his appointment into the 1^st defendant is founded on the letter dated 19^th May 1997 from the Presidency, Office of Establishments and Management Services to the Accountant-General of the Federation. The content of the letter reads as follows:

 

MR. W. C. EZE

MERGING OF SERVICES

I am directed to refer to your letter Ref. No. E.9932/166/Gen.Reg dated 19^th February, 1986 on the above issue and to state that Mr. W. C. Eze's request has been granted.

 

2. Accordingly, his pensionable service is recognised from 1^st February, 1962 till 12^th May, 2003 when he attains sixty (60) years of age but excluding periods of unemployment from 26^th June, 1976 to 31^st July, 1976 and 1^st August, 1977 to 13^th August, 1977 which would be non-pensionable.

 

Inform him, please.

 

The 1^st defendant denied knowledge of this letter. It averred that it never received any letter from the Presidency, Office of Establishments and Management Services on the issue of merger of service of the late Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze. The letter of 19^th May 1997 was addressed to the Accountant General of the Federation, Federal Ministry of Finance where late Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze worked before he was appointed into the service of the 1^st Defendant and as such, the 1^st Defendant could not have given effect to the letter which it never received.

 

I have seen facts pleaded by the parties showing that late Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze was in the civil service before his appointment into the service of the 1^st defendant. See paragraph 4 of the amended statement of facts and paragraph 18 of 1^st defendant’s emended statement of defence. However, particulars of his service and places where he served were not stated, except the Federal Ministry of Finance where he was serving before his appointment into the 1^st defendant. Now, the question is whether the appointment of Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze into the service of the 1^st defendant was a continuation of his employment in the civil service.

 

The claimants relied on the letter dated 19^th May 1997 from the Presidency, Office of Establishments and Management Services. I have examined the letter. It was addressed to the Accountant-General of the Federation and not to the 1^st defendant. The date of the letter is also a date almost 2 years after Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze had been retired from the service of the 1^st defendant. By addressing the letter to the Accountant-General of the Federation, Federal Ministry of Finance, where Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze served before he was appointed by the Head of State, the writer appears to believe Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze was still in the service of the Federal Ministry of Finance as he calculated his retirement date up to May 2003. I also observed in the letter that the application or request for merger of service of Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze was made since February 1986. That was about 7 years before his appointment into the service of the 1^st defendant. Thus, the letter of 19^th May 1997 could not have been the evidence of merger of the service of Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze with his appointment into the service of the 1^st defendant. Importantly, there is no reference in the letter to the merger of the service of Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze with his appointment into the service of the 1^st defendant. In other words, the letter dated 19^th May 1997 is not the evidence of merger of the service of Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze with his appointment into the service of the 1^st defendant.

 

Other than this letter, the claimants did not plead any fact to show that the service of Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze was merged with his appointment into the service of the 1^st defendant. I have gone further to examine the other documents frontloaded by the claimants to see if I can find evidence of merger or transfer of the service of Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze to the 1^st defendant. 

 

The claimants pleaded the facts of the appointment of late Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze with the 1^st defendant in paragraphs 4 to 7 of the amended statement of facts. The claimants averred that by a letter dated 11^th October 1993, the 1^st Defendant conveyed the approval of the Secretary of Petroleum & Mineral Resources for the appointment of Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze as the Acting Group Executive Director, Finance & Accounts in the 1^st defendant. Also, by a press release dated 2^nd November 1993, the then Head of State, Chief Ernest Shonekan, approved the appointment of Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze as the Group Executive Director, Finance & Accounts of the 1^st defendant. The 1^st defendant thereafter issued a Letter of Appointment dated 3^rd November 1993 to Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze. The letter of appointment of Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze as the Acting Group Executive Director of the 1^st defendant, dated 11^th October 1993, reads as follows:

 

            ACTING APPOINTMENT AS GROUP EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,          FINANCE & ACCOUNTS

            It is my pleasure to convey to you the approval of Honourable Secretary of Petroleum & Mineral Resources of your acting appointment as Group Executive Director, Finance & Accounts in NNPC.

 

            The salary attached to this position is N162,400.00 per annum on the Corporation's GSS16. The fringe benefits and other terms of the acting appointment are as contained in NNPC Conditions of Service. The appointment takes effect from 8^th October, 1993.

 

            On assumption of duty, please report to the office of the Group Managing Director 7, Kofo Abayomi Street, Victoria Island, Lagos.

 

            Please accept our congratulations. We look forward to your contribution in the service of the Corporation.

 

The Press Release dated 2^nd November 1993 also reads as follows:

 

            The Head of State, Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, Chíef Ernest Shonekan has approved the appointment of Mr. C. O. Oyibo as the Group Managing Director of the Nigerian National Petrolnum Corporation.

                           

The Head of State also approved the appointment of six other Executive Directors. They are:

i)                 Group Executive Director, Downstream Operations - Alhaji D. A. Bayero

ii)              Group Executive Director, Upstream Operations - Chief G. T. Grant

iii)           Group Executive Director, Corporate Services - Alhaji I. M. Dapchi

iv)            Group Executive Director, NAPIMS - Chief M.A. Olounfemi

v)               Group Executive Director, Commercial – Chief E. D. Akan

vi)            Group Executive Director, Finance & Accounts - Mr. W. C. Eze

 

The letter of appointment of Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze as the Group Executive Director of the 1^st defendant dated 3^rd November 1993 reads thus:

 

            LETTER OF APPOINTMENT

            I am pleased to convey to you the approval of the Honourable Secretary, Petroleum & Mineral Resources for your appointment as Group Executive Director, Finance & Accounts on the Corporation's GSS16, i.e. salary of N162,400.00 per annun.

           

            The appointment takes effect from 2^nd November 1993. You are expected to conclude handing/taking over and assume duties at your new post on or before 8^th November, 1993.

 

            I wish you a successful tenure of office and look forward to your further contributions in the NNPC.

 

These documents did not indicate that the appointment of Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze was a transfer of service or merger of service or a promotion in the civil service. To further show that the appointment of Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze as Group Executive Director (Finance & Accounts) of the 1^st defendant was not a transfer, secondment or deployment, the Federal Ministry of Finance wrote the letter dated 23^rd May 1995 to the 1^st defendant where it stated as follows in paragraphs 2 and 3: 

            “I wish to draw your attention to the fact that Mr. W. C. Eze was not on secondment to the NNPC and, for this reason, he cannot be deseconded. Mr. Eze was actually appointed Group Executive Director (Finance & Accounts) by the former Head of State, Chief Ernest Shonekan in November 1993. His appointment to this position can only be annulled by the Head of State. I am therefore, advising you to withdraw the letter and recall Mr. Eze to resume his work immediately.

 

The contents of the above documents reveal that the appointment of Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze as Group Executive Director (Finance & Accounts) of the 1^st defendant in November 1993 was a new appointment made by the Head of State independent of his employment in the civil service. His appointment was also at the pleasure of the Head of State and not subject to the control of the 3^rd defendant, Federal Civil Service Commission. This fact was clarified in the letter dated 14^th June 1995 from the Presidency, Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation to the 1^st defendant. The second paragraph of the letter reads:

           I am directed to emphasise the fact that Mr. Eze was appointed the Group Executive Director (Finance & Accounts) along with five others in November 1993 by the former Head of State as indicated in the Nigeria National Petroleum Corporation press release of 2^nd November 1993. It is therefore logical that the appointment can only be terminated on the approval of the Head of State.

 

The fact that the appointment of Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze was detached from his service in the civil service was further demonstrated by the manner he was retired from service of the 1^st defendant. His letter of retirement dated 7^th August 1995 from the Ministry of Petroleum and Mineral Resources reads:

           

RETIREMENT FROM SERVICE OF THE CORPORATION

            I wish to inform you that the Head of State and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces has approved your retirement from the services of NNPC in line with the stipulations of Decree Number 17 of 1984, effective from the 7^th August, 1995.

 

The retirement of Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze from his appointment into the service of the 1^st defendant was done by the Head of State who appointed him, and not by the 3^rd defendant. Thus, the facts of this case and the documents produced before the court show clearly that the appointment of Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze as the Group Executive Director (Finance & Accounts) of the 1^st defendant was not a merger of service or transfer of service. Thus, being a fresh appointment made by the Head of State, the claimant served the 1^st defendant from November 1993, when he was appointed, to August 1995 when he was retired from the service of the 1^st defendant. It is to be noted that Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze did not challenge his retirement by the Head of State up till the time he died.

 

It is clear from the foregoing that the merger of service relied upon by the claimants to found their claim does not avail them. This is also in addition to the fact that they did not base their claim on any condition of service applicable to the appointment of Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze.

 

The 1^st defendant averred that Mr. Chukwuemeka Eze was in the service of the 1^st Defendant for one year, nine months and five days only and his entitlement is only limited to the time he worked with the 1^st Defendant in accordance with the 1^st Defendant's employment rules and regulation at the time. The 1^st defendant relied on the provisions of Section 16.4.8 (iii) of the 1^st Defendant's Conditions of Service and averred that late Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze was not entitled to pension and gratuity from the 1^st Defendant because his year of service in the 1^st Defendant was below 10 years which was the minimum years of service that could have entitled him to pension and gratuity. The claimants did not file a reply to the 1^st defendant’s statement of defence. Therefore, the claimants did not dispute these averments of the 1^st defendant.

 

It was however argued in the claimants’ final written address that the condition of service of the 1^st defendant was invalid and not applicable to the employment of Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze. It was argued that the employment of Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze in the Federal Civil Service, including his service in the 1^st defendant, was regulated by the Civil Service Rules, which is a bye-law under the Constitution, and not by the condition of service of the 1^st defendant. It was further argued that the condition of service of the 1^st defendant cannot take precedence over the Civil Service Rules.

 

I have carefully examined the facts pleaded by the claimants but I cannot find anywhere they pleaded that the employment of Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze in the Federal Civil Service, including his service in the 1^st defendant, was regulated by the Civil Service Rules. The claimants did not plead the condition of service which regulated the employment of Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze nor did they plead the condition of service or regulation or law which entitled Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze to be paid pension and gratuity by the 1^st defendant. The claimants merely relied on merger of service or continuity of service.  Also, the claimants did not traverse the averments of the 1^st defendant in paragraphs 8, 16 and 17 of the statement of defence where it pleaded that the entitlement of Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze to gratuity and pension was regulated by its condition of service. I have also seen the letter written by the 1^st defendant, dated 11^th October 1993, to Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze informing him of his appointment as Acting Group Executive Director, Finance & Accounts. The second paragraph of the letter mentioned that “the fringe benefits and other terms of the acting appointment are as contained in NNPC Conditions of Service.” It was the acting appointment that metamorphosized into a substantive appointment by the Head of State in November 1993. The implication is that the condition of service which regulated the appointment of Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze in the 1^st defendant was the 1^st defendant’s condition of service.

 

I have also heard learned counsel for the claimants argue that parastatals and agencies of the Federal Government, like the 1^st defendant, are bound by the PSR and cannot have their conditions of service outside the PSR. This submission of counsel, in my view, is not sound, in view of the provisions of Rules 160101 and 160103 of the old/repealed PSR applicable up to the time this suit was instituted in 2020. Rule 160101 defined a Parastatal as a government-owned organization established by statute to render specified services(s) to the public while Rule 160103 gives parastatals the liberty to make their internal condition of service, made in line with the general principles contained in the PSR, to regulate their employment but in the absence of an internal condition of service, the provisions of the PSR shall apply. The 1^st defendant, no doubt, is a creation of statute and a parastatal of the Federal Government. By these provisions of the PSR, the 1^st defendant is empowered to make a Conditions of Service for its employees and to apply same in regulating its relationship with its employees. Accordingly, the condition of service made by the 1^st defendant, pursuant to this provision of the PSR, is valid, effective and applicable to those employed into the service of the 1^st defendant, including to Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze, as he was informed in the letter dated 11^th October 1993.

 

The 1^st defendant frontloaded its condition of service. I have seen section 16.4 where it established the Pension and Gratuity Scheme and section 16.4.4 which provides that the Scheme is applicable to all employees on permanent appointment excluding those on contract appointment. For those eligible to be paid gratuity, section 16.4.8 (ii) provide as follows:

 

“NON-ELIGIBILITY FOR GRATUITY

An employee who has less than ten (10) years continuous employment with the Corporation or whose service has been transferred or seconded to the Corporation from any public service of Nigeria and whose period of service are in the aggregate less than ten (10) years shall not be eligible for gratuity under the scheme.”

 

I have also examined section 16.4.8 (viii) of the 1^st defendant’s condition of service which provides as follows:

 

            “PERIOD OF SERVICE

            Duration of service counted under the scheme shall be interpreted as unbroken period of service for the purposes of computation of and payment of benefits. The transfer or secondment from all scheduled service shall be regarded as continuous service. The cumulative years from all such services shall constitute one unbroken service in conjunction with whatever length of service an employee puts in the service of the Corporation.”

 

I have made the findings earlier in this judgment that the service of Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze was not transferred to the 1^st defendant. He was also not on secondment to the 1^st defendant. The Federal Ministry of Finance and the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation confirmed this fact in their letters to the 1^st defendant dated 23^rd May 1995 and 14^th June 1995. I have also resolved earlier in this judgment that the claimants did not show that there was a merger of the service of Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze with the 1^st defendant. Therefore, the provisions of section 16.4.8 (viii) of the 1^st defendant’s condition of service will not apply to deem the years of services of Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze to constitute one unbroken service in combination with the period of his service with the 1^st defendant.

 

By section 16.4.8 (ii) of the 1^st defendant’s condition of service, an employee on permanent appointment with the 1^st defendant will not be entitled to gratuity on 2 conditions:

i.    Where he is less than 10 years in the employment of the 1^st defendant.

ii.   Where, as a transferred or seconded employee to the 1^st defendant, his period of service in the 1^st defendant is less than 10 years.

 

In the case of late Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze, he was less than 10 years in the employment of the 1^st defendant. He was barely 2 years in the appointment when he was retired by his appointor. He was therefore not eligible to be paid gratuity under the 1^st defendant’s condition of service.

 

To conclude this judgment, I ought to make these clarifications. Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze’s service in the Civil Service was not transferred or seconded or merged to his service with the 1^st defendant. His appointment by the Head of State into the service of the 1^st defendant was a fresh appointment, even though from the civil service. It was more like a political appointment. He ought to have resigned or retired from the civil service to take up the appointment or he could have applied for leave of absence. That way, he would have been entitled to his benefits for the years he had served in the civil service. Again, when he was retired from his appointment into the service of the 1^st defendant, it was that appointment that was terminated. From the letter dated 19^th May 1997, Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze was not due to retire from the Civil Service until 2003. He should have been re-absorbed into the Civil Service. Perhaps, he did not make that attempt. Rather, he spent years writing demand letters for his pension and gratuity to the wrong organization. 

 

The circumstances of this case are such that I do not find any strong reason to make the orders sought against the 1^st defendant. Even though the claimants pleaded facts which tend to stimulate the sympathy of this court towards the sufferings Mr. Wilfred Chukwuemeka Eze went through before he died, courts of law do not decide cases on the basis of sympathy but on satisfactory proof of the claims sought by the parties. Although the claimants were able to establish the declaration sought in relief 1, the facts pleaded by them do not entitle them to the grant of all other claims sought by them. In the result, the declaration sought in relief 1 is made accordingly, while reliefs 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 are dismissed.

 

Parties shall bear their respective costs.

 

Judgment is entered accordingly.

 

 

Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe

Judge