NICN - JUDGMENT
IN THE NATIONAL
INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA
IN
THE PORT HARCOURT JUDICIAL DIVISION
HOLDEN
IN PORT HARCOURT
BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP
HONOURABLE JUSTICE M. A. HAMZA
DATE:
27th November, 2025
SUIT NO: NICN/PHC/90/2020
BETWEEN:
1. HON. AHIAMADU AUGUSTINE
DOCTOR
2. HON. AHIAKWO EGO PAULA
3. NWAEZE KINGSLEY OBULOR
(For themselves and as representing the 17 CLAIMANTS
democratically Elected Councilors of Ogba/Egbema/Ndoni,
Local Government Council and Members of
Ogba/Egbema/Ndoni Local Government Legislative Council)
AND
 |
1. THE GOVERNOR OF
RIVERS STATE
2.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND COMMISSIONER DEFENDANTS
FOR JUSTICE, RIVERS STATE
REPRESENTATION:
Isah Seidu with B. Sunday
appearing for the Claimants.
No representation
for the Defendants
JUDGMENT
Introduction:
1.
The Claimants filed the Complaint
against the Defendants dated the 28th day of July, 2020 together with
accompanying processes seeking for the following reliefs:
a.
Special damages in the sum of
N150,083,622.9 (One Hundred and Fifty Million, Eighty Three Thousand, Six
Hundred and Twenty Two Naira, Nine Kobo).
PARTICULARS OF SPECIAL
DAMAGES:
CHAIRMAN
|
S/N |
SALARY |
AMOUNT |
|
1 |
Salary N312,006,57 x 5 (Months) = |
N1,560,032.85 |
|
2. |
Furniture Allowance |
N2,724,936 |
|
3. |
Severance Gratuity |
N2,723,936.00 |
|
4. |
Grand
Total for Chairman |
N7,009,904.85 |
VICE CHAIRMAN
|
S/N |
SALARY |
AMOUNT |
|
1 |
Salary N346,443,47 x 5 (Months) = |
N1,732,217.85 |
|
2. |
Furniture Allowance |
N2,559,168.00 |
|
3. |
Severance Gratuity |
N2,559,168.00 |
|
4. |
Grand
Total for Vice Chairman |
N6,850,553.35 |
SECRETARY
|
S/N |
SALARY |
AMOUNT |
|
1 |
Salary 274,373,73 x 5 (Months) = |
N1,371,868.65 |
|
2. |
Furniture Allowance |
N2,427,900.00 |
|
3. |
Severance Gratuity |
N2,427,900.00 |
|
4. |
Grand
Total for Secretary |
N6,227,668.65 |
SUPERVISORS
|
S/N |
SALARY |
AMOUNT |
|
1 |
Salary N274,373,73 x 5 (Months) = |
N1,371,868.65 |
|
2. |
Furniture Allowance |
N2,427,900 x 5 = N12,139,500.00 |
|
3. |
Severance Gratuity |
N2,427,900 = N12,139,500.00 |
|
4. |
Grand
Total for Supervisors |
N25,680,868.65 |
SPECIAL ADVISERS
|
S/N |
SALARY |
AMOUNT |
|
1 |
Salary N257,358,96 x 5 (Months) = |
N1,286,794.8 |
|
2. |
Furniture Allowance |
N2,280,228.00 x 5 = N11,401,140.00 |
|
3. |
Severance Gratuity |
N2,280,228.00 x 5 = N11,401,140.00 |
|
4. |
Grand
Total for Special Advisers |
N22,802,802,280.00 |
LEADER LEGISLATIVE
|
S/N |
SALARY |
AMOUNT |
|
1 |
Salary N338,041,65 x 5 (Months) = |
N1,690,208.25 |
|
2. |
Furniture Allowance |
N2,433,900.00 |
|
3. |
Severance Gratuity |
N2,433,900.00 |
|
4. |
Grand
Total for Leader Legislative |
N6,558,008.25 |
DEPUTY LEADER
|
S/N |
SALARY |
AMOUNT |
|
1 |
Salary N337,500,00 x 5 (Months) = |
N1,687,500.00 |
|
2. |
Furniture Allowance |
N2,430,000.00 |
|
3. |
Severance Gratuity |
N2,430,000.00 |
|
4. |
Grand
Total for Deputy Leader |
N6,547,500.00 |
Councilors x (15 Person)
|
S/N |
SALARY |
AMOUNT |
TOTAL |
|
1 |
Salary N316,698,30 x 15 = |
N4,750,474.5 |
|
|
2. |
Furniture Allowance |
N2,280,228.00 x 15 = |
N34,203,420.00 |
|
3. |
Severance Gratuity |
N2,280,228.00 x 15 = |
N34,203,420.00 |
|
4. |
Grand
Total for all Councilors |
N6,558,008.25 |
|
SUMMARY OF SUB HEADS
|
S/N |
Chairman |
N7,009,904.85 |
|
1 |
Vice Chairman |
N6,850,553.35 |
|
2. |
Furniture Allowance |
N6,227,668.65 |
|
3. |
Secretary |
N6,227,668.65 |
|
4. |
Supervisors (5) |
N25,680,868.65 |
|
5 |
Special Advisers (5) |
N22,802,802,280.00 |
|
6 |
Leader of Council |
N6,558,008.25 |
|
7 |
Deputy Leader Council |
N6,547,500,00 |
|
8 |
Councilors (15) |
N68,406,840,00 |
GRAND TOTAL –
N150,083,622.9
b.
The sum of N800,000.000.00 (Eight Million
Naira) exemplary/general damages for truncating democratic process (The Five
(5) months unexpired term of office of the Claimants democratically elected and
sworn in on the 8th April, 2013 contrary to Oath of Office.
c. The sum of N20,000,000.00 (Twenty Million
Naira) being damages for unfair Labour Practice resulting from the conduct of
the Defendants against the Claimants.
Case
of the Claimants As Pleaded
2.
The case of the Claimants is that they
are Judgment Creditors/Respondents in Suit No: NICN/YEN/12/2016 - HON. AHIAMADU AUGUSTINE DOCTOR & ORS. VS THE
GOVERNOR OF RIVERS STATE & ANOR and APPEAL NO: CA/PH/450M/2016 - THE
GOVERNOR OF RIVERS STATE & ANOR VS HON. AHIAMADU AUGUSTINE & ORS.
Judgment and Order delivered by this Court and the Court of Appeal dated the
18th day of March, 2016 and the Court of Appeal, Port Harcourt Judicial
Division dated the 5th day of February, 2018 respectively.
3.
The Claimants further averred that the Judgment
Debtors having frustrated the return of the Claimants to office consequent upon
the aforementioned Judgment of the National Industrial Court in Yenagoa
Judicial Division are under a legal duty to pay to the Claimants their Salaries,
Allowances, Emoluments and Severance packages in line with Rivers State Public
and Political Office Holder's Salaries, Allowances and Fringe Benefits (Amendment)
Law No. 2 of 2007 for the 5 months unexpired term.
4.
Similarly, the Claimants averred that
the act of the Defendants/Judgment Debtors in truncating and thwarting the
execution of the Judgment of this Court is illegal, unconstitutional, ultra
vires the powers of the Defendants and against their Oath of Office.
5.
Despite the fact that the two (2)
Defendants were duly served with the processes of this Court pertaining to this
suit in accordance with the Order 7 Rule 1(1) (a) of the National Industrial
Court (Civil Procedure) Rule, 2017, yet no single process even a Memorandum of
Appearance in accordance with Order 9 Rule 1(1) & (2) of the Rules of this
Court.
6.
Several hearing notices where duly
served on the Defendants. This can be seen with reference to Endorsement and Return
as properly filed by the Bailiff of this Court. Sequel to which the Claimant
testified in line with Order 38 Rules 2(1) of the Rules of this Court, 2017. During
the hearing the 1st Claimant testified as CW1 and equally adopted his Statement
on Oath dated the 28th day of April, 2020 which was in line with the pleadings.
7.
The Certified True Copy of the Judgment
of this Court delivered on the 18th day of March, 2016 in Suit No:
NICN/YEN/12/2016 was admitted as Exhibit C1. An Order of the Court of Appeal
dismissing the Appeal filed against the Judgment is Exhibit C1 dated the 5th
day of February, 2018 was also admitted and marked as Exhibit C2.
8.
Also, in evidence was the Rivers State
Public and Political Office Holders Salaries, Allowance and Fringe Benefits
(Amendment) Law No. 2, 2007. It was marked as Exhibit C2. Manuscript of
compilation of items of special damages in line Exhibit C2 dated the 22nd day
of July, 2020 was admitted and marked as Exhibit C4. In view of the non-appearance
of all the Defendants, CW1 never was cross-examined. The Court consequently
directed the Claimant Counsel to file his final written address in line with
the Rules of this Court and he complied with the said direction.
Claimants’ final written arguments
9.
In the Claimants’ Final Address
dated the 18th day of July, 2025 at page 108 of the record of this
Court, Counsel formulated a sole issue for determination to wit; “Whether the Claimants are entitled in law and
facts to the reliefs sought?”
10.
The Learned Counsel submitted that having regards to Exhibits “C1-C4”, the Claimants are
entitled in law and facts to the reliefs sought per the Originating Complaint,
Facts verifying same, Witness Statement on Oath adopted by the Claimants’ sole
witness at the proceedings of 22/5/2025.
11. On
the legal effect of the Defendants failure to file defense processes and/or
defend this suit with respect to the reliefs sought in this suit, being the
fact that the reliefs as sought remains uncontroverted and uncontested, it was
submitted that the decision in the cases cited below are apt in the
circumstance. Referring to SALAMI .VS. ALH. M.I.M. MUSE FAMILY (2019)
13 NWLR (PT.1689) page 301 at 321, para. G to H. Where it was held;
“The
absence of the statement of defence meant that no issues were joined, in the
pleadings, Egbeesimba V. Onuzuruike (2002) 15 NWLR (Pt.791) 466. The appellant was, therefore, deemed to have
admitted the claim or reliefs in the statement of claim. The only exception, which was not the case at
the trial, was where a paragraph of the said statement of claim contained
averments that were, notoriously, false to the knowledge of the court. In the natural course of events, a court
would not be expected to admit such inadmissible facts. That was not the case at the trial Court. In
the natural course of events, a court would not be excpected to admit such
inadmissible facts. That was not the
case at the trial Court, Okoebor v. Police Council (2003) 12 NWLR (Pt.834)444”:
UKPAJI .V.
UDEMBA (2009) ALL FWLR (PT. 471) page
811: ADJIDAHUN VS. ADJIDAHUN (2000) 4 NWLR (PT.654) page 513 @ 615: AINA V. UBA
PLC (1997) 4 NWLR (PT.498) page 181 @ 189: MTN (NIG)
LTD VS. CORPORATE COMM. INV. LTD (2019) 9 NWLR (PT.1878) page 427 (SC) @ 461,
para. B. & CAPPA & D’ ALBERTO (NIG) PLC VS. N.D.I.C (2021) 9 NWLR
(PT.1780) page 1 (SC) @ 14, para. D
12. Counsel
further submitted that on issue of special damages, the procedure is the same,
citing U.T.C. NIG. LTD V. PETERS (2022) 5 SCM p 181 at 197, para. D-E, Per Amina Adamu Augie, J.S.C. where it was held:
“Proof of special damages
is not radically different from the general method of proof in civil cases. It
is equally proved on a balance of probability. Where the Plaintiff pleads
special damages with particularity and gives some evidence of it and the Defendant
does not challenge or contradict the evidence given, he has discharged his onus
of proof and, unless the evidence is of such a quality that no reasonable
Tribunal can accept it, it ought to be accepted. This is because where the
evidence called by the Plaintiff in a case is neither unchallenged nor
contradicted, the onus of proof is discharged on a minimal of proof.”
13. Counsel
posited that on the strength of the aforementioned authorities coupled with Exhibits
“C1-C4” being documents speaking for themselves by Section 125 of the
Evidence Act, 2011, as amended in 2023; the Claimants are entitled to a
favourable decision. He therefore, urged the Court to enter final Judgment in
favour of the claimants in this suit without further ado. Citing NDAKENE V. ADAMU (2023) 9 NWLR (PT.1889) page
389(SC) at 417, paras. E-F: FRIDAY V. GOV., ONDO STATE (2022) 16 NWLR (PT.1857) page 585 (SC)
at 635-636, para. A-D, per Eko, J.S.C.: AJUWON VS. GOV., OYO STATE (2O21)
16 NWLR (PT.1803) PAGE 485 (SC) at page 546, paras. A-F: AODOAKAA V.OBOT (2022)
5 NWLR (PT.1824) P 523 (SC) at 585-586, paras F – C:
14. On the issue of damages, it was
further submitted that the Supreme Court has laid down the guiding principles
for the award of exemplary damages. Citing the case of C.B.N. V. OKOJIE (2015) 14 NWLR
Pt.1479) 231; (2015) LPELR – 24740 (SC) thus:
“Exemplary
damages are awarded with the object of punishing the Defendant for his conduct
in inflicting injury on the Plaintiff: they can be made in addition to normal
compensatory damages and should be made only: (a) In a case of oppressive,
arbitrary or unconstitutional acts by Government servants; (b) Where the
Defendant’s conducts had been calculated by him to make a profit for himself
which might well exceed the compensation payable to the Plaintiff and (c) where
expressly authorized by stature”.
15. He
urged the Court to resolve the issue in favour of the Claimants.
COURT'S
DECISION
16.
I have carefully considered the processes filed by the Claimants, the
submissions by the Claimants’ Counsel and the authority cited in his final
address. I have also evaluated the oral and documentary evidence and this Court
has distilled the following issue for determination as it is the thrust of
action. Other ancillary issue(s) may be subsumed in the determination of this
issue to wit:
“Whether the Claimants has proved his
case to be entitled to the reliefs sought?
17.
It is imperative to say that the facts
of this case is not much in doubt, in the sense that the Claimants were
democratically elected on the 2nd March, 2013 and sworn in as Chairman, Vice
Chairman on the 8th day of April, 2013 and the Councilors of Ogba/Egbema/Ndoni
Local Government Council of Rivers State respectively. They were elected to
serve a tenure of period of 3 years in accordance with Section 9(1) of the
Rivers State Local Government Law No. 2 of 2012.
18.
However, to their surprise and dismay,
on the 21st day of December, 2015 they were suddenly locked out of their
Council premises by the Agents of the Defendants barely five (5) months to the
expiration of their legitimate negotiated period. All efforts to allow them
proved abortive.
19.
Pursuant to the above foregoing, the
Claimants filed a suit before this Court in Suit No: NICN/YEN/12/2016 - HON. AHIAMADU AUGUSTINE DOCTOR & ORS.
VS THE GOVERNOR OF RIVERS STATE & ANOR wherein Judgment was entered in
their favour in the following terms:
a. A Declaration that the tenure of office of
the Applicants who were democratically and duly elected on 2nd March,
2013 and took Oath of Office on 8th April 2013 and 10th of
April, 2013 respectively still subsist and therefore the Respondents cannot constructively
determine and/or lock up the offices of the applicants thereby denying them
access to the aforementioned offices.
b. A Declaration that the Respondent cannot
unilaterally remove, alter the tenure of the Applicants, replace them with any
person unless in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and the
Rivers State Local Government Law No. 2 of 2012.
c. An Order of mandatory injunction compelling
the respondents or whosoever illegally occupying the Applicants’ offices to
vacate same forthwith and the applicants granted unhindered access to their
offices.
d. An Order of Perpetual Injunction restraining
the Respondents from further thwarting or acting in any manner likely to lead
to any continuous breach or thwart the continued stay in office of the Applicants
as elected Chairman, Vice Chairman and Councilors of Ogba/Egbema/Ndoni Local Government
Executives respectively.
e. An Order of Mandatory Injunction restraining
the Respondents and/or whosoever from further intimidating. Illegally tempering
with the unexpired tenure of office of the Applicants, locking up the offices
of the Applicants, preventing the Applicants who were democratically elected
from performing the functions of their offices, denying the Applicants access
to their offices save in accordance with the Law.
f. A Declaration that by virtue of the
provisions of Section 7(1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria (as Amended) and Section 9(1) of the Rivers State Local Government Law
No. 2 of 2012. The Applicants are entitled to a guaranteed tenure of three (3)
years in office as democratically elected Chairman, Vice Chairman and Councilors
respectively of Ogba/Egbema/Ndoni Local Government Council commencing from the
date of inauguration on the 8th of April, 2013.
g. An Order of this Court reinstating the
applicants to their respective positions as Chairman, Vice Chairman and Councilors
respectively of Ogba/Egbema/Ndoni Local Government Council.
h. An Order of Injunction retraining the Respondents
from interfering or continuing to interfere with the rights and privileges of
the Applicants as democratically elected Chairman, Vice Chairman and Councilors
respectively of Ogba/Egbema/Ndoni Local Government Council in Rivers State
and/or appointing persons or constituting Caretaker Committee to take over the Offices
of the Applicants to replace them before they serve out their tenure of Office.
See Exhibit C1.
20.
The Respondents being dis-subjected with
the above decision, appealed same before the Court of Appeal, Port Harcourt
Division. But the said Appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Court on the 23rd
day of May, 2018. See Exhibit C2.
21.
The Claimants stated in paragraph 7 of
his testimony as on oath to the effect that notwithstanding the above
happening, the Applicants/Judgment Debtors having frustrated the return of the
Claimants to office consequent upon the existing Judgment, they are under a
legal duty to pay to the Claimants Salaries, Allowances, Emoluments, Severance
Packages in line with Rivers State Public and Political Office Holders,
Salaries Allowances and Fringe Benefits (Amendment) Law No. 2 of 2007 for the 5
months unexpired term.
22.
It is apparent that all the Defendants were not in Court or made any
representation to that effect as required by Order 30 Rules 2 (1) and (2) of
the Rules of this Court, 2017. It is on record of this Court that the
Defendants were duly served with all the processes pertaining to their suit in
addition to hearing notice that has to do with all the Sitting of this Court in
relation to this matter. But for a reason best known to them they failed,
neglected and/or refused to respond as defined by the Rules of this Court.
23.
Learned Counsel to the Claimants posited
that in the absence of any defence, the Claimants are entitled for Judgment in his
favour citing judicial authorities in his final written arguments. However, the
question that called for determination is whether in the absence of any Counter
Affidavit the Claimants are entitled to Judgment in their favour.
24.
Infact, where depositions in an
Affidavit are not denied by way of a Counter Affidavit, they are generally
deemed admitted and the Court is to act therein. However, for such a
presumptions to be correct, the facts in the Affidavit most have properly been
put before the Court. It follows therefore that the absence of a Counter
Affidavit does not ipso facto amount to conclusive exercise of a favourable
discretion. In other words, an unfiltered burden lies on the Applicant's
Affidavit to stand or fall on its own merit. This is synonymous with the
requirement placed on a Plaintiff to succeed on the strength of his own case
and not to rely on the weakness of the defence. Therefore, the presumption that
unchallenged and uncontracted averments in an Affidavit are deemed admitted
does not hold in all situation. See EJEFOR VS OKEKE (2000) 7 NWLR (PT. 665) 363
CA; AG ONDO STATE VS AG EKITI STATE (2001) 17 NWLR (PT. 743) 706SC; BELLO VS AG
LAGOS STATE (2007) 2 NWLR (PT. 1017) 155 CA.
25.
It suffice saying that prayer I of the
Claimant borders on special damages. The question then is what amounts to
evidence in proof of special damages and whether the Claimants has disclosed
the burden. It has been established that when damages suffered in a suit are
real, the party who suffered the damages is entitled to recover the actual
amount he spent as special damages. See EKPE VS FAGBEMI (1978) 3 SC 207.
26.
It is not therefore open to a trial Judge
to his own individual assessment in cases of Special damages. He must act
strictly on the evidence adduced before him establishing the amount to be
awarded. See NIGERIAN AIRWAYS LTD VS SOLOMON ABE (1988) 4 NWLR (PT. 90) 524 CA.
27.
In an attempt to prove their case of
special damages, CW1 tendered in evidence the following documents: Judgment of
this Court, Rivers State Public and Political Office Holder's Salaries,
Allowances and Fringe Benefits (Amendment) Law No 2 of 2007 and calculations of
the entitlement of the Claimants based on the provisions of the Rivers State
Public and Political Office Holder's Salaries, Allowances as Exhibits C1, C3
and C4 respectively. I seems to agree with these documents. The reason being
that they have passed all the tests for genuinety.
28.
Eventhough, special damages requires
strict point, in this context it means no more than proof as would readily laid
itself to qualification or assessment and, if the Plaintiff who is supposed to
have peculiar knowledge of the special damages gives evidence and the evidence
is in controverted, then Claimant is entitled to Judgment in his favour. See WEST
AFRICAN SHIPPING AGENCY NIGLTD VS ALHAJI MI KAGU (1978) 3 SC 21; SALAUDEEN
& ANOR VS OLADELE (2002) LPELR -
7064 (CA); ONYIORAH VS ONYIORAH & ANOR (2019) LPELR - 4909 (CA); GRAND
MARINE OIL & GAS (NIG) LTD & ANOR VS OTHMEL BROOKS LTD (2023) LPELR -
59377 (CA).
29.
Perhaps, the Law requires that special
damages must be strictly proved and by the Rules of pleading, a Claimant who is
claiming special damages is required to plead the special damages and give
particulars thereof before he would be allowed to lead evidence in proof. It is
my firm belief that the Claimants have complied with this procedure.
30.
The Claimants having done the calculation of the special damage as contemplated
by Exhibit C3, and deposed to doing same in their Affidavit. The burden now
shifted on the Defendants to challenge or contradict same. But they are conspicuously absent without any
reason to that effect despite the fact that they were on sufficient notices.
Thus, when evidence that directly attack a matter in controversy is neither attacked
nor successfully discredited, it is said to be uncontroverted and is good and
credible evidence that can be relied upon it by the Court. See ABUBAKAR
NAFIU & ANOR VS MINISTRY FOR YOUTH & SPORT DEVELOPMENT, SOKOTO &
ORS (2021) LPELR - 56848 (CA); ANYI & ORS VS AKANDE & ORS (2017) LPELR
- 41973 (CA).
31.
However, the question that call for
determination despite the above foregoing is whether the Claimant is entitled
to the salaries for services not rendered within the 5 months left to the
expiration of the period. See PROF. DUPEOLA TUNBOSUN VS NIGER (1988) 3
NWLR (PT. 80) 25 at 55 Per Oputa JSC as he then was who said “The Law is that a servant who has been
unlawfully dismissed cannot claim his salaries and wages for service he never
rendered: DENMARK PRODUCTION LTD VS BOS COBELL LTD (1968) 1 ALL ER 813: KEYSTONE
BANK VS AFOLABI (2017) LPELR – 42390 (CA). If that is settled, then the
Claimant is not entitled to Relief I. consequently, it is hereby refused.
32.
On
relief No. 2, the Claimants are claiming the sum of N800,000,000.00 (Eight
Hundred Million) as exemplary/ general damages for truncating democratic powers
(the 5 months unexpired term of office of the Claimants democratically elected
and sworn in on the 8th day of April, 2013) contrary to Oath of Office.
33.
Infact, exemplary damages are punitive
and are awarded where statutes with the object of punishing the Defendants for
his conduct in inflicting injury on the Plaintiff. they can be made in addition
to normal compensatory damages and should be made only: (a) in a case of
oppressive, arbitrary or unconstitutional act by goverment, sacrosanct (b)
where the Defendant's conduct had been calculated by him to make a profit for
himself, which might well exceed the compensation payable to the Plaintiff and
(c) where expressly authorized by statute. See EMERGING MARKETS
TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICES LTD (ETISALAT NIGERIA) VS PASTOR NMADU KEN (2022)
LPELR - 58705 (CA).
34.
Meanwhile, facts were pleaded and evidence adduced to that effect. Thus,
testimony of the Claimant's Witness remained on shakable that the conduct of
the Defendants was oppressive, arbitrary and unconstitutional against the
Claimants by frustrating their smooth and successful completion of their tenure
of Office as democratically elected office of Ogba/Egbema/Ndoni Local
Government Council of Rivers State.
35.
If that is settled, the question that
comes to mind is whether the sum claimed above is outrageous or reasonable in
the circumstance? the Law is settled that exemplary damages are usually awarded
whenever the Defendants' conduct is sufficiently outrageous warrant punishment,
as where it discloses malice, fraud, cruelty insolence, flagrant disregard of
the Law and the like. See JOSIAH MICAH & ORS VS HON. MINISTER OF
THE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY & ANOR (2018) LPELR - 44917 (CA). In
the circumstance, even though the Defendants are influential they can
conveniently pay the said sum if granted. However, it is my considered opinion
that Rivers State Government is charged with the responsibility of governing
the people of the State in various ways. It is therefore ideal for the
Government to use this fund in that direction. Hence, the Defendants are hereby
ordered to pay to the Claimants the sum of N200,000,000.00 (Two Hundred Million
Naira) as exemplary damages.
36. On the whole, it is hereby ordered as follows:
A.
I hold that the Claimants are not entitled
to relief one, having not rendered services as for the period of 5 months.
B. I hold that the Claimants are jointly entitled
to the sum of N200,000,000.00 (Two Hundred Million Naira) only as the exemplary
damages for truncating and frustrating the completion of their tenure of Office
as adjudicated by this Court as a result of ill conduct of the Defendants.
C. I hold that the Claimants are entitled to the
sum of N10,000,000.00 (Ten Million Naira) only as general damages for unfair
Labour Practice.
D. The Judgment sum is to be paid within 30 days
effective from today.
Judgment is entered accordingly.
--------------------------------------------
Hon Justice M. A. Hamza
Judge