Download PDF
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><u><span lang="EN-US">REPRESENTATION:<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><span lang="EN-US">A. S. AKPALA</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> for the Claimant with <b>D. O. OJOTUNDE</b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><span lang="EN-US">J. O. SALEH</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> Director Civil Litigation for all the defendants with <b>H. E. YUSUF, DDPP, A.O.</b> <b>SULEMEIN Esq. DD</b>.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><b><u><span lang="EN-US">J U D G M E N T<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US">The Claimants instituted this action vide an Amended Originating Summons filed on 2<sup>nd</sup> February, 2017 accompanied by a 35 paragraph praying for the determination of the following questions;<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US">a. <b>WHETHER </b>the Claimants are entitled to payment to their members one hundred percent (10%) harmonization of their respective monthly pensions as of right following the General Salary Review/Implementation of the National Minimum Wage to the Public Servants in the Public Service of Kogi State effective from the 1<sup>st</sup> day of December, 2011, the date when the Defendant implemented the last National Minimum Wage for its workers;<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US">b. <b>WHETHER</b> by virtue of the provisions of Section 210(3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (As Amended), the Claimants are entitled as of right to have their pensions automatically harmonized with those of their serving counterparts in the State Public Service upon the General Salary Review Undertaken/Implemented by the Kogi State Government for its workers on the 1 day of December, 2011, also known as the Implementation of the National Minimum Wage.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US">c. <b>WHETHER</b> the failure of or refusal by the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant to fully harmonize (100%) the Pensions of the Claimants with those of their serving counterparts in the Public Service of Kogi State since the 1<sup>st</sup> day of December, 2011, does not amount to a transgression/violation of the Nigerian Constitution as enshrined in section 210(3) thereof.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US">d. <b>WHETHER</b> the Claimants are entitled to immediate harmonization and payment to them of the remaining 50% of their pension with their arrears with effect from the 1st day of December, 2011, the date when the salaries of their serving counterparts in the Public Service of Kogi State were reviewed upwards, the 1<sup>st</sup> 50% harmonization having been earlier approved and paid by the V Defendant to members of the Claimants, with effect from the 1st day of October, 2012; and<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US">e. <b>WHETHER</b> members of the Claimants who retired from the Public Service of Kogi State are entitled to be paid by the Defendant their severance gratuities bearing in mind the Provisions of Schedule II of the Law on the Remuneration of Certain Public and Political Office Holders in Kogi State and the extant Federal and State Government Circulars on the subject matter.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US">Upon the determination of the said questions, the claimant is claiming for –<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US">i. A declaration that the Claimants are entitled to payment to their members one hundred percent (100%) harmonization of their respective monthly pensions as of right following the General Salary Review/Implementation of the National Minimum Wage to the Public Servants in the Public Service of Kogi State effective from the 1<sup>st</sup> day of December, 2011;<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US">ii. A declaration that by virtue of the provisions of Section 210(3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (As Amended), the<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US">Claimants are entitled as of right to have their pensions automatically harmonized with those of their serving counterparts in the State Public Service upon the General Salary Review Undertaken/Implemented by the Kogi State Government for its workers, also known as the implementation of the National Minimum Wage of 1<sup>st</sup> December, 2011;<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US">iii. A declaration that the failure of or refusal by the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant to fully harmonize (100%) the Pensions of the Claimants with those of their serving counterparts in the Public Service of Kogi State since the 1<sup>st</sup> day of December, 2011, amounts to a transgression/violation of the Nigerian<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US">Constitution as enshrined in section 210(3) thereof.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US">iv. A declaration that the Claimants are entitled to immediate harmonization and payment to them with retrospective effect of the remaining 50% of their pensions with arrears, with effect from the 1 day of December, 2011, the date when the salaries of their serving counterparts in the Public Service of Kogi State were reviewed upwards, the 1<sup>st</sup> 50% harmonization having been earlier approved by the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant and paid to members of the Claimants, with effect from 1 day of October, 2012.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US">v. A declaration that members of the Claimants are entitled as of right to severance gratuity in line with Schedule II of the Remuneration of Certain Public and Political office Holders in Kogi State Law, 2002, and the extant circulars on the subject.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US">vi. An Order directing the defendants to pay to each of the claimants accumulated arrears of the 50% harmonization from the date of filing this suit on the 9th day of November, 2015, to the date of execution of the judgment.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><span lang="EN-US">Claimants’ Case<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US">Majority of the members of the Claimants were all confirmed and were permanent and pensionable career civil servants who were deployed to do the spade work for the smooth take-off of Kogi State upon its creation on the 27<sup>th</sup> day of August, 1991. When they were variously deployed from both Kwara and Benue States to Kogi State upon its creation, majority of them were to take shelter under make-shift arrangements, with some sleeping in jam-parked premises in circumstances where one toilet was being shared by twenty officers and their families. The suffering and agonies of these officers persisted until the first quarter of the year 1992 when the first civilian Government hurriedly constructed some quarters, such as the DG Quarters (which served as the first Commissioners’ Quarters) Lokongoma Housing Estate, Phases 1 & 2. The construction of these quarters went a long way to reduce the agonies of these pioneer public servants<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US">Members of the Association who retired at various times formed the Association of Retired Heads of Service and Permanent Secretaries, not only to press for the welfare of their members, but also to make necessary input and suggestions as to how best the state they so much laboured for, could be governed; each of them having risen to the pinnacle of their career either as Head of Service or Permanent Secretary and retired such as Elder States Men.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US">The claimants in their <b>WRITTEN ADDRESS IN SUPPORT OF ORIGINATING SUMMONS</b> in respect of<b> QUESTIONS A, B, C & D</b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><span lang="EN-US"> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><span lang="EN-US">Question a: WHETHER the Claimants are entitled to payment to their member one hundred percent (100%) harmonization of their respective monthly pensions as. of right following the General Salary Review/Implementation of the National Minimum. Wage to the Public Servants in the Public Service of Kogi State effective from the ft day of December, 2011, the date when the 1st Defendant implemented the last National Minimum Wage for its workers;<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><span lang="EN-US"> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><span lang="EN-US">Question b: WHETHER by virtue of the provisions of Section 210(3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (As Amended), the Claimants are entitled as of right to have their pensions automatically harmonized with those of their serving counter-parts in the State Public Service upon the General Salary Review Undertaken/Implemented by the Kogi State Government for its workforce on the 1st day of December, 2011, a/so known as the Implementation of the National Minimum Wage.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><span lang="EN-US"> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><span lang="EN-US">Question C: WHETHER the failure or refusal of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant to fully harmonize (100%) the Pensions of the Claimants with those of their serving counterparts in the Public Service of Kogi State since the 1<sup>st</sup> day of December, 20.11, does not amount to a transgression/violation of the Nigerian Constitution as enshrined in section 210(3) thereof<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><span lang="EN-US"> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><span lang="EN-US">Question d: WHETHER the Claimants are entitled to immediate harmonization and payment to them of the remaining 50% of their pensions with their arrears with effect from the 1st day of December, 2011, the date when the salaries of their sieving counterparts in the Public Service of Kogi State were reviewed upwards, the 1<sup>st</sup> 50% harmonization having been earlier approved and paid by the 1st Defendant to members of the Claimants, with effect from the 1<sup>st</sup> day of October, 2012.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US">Learned Counsel to the Claimant A. S. Akpala, submitted that the 1st Defendant had no legal reason not to review upwards the pensions of the members of the Claimants for a whole period of 15-years, more so after the implementation of the National Minimum Wage in Kogi State on the 1st day of December, 2011. Furthermore, that as it has been held in a long line of cases that the cardinal or golden rule of interpretation of statutes is that the words of the statute must prima facie be given their ordinary meaning without importing into them what is not there. Also, that where the words used in an enactment are plain in the face of it, effect must be given to their literal meaning. Relying on the authorities of <b><span style="color:red"> THE HON. JUSTICE E.O. ARAKA V. THE HON. JUSTICE DON EGBUE. (2003) 10 SCM 178, VICTOR ADEGOKE ADEWUMI & ANOR V. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF EKITI STATE & 6 ORS (2002) 2 SCM , BUHARI & ANOR V. OBASANJO & ORS (2005) 9 SCM 1 </span></b>and<span style="color:red"> </span><b><span style="color:red">ISSAC OBIUWEUBI V. CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA (201.1) 2-3 SC. (PT.1) 46.</span></b>Submitting that questions a-d be answered in the affirmative and against the Defendants. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US">And in response to <b>Question E: WHETHER members of the Claimants who retired from the Public Service of Kogi State are entitled to be paid by the 1st Defendant their severance gratuities bearing in mind the Provisions of Schedule II of the Law on the Remuneration of Certain Public and Political Office Holders in Kogi State and the extant Federal and State Government Circulars on the subject matter.</b> The Claimants Counsel, submitted that by virtue of the provisions of Schedule II of the<b> </b>Remuneration of Certain Public and Political Office Holders in Kogi State, the aforementioned 50 members of the Claimants are entitled to be paid to them 300% of their total annual emolument upon their successful disengagement from service under Schedule II of the Law.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US">The Defendant filed a 9 paragraph <b>COUNTER AFFIDAVIT </b>on 30<sup>th</sup> January, 2017, deposed to by Apeh Ejurah.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US">Defendants Case.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US">The case of the defendant is that the implementation of the minimum wage to the public servants in the public service of Kogi State took effect from 1/12/2011.That the claimants are entitled to a review of their pension and not to a hundred percent harmonization of their pension as being claimed by them. That the State Government reviewed the pension of the claimants as per Exhibit 12 attached to the originating summons. And that the emolument of the claimant association are not consolidated as claimed by them neither is it part of the rules governing retirement that pensions are to be reviewed 5 years after retirement if there is no general salary review or that the claimants are entitled to have their pensions automatically harmonized upon every salary review and that it is not correct that there has not been a review of pension prior to the 2012 salary review and that is it not correct that automatic harmonization of pensions is a constitutional right. The defendants’ maintain that the applicants are not entitled to the reliefs being sought by them and that it is not in the interest of justice to grant this application as granting same will prejudice the Respondent.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US">They also filed a</span><b><span lang="EN-US"> WRITTEN ADDRESS IN SUPPORT OF COUNTER AFFIDAVIT </span></b><span lang="EN-US">wherein they raised the sole</span><b><span lang="EN-US"> ISSUE<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><span lang="EN-US"> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><span lang="EN-US">Whether the claimants are entitled to the reliefs sought.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US">Learned Counsel to the Defendants J. O. Saleh Director Civil Litigation of Kogi State, submitted that in a civil proceeding the onus is forever on the claimant to establish his case and that it does not shift to the defendant unless he establishes his case.<span style="color:red"> <b>ORLU V. GAGO ABITE (2010)1 SCNJ 322 @ 324</b>.</span> Furthermore, that the burden is on the claimant to prove that they are entitled to have their pensions harmonized one hundred percent with those of their counter parts who are still in public service. <b><span style="color:red">MRS. OLOWASEUN AGBOOLA V. UBA PLC & 2 ORS; Section 135 of the Evidence Act.</span></b> <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US">Section 135 of the Evidence Act and held that;<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:justify"><b><span lang="EN-US">“By virtue of Section 135 of the Evidence Act Supra, he who assets must prove; f To discharge this burden a party must adduce cogent and credible evidence that has direct relevance to the matter in controversy and it is only when he does that he discharges the burden.â€<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US">Submitting that the claimant have not been able to prove that they are entitled to the reliefs being sought.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US">Defendants’ Counsel also submitted that S.210(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria guarantees the right of a person in public service to receive pension/gratuity which shall be regulated by law. And that by virtue of that S. 210(3) which provides as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US">“<b>Pensions shall be reviewed every five years or together with any State Civil Service Salary reviews whichever is earlier</b>â€..<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US">Submitting further that S.210(3) of the Constitution does not guarantee that the Claimants pensions should be harmonized with those of their serving counterparts in the State Public Service upon the implementation of the National Minimum Wage of 1st December, 2011. That Section provides for a review and not harmonization. To the defendants the principle of law is that what is expressly stated in an enactment excludes all other things not stated and that one cardinal principle of interpretation is to give the words of the statute their ordinary grammatical meaning. <b><span style="color:red">OBASEKI TSC IN EGBE V. ALHAJI & ORS (19901 NWLR (PT. 128)546 AT581; NIWA V. G.T. ITF (2008)7 NWLR (PT. 1085) 108 AT 120 PARAS E-G.</span></b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US">It is Counsel’s submission that by <b><span style="color:red">Section 4 of the Pensions (Northern Nigeria New Officers) Law COP 90 Laws of Northern Nigeria, 1963</span></b>, pensions or gratuity granted under the law are to be computed in accordance with the law or regulations in force at the date of a public officer’s retirement.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US">For clarity the section is reproduced hereunder:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:justify"><b><span lang="EN-US">“Subject to the provisions of this law and regulations there under g pension or gratuity granted under this law shall be computed in accordance with the law or regulations in force at the date of a public officer’s retirement, due regard being had to existing rightsâ€</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> underlining mine.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US">Contending, that the pensions of the Claimants were computed based on the laws in existence at the time/point of their retirement. The Constitution by S.210 (3) guarantees a review of such pensions periodically; that the pensions of Claimants were properly computed in accordance with the relevant laws governing such computation at the point of their retirement arguing further that the defendants have reviewed such pensions as provided by the constitution. Urging the court to dismiss the claimant’s claim as same is unmeritorious.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US">The claimants in reaction filed a <b>REPLY ON POINTS OF LAW </b>on 23<sup>rd</sup> January, 2017.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US">On the Defendants submission in their Written Address in opposition to the Claimants’ Originating Summons have submitted that the word used in <b>Section 210(3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, As Amended</b>, is “Reviewâ€, and that that verb does not approximate to “Harmonization†which the Claimants are claiming, counsel submitted that the word “Review†used in <b>Section 210(3) of the aforementioned Constitution</b> should be interpreted in the context of the entire section 210 of the Constitution, otherwise, the object and purpose of that section will be defeated. That there is no doubt that there are differences between the two words “harmonization†and “reviewâ€. <b><span style="color:red">Bryan Garner’s Black’s Law Dictionary, 7th Edition at page 722<o:p></o:p></span></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="color:red"> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US">It is counsel’s submission that if the literal meaning of the word review as provided for under <b>Section 210(3) of the 1999 Constitution</b> were to be used in the interpretation of the Section, it has the propensity of doing Violence or distortion to the general meaning and intendment of the Section. By “reviewâ€, the pensions of officers may be adjusted either up-wards or downwards. <b>FABIYI .JSC</b> in the case of <b><span style="color:red">SHELIM & 1 OR V. GOBANG (2009) VOL.6, PT.269 KLR (Kings Law Reports) 1719 at 1728 PARAS A-C.</span></b> Submitting that one of the canons of constitutional interpretation is that a statute cannot be interpreted to take away existing or vested rights. Furthermore, that it is generally the accepted rule of construction that it is to be assumed that the words and phrases of technical legislation are used in their technical meaning. This means the word “review†is used in the context of Section 210 of the Constitution in its technical, and not the ordinary meaning. <b><span style="color:red">ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION AND OTHERS VS. ATIKLJ AND OTHERS (VOL.2) CONSTITUTIONAL LAW CLASSICUS (dC), Pg. 218.</span></b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><span lang="EN-US"> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US">It is claimant’s counsel’s contention that in the interpretation of the Constitution, the meaning which will best carryout its object and purpose should be preferred. <b><span style="color:red">TINUBU VS. 1MB SECURITIES PLC, (VOL.2) CLC. </span></b>He argued that the use of the word “review†in Section 210 has created a situation of “mischief†and due regard should be taken to ensure that the mischief which is intended to deter is arrested. <b><span style="color:red">MOBIL VS. FBIR (1977) 3 S.C. 53. </span></b>Submitting further that the term “review†as used is synonymous with “Harmonization†and that a liberal interpretation should be given to the Nigerian Constitution so as to carry out the intention of its framers. <b><span style="color:red">YUSUF GARBA & ORS VS1 UNIVERSITY OF MAIDUGURI (1986) 1 NWLR (PT. 18), 550; SAVANNAH BANK OF NIG. & ANOR VS. AMMETO AJILO & ANOR (1987) 2 NWLR (PT.57) 42.<o:p></o:p></span></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US">It is counsel’s submission that one of the basic principles in the interpretation of our Constitution and the statutes is that a Lawmaker will not be presumed to have given a right in one hand and taken it in another. <b>NNAEMEKA — AGU (JSC)</b> (as he then was) in the case of <b><span style="color:red">OSADEBE V. A.G BENDEL STATE (1991) SCNJ, 102 AT 218.</span></b>Furthermore, that the words of the Constitution are not to be read by stultifying narrowness. <b>IGUH, JSC</b> (as he then was) in the case of <b><span style="color:red">1MB V. TIN UBU (2001) 45 WRN 1 AT 19.</span></b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="color:red"> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US">On the 6<sup>th</sup> February 2017 the parties adopted their written addresses and adumbrated their respective processes. During adumbration Learned Counsel for the claimants’ drew the court’ attention to their exhibits inviting the court to draw therefrom the disparity in the pension of the two categories of pensioners before the court arguing that the differential is against public policy. The claimants relying on Exhibit 12 urging the court to consider this a reinforcement of the defendants commitment to their cause following the 100% increase in salaries that took place in Kogi state in 2012, the claimant went on that following the salary increase, the pensions of their members was only increased by 50% and they have been calling on the state government to harmonize their pensions since then.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US">The defendant during adumbration canvassed the argument that Section 210 of the 1999 CFRN (as amended) was clear and should be given its ordinary meaning by the court. Submitting that the claimants pensions were reviewed in October 2012 by 50% and that by virtue of Section 210 of the Constitution and that claimant were not due for another review seeing as it has not been up to 5 years since that date. Arguing that this suit is premature and urged the court to hold that the case lacked merit.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;mso-pagination:widow-orphan no-line-numbers"><b><u><span lang="EN-US">Court’s Decision <o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:widow-orphan no-line-numbers"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:widow-orphan no-line-numbers"><span lang="EN-US">I have carefully summarized the evidence of both sides, the arguments of opposing counsel and having carefully reviewed all the authorities cited, read through all the relevant processes and digested the contention of the parties and their written submission are herewith incorporated in this Judgement and specific mention would be made to them where the need arises. The issue for determination in this suit to my mind is the issue as formulated by the defendants:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><span lang="EN-US">Whether the claimants are entitled to the reliefs sought.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><span lang="EN-US"> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US">The claimants are seeking the following reliefs <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:widow-orphan no-line-numbers"><span lang="EN-US"> <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US">i. A declaration that the Claimants are entitled to payment to their members one hundred percent (100%) harmonization of their respective monthly pensions as of right following the General Salary Review/Implementation of the National Minimum Wage to the Public Servants in the Public Service of Kogi State effective from the 1<sup>st</sup> day of December, 2011;<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US">ii. A declaration that by virtue of the provisions of Section 210(3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (As Amended), the Claimants are entitled as of right to have their pensions automatically harmonized with those of their serving counterparts in the State Public Service upon the General Salary Review Undertaken/Implemented by the Kogi State Government for its workers, also known as the implementation of the National Minimum Wage of 1 December, 2011;<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US">iii. A declaration that the failure of or refusal by the 1 Defendant to fully harmonize (100%) the Pensions of the Claimants with those of their serving counterparts in the Public Service of Kogi State since the 1<sup>st</sup> day of December, 2011, amounts to a transgression/violation of the Nigerian<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US">Constitution as enshrined in section 210(3) thereof.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US">iv. A declaration that the Claimants are entitled to immediate harmonization and payment to them with retrospective effect of the remaining 50% of their pensions with arrears, with effect from the 1<sup>st</sup> day of December, 2011, the date when the salaries of their serving counterparts in the Public Service of Kogi State were reviewed upwards, the 1<sup>st</sup> 50% harmonization having been earlier approved by the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant and paid to members of the Claimants, with effect from 1<sup>st</sup> day of October, 2012.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US">v. A declaration that members of the Claimants are entitled as of right to severance gratuity in line with Schedule II of the Remuneration of Certain Public and Political office Holders in Kogi State Law, 2002, and the extant circulars on the subject.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US">vi. An Order directing the defendants to pay to each of the claimants accumulated arrears of the 50% harmonization from the date of filing this suit on the 9th day of November, 2015, to the date of execution of the judgment.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US">The claimants in response to their four questions A, B, C and D, which summate to whether the claimants were entitled to 1. An 100% increase of the pensions as at 2011 and 2.should the increase not be automatic as with that to workers salaries, 3. Is the failure of the state government to increase their pensions with the salary increase not a violation of the constitution and 4 having received a 50% increase are they not entitled to the remainder another 50% increase.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US">Whilst the claimants answer all the above questions in the affirmative, the position of the defendants is that the burden is on the claimant to prove that they are entitled to have their pensions harmonized one hundred percent with those of their counter parts who are still in public service<span style="color:red"> </span>and that the claimant have not been able to prove that they are entitled to the reliefs being sought. Arguing that although S.210(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria guarantees the right of a person in public service to receive pension/gratuity which shall be regulated by law. And Pensions shall be reviewed every five years or together with any State Civil Service Salary reviews whichever is earlier S. 210(3) the Constitution does not guarantee that the Claimants pensions should be harmonized with those of their serving counterparts in the State Public Service upon the implementation of the National Minimum Wage of 1st December, 2011. Arguing further that the claimants pensions were reviewed in October 2012 by 50% and the claimant were not due for another review until 5 years from October 2012 S210 (1) 1999 CFRN (as amended).<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US">Now whereas I agree with the defendant that the burden lies on the claimant to prove their entitlement to the reliefs they claim and considering that Section 210 of the constitution provides that:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="rvps2"><span class="rvts6"><span lang="EN-US">210. Protection of pension rights</span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="rvps2"><span class="rvts6"><span lang="EN-US">(1) Subject to the provisions of subsection (2) of this section, the right of a person in the public service of a State to receive pension or gratuity shall be regulated by law.</span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="rvps2"><span class="rvts6"><span lang="EN-US">(2) Any benefit to which a person is entitled in accordance with or under such law as is referred to in subsection (1) of this section, shall not be withheld or altered to his disadvantage except to such extent as is permissible under any law, including the Code of Conduct.</span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="rvps2"><span class="rvts6"><span lang="EN-US">(3) Pensions shall be reviewed every five years or together with any State civil service salary reviews, which ever is earlier.</span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 10.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="rvps2"><span class="rvts6"><span lang="EN-US">(4) Pensions in respect of service in the public service of a State shall not be taxed</span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US">And although the claimants did not tender any evidence as to the nature or what per-centage increase of the civil servants salaries was achieved by the implementation of the National Minimum Wage of 1st December, 2011 in the state, the law, the constitution has provided that pensions should be reviewed every five years or that pensions be reviewed together with the state civil service salary reviews.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US">In 2011 the government of Kogi State implemented the Minimum wage which had the effect of reviewing the salary structure of the state as the Learned Authour and Jurist BB Kanyip in his publication at the 52<sup>nd</sup> Nigeria Bar Association (NBA) Conference Abuja ‘Labour Rights, the Democratic Process and the Nigerian Emerging Market<sup> </sup>stated at page 23 that “the introduction of minimum wage which interferes directly with the normal process of wage determination in the market. The defendants have argued that burden is on the claimant to prove that they are entitled to have their pensions harmonized one hundred percent with those of their counter parts who are still in public service, that being the case and with the public servant receiving an 100% salary increase the question then arises are the claimant entitled to the same per-centage increment in their pensions and is the increment automatic with that of the public servants.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US">Section 210 (3) states that <span class="rvts6">Pensions shall be reviewed every five years or together with any State civil service salary reviews, whichever is earlier, which without the conjunctive “or†would read <o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -18.0pt;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span class="rvts6"><span lang="EN-US">a.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt;"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span class="rvts6"><span lang="EN-US">Pensions shall be reviewed every five years or<o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -18.0pt;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span class="rvts6"><span lang="EN-US">b.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt;"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span class="rvts6"><span lang="EN-US">Pensions shall be reviewed together with any State civil service salary reviews,<o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span class="rvts6"><span lang="EN-US"> <o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span class="rvts6"><span lang="EN-US">Whichever is earlier.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span class="rvts6"><span lang="EN-US"> <o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span class="rvts6"><span lang="EN-US">I find and hold that the Constitution provides for a situation where pension reviews are done together with salary reviews or increments. And having considered the 2011 Minimum wage implementation a salary review as well as the use of the word “together†which by the oxford dictionaries.com 2017 means “withâ€, or “in proximity to anotherâ€, “so as to touch or combineâ€, “so as to be in agreement†and “at the same time†this means the pensions are required to be reviewed at the same time as salaries are reviewed by the Constitution. I answer question A and B in the affirmative.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US">The defendants have argued that pensions are regulated by law, and this court not has been presented with any law legitimizing the 2012 50% increase in pension and considering the contents of Exhibit 12<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US">Reproduced below:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><i><span lang="EN-US">S/GO/KGS/ADM/248/VOL. V/706 12<sup>th</sup> August, 2015<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><i><span lang="EN-US"> </span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><i><span lang="EN-US">The Chairman,<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><i><span lang="EN-US">Association of Retired Heads of,<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><i><span lang="EN-US">Service & Permanent Secretaries,<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><i><span lang="EN-US">Lokoja<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><i><span lang="EN-US"> </span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><i><span lang="EN-US">RE: PLEA AND ULTIMATUM FOR PAYMENT OF THE REMAINING 50% OF HARMONIZED PENSIONS OF RETIRED KOGI STJ&TE HEADS OF SERVICE AND PERMANENT SECRETARIES<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><i><span lang="EN-US"> </span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><i><span lang="EN-US">His Excellency Capt Idris Wada, the Governor of Kogi State acknowledges the letters your Association has written dated 9m July and 11th August, 2015 on the above named matter<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><i><span lang="EN-US"> </span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><i><span lang="EN-US">Hs Excellency appreciates all the sacrifices, commitments and hard work that your member had put in as their contributions to developing Kogi State. As a result, His Excellency is aware and strongly believes that members of your Association, and indeed al’ those who retired from the services of Kogi State are duly entitled to their pensions, gratuities and severance allowances as when due.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><i><span lang="EN-US"> </span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><i><span lang="EN-US">While acknowledging that payment of the remaining 50% of your harmonized pension has been outstanding for about two years now, it must be mentioned that the State is going through a very difficult, excruciatingly painful financial crunch at the moment His Excellency therefore requests that your ultimatum be reconsidered and, preferably translated into patience, understanding and cooperation hoping the finances of Government would improve soon.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><i><span lang="EN-US"> </span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><i><span lang="EN-US">Thank you for your understanding in this matter, as we all put our hands on deck for the comprehensive development of Kogi State.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><i><span lang="EN-US"> </span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><i><span lang="EN-US">Kindly accept His Excellency’s esteemed regards<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><i><span lang="EN-US"> </span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:36.0pt"><i><span lang="EN-US">(signed)<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><i><span lang="EN-US">PROF. OLUGBEMIRO JEGEDE<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><i><span lang="EN-US">Secretary to the Government of Kogi State<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US">From this letter particularly I find that claimants’ 2012 are clearly entitled to the balance of 50% of the pension. The letter itself acknowledged that as of 2015 the claimants 50% was already outstanding for over two years continuing that the State was experiencing financial difficulties. The claimant have not provided this court with any evidence as to the instrument under which the 50% pension was granted in 2012, to enable the court determine the constitutionality or other wise of the circumstances under which the said increment was made, having said that I answer questions C and D in the affirmative. However this court is unable to make a determination on whether the defendants acted in violation of the constitutional provisions or not. ( Having not being furnished with the instrument under which the defendants made the 50% pension increase or the instrument under which the state Minimum wage was effected).<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US">The position of the law is that pensions should not be withheld under any circumstance. See <span class="apple-style-span"><b><span style="color:red">ADEMOLA POPOOLA & ORS V. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF KWARA STATE & ORS (2011) LPELR-3608(CA).</span></b></span><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US">With respect to the claimants fifth question;<b> </b>Question E; whether members of the Claimants who retired from the Public Service of Kogi State are entitled to be paid by the 1st Defendant their severance gratuities bearing in mind the Provisions of Schedule II of the Law on the Remuneration of Certain Public and Political Office Holders in Kogi State and the extant Federal and State Government Circulars on the subject matter. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US">Now the Claimants contend that by virtue of the provisions of Schedule II of the<b> </b>Remuneration of Certain Public and Political Office Holders in Kogi State, 50 members of the Claimants are entitled to be paid to them 300% of their total annual emolument following their disengagement from service under Schedule II of the Law.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US">To which the defendants have argued that gratuities (including pensions) are computed in accordance with the law or regulations in force at the date of a public officer’s retirement. Relying on <b>Section 4 of the Pensions (Northern Nigeria New Officers) Law COP 90 Laws of Northern Nigeria, 1963</b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US">The claimants in formulating this question and arguing their entitlement to their gratuity failed to show the court the instrument which gives rise to the 300% total emolument. The rules of this court require a party who is seeking payment of a “gratuity†to state the source of the claim Order 3 rule 12 and in rule 17 the claimant is required to file a copy of the instrument the court is to interpret. In order to respond to this question the court would be required to look at the law in questions and particularly schedule 11 neither of which have been furnished to this court. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US">The court is therefore unable to answer Question E as the claimants have failed to substantiate their claim to the entitlements relating to this question all reliefs pertaining to this question therefore fail.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US">For avoidance of doubt the claimants case succeeds but only this far.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US">i. It is hereby declared that the Claimants were entitled to payment to their members one hundred percent (100%) harmonization of their respective monthly pensions as of right following the General Salary Review/Implementation of the National Minimum Wage to the Public Servants in the Public Service of Kogi State effective from the 1<sup>st</sup> day of December, 2011;<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US">ii. It is hereby declared that by virtue of the provisions of Section 210(3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (As Amended), the Claimants were entitled as of right to have their pensions automatically harmonized with those of their serving counterparts in the State Public Service upon the General Salary Review Undertaken/Implemented by the Kogi State Government for its workers, also known as the implementation of the National Minimum Wage of 1 December, 2011;<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US">iii. It is hereby declared that the Claimants are entitled to immediate harmonization and payment to them of the remaining 50% of their pensions with arrears, with effect from the 1<sup>st</sup> day of December, 2011, the date when the salaries of their serving counterparts in the Public Service of Kogi State were reviewed upwards, the 50% harmonization having been earlier approved by the 1st Defendant and paid to members of the Claimants, with effect from 1<sup>st</sup> day of October, 2012.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US">iv. The defendants are hereby ordered to pay to each of the claimants accumulated arrears of the 50% harmonization in line with declaration iii above.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US">The cost of this suit is put at N200, 000.00 <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US">This is the court’s Judgment it is hereby entered.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><span lang="EN-US">……………................................<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><b><span lang="EN-US">Hon. Justice E. N. N. Agbakoba <o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><b><span lang="EN-US"> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><b><span lang="EN-US">Judge.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>