Download PDF
JUDGMENT This suit was instituted by the Claimants on 29th September 2014. The original Claimants in this suit were Sir. H.U.C. Chukwudire, Dr. I. E. Iheozor Ejiofor, Dr. C. P. Nosiri, Mrs. Rachael Chukwu and Mr. F.O Ekechi. In the course of the action, Sir Jerry Nwachukwu and Mr. Alex Onyemekara were added as Claimants in the suit. Also, during the pendency of the suit, Sir. H.U.C. Chukwudire and Mr. F. O. Ekechi passed away and they were substituted with their wives to wit: Franca Mary Chukwudire and Mrs. Irene Amaka Ekechi respectively. In the further amended statement of facts of the Claimants, they sought the following reliefs: 1. Whether by the tenets of the Government White Paper on Ceding of Alvan Ikoku College of Education to the Federal Government of May 2010 and a letter with reference number HIS/PNS/ACCTS/4/VOL.62 /716 dated 9/7/2012, the Defendants are not supposed to pay the Claimants their unpaid gratuity and pension arrears from 2007- 2009 which was the State Government portion/liability in line with the present policy of Government in force throughout the Federation of Nigeria. 2. If the answer to the above question is in the positive, the claimants seek the following relief: i. An Order of court compelling the Defendants to pay the Claimants their unpaid gratuity and pension arrears from 2007-2009 which was the state portion/liability in line with the recommendation of a government constituted technical committee on the ceding of Alvan Ikoku College of Education, Owerri, to the Federal Government Pleadings were duly exchanged ant trial commenced on 5th October 2015. The Claimants called two witnesses. Chukwudire Hyacinth testified as CW1. Dr. I. E. Iheozor Ejiofor testified as CW2. Sir Anthony Mbadinuju testified on behalf of the 1st and 2nd Defendant as DW1. Mrs. Mary Ezinne Ikeji testified on behalf of the 3rd and 4th Defendant as DW2. Hearing ended on the 24th day of January 2018 and parties were ordered to file Final Written Addresses, which were variously filed and subsequently regularized. Parties adopted their respective Final Written Addresses on 2nd October 2018. CLAIMANTS’ CASE The case of the Claimants, as pleaded in their further amended statement of facts and given in the evidence of their 2 witnesses, Sir. Hyacinth Chukwudire and Dr. I. E. Iheozor Ejiofor, is that they were retired staff of the 3rd Defendant. They were employed pursuant to the 3rd Defendant’s condition of service at various times between 1973 and 2009. While in the employment of the 3rd Defendant, these former employees were allocated houses at Shell Camp, Owerri as follows: i. Sir. H.U.C. Chukwudire- House No. B101 ii. Dr. I.E. Iheozor Ejiofor- House No. B92 iii. Dr. C.P. Nosiri- House No. B129 (5) iv. Mrs. Rachael Chukwu- Plot 129 Flat 4 v. Mr. Frank Ekechi- House No. B128 Flat 3 vi. Sir Jerry Nwachukwu- House No. B88 vii. Mr. Alex Onyemekara – House No. B66 The allocations were made to them by virtue of their employment and they were issued allocation letters. The Claimants occupied the houses until they retired between 2007 and 2009. Upon retirement, the Claimants were yet to be paid their gratuities and accumulated pension arrears. These entitlements have been calculated, approved and the State Government has issued authority for payment to each of them. The Claimants are aware that the Imo State Government accepted the recommendation of a Government constituted Technical Committee on ceding of Alvan Ikoku College of Education, Owerri, to the Federal Government to take over and pay a total of N652,015,173.48 of unpaid gratuity and pension arrears of retirees of the 3rd Defendant from 1993 to 2008. The 1st Defendant accepted to take over payment of the gratuities and pension arrears and directed the Head of Service in a white paper to work out the modalities for settlement. The Claimants were given notice of owners’ intention to recover possession issued on behalf of Government of Imo State wherein the Claimants were addressed as squatters and they were threatened with eviction from the quarters. They were not served any quit notice before the notice of owners’ intention to recover possession, but the Defendants claimed to have determined the tenancy by a notice to quit dated 7/5/2012. Upon retirement, the Claimants continued to occupy their allocated quarters while waiting for payment of their pension. This was done in accordance with the 3rd Defendant’s letter dated 6/10/1995 wherein staff of the 3rd Defendant were informed of the Governing Council’s decision to allow retiring staff live in allocated quarters for 6 additional months from the date full retirement benefits of the staff is paid. Till date, the Claimants have not been paid their gratuity and accumulated pension arrears since their retirement despite the 1st Defendant’s undertaking in the Government White Paper, although the Defendants later started paying the Claimants monthly pension. The Claimants made repeated demands but the 3rd and 4th Defendants refused to pay the Claimants their retirement benefits. In June 2003, the Federal Government introduced the monetisation of fringe benefits in the Federal Public Service vide circular no. SGF.19/S.47/C1/11/371 wherein Federal Public servants were entitled to be paid money up to 100% of their annual basic salary to enable such officers rent houses of their choice. The monetisation policy also entailed outright sale of government owned houses to staff occupying them. In 2007, the Federal Government took over the 3rd Defendant. The taking over converted staff of the 3rd Defendant to Federal staff and entitled them to enjoy several advantages including the monetisation policy and retirement policy from 2007. In the concession of Imo State Government during the takeover of the 3rd Defendant, the Imo State Government accepted to pay the gratuity and pension arrears of staff of the 3rd Defendant who retired between 2007 and 2009. The Federal Ministry of Education could only accept pension liabilities of those staff that were due for retirement after 3 years of the take-over, which fell in 2010. The Federal Government demanded a formal letter from the 3rd Defendant accepting liability for pensioners from 1993 to 2009. The staff of the 3rd Defendant who retired between 2007 and 2009 were excluded from being paid their pension and gratuity by the Federal Government as a result of the sacrifice imposed on them by the Technical Committee on the ceding of the 3rd Defendant to the Federal Government. 1ST AND 2ND DEFENDANTS’ CASE In defence of the claims of the Claimants, the 1st and 2nd Defendants filed a statement of defence and also called one witness. The witness, DW1, is one Anthony Mbadinuju, a Principal Litigation Officer in the Imo State Ministry of Justice. In his brief evidence, the witness stated that in 2009, the Imo State House of Assembly enacted the Alvan Ikoku College of Education (Transfer) Law No. 6 of 2009. This Law transferred the Alvan Ikoku College of Education to Federal Government through the Federal Ministry of Education. All the assets, liabilities and responsibilities of the Alvan Ikoku College of Education were transferred to the Federal Government. The witness concluded that the Claimants are not entitled to their claims and urged the court to dismiss their claims. 3RD AND 4TH DEFENDANTS’ CASE The 3rd and 4th Defendants too filed a statement of defence and called one witness. She is Mrs. Mary Ikeji, the Pension Desk Officer of the 3rd Defendant. In her evidence the witness, as DW2, told the court that the 3rd Defendant was a state-owned institution until 2007 when it was taken over by the Federal Government. Before its take-over, the Governing Council of the 3rd Defendant made some policies among which is the one granting 6 months period from the date of payment gratuities to retired staff occupying college quarters to vacate the quarters. This policy of 6/10/1995 was made when the 3rd Defendant was still state-owned, and it was not part of the contract of employment of the Claimants. The said policy has however been cancelled by the Council of the 3rd Defendant at its 156th meeting held on 30th June 2006. The Claimants were Council members at the time and they were aware of the counter policy. Before the Federal Government took over the 3rd Defendant, part of the condition for the take-over was the undertaking of the Imo State Government, following the recommendation of the Technical Committee, to pay the outstanding gratuities and pension of staff who retired between 1st July 2007 and 31st December 2009. The Claimants fall into this group. Based on the undertaking of the Imo State Government and as part of its responsibility for the completion of the take-over process, the Imo State Government prepared and issued the authority for the payment of outstanding gratuities and pension to the Claimants. From the moment the Imo State Government made the undertaking, payment of the gratuity and pension of the Claimants was no longer the responsibility of the 3rd and 4th Defendants but that of the Imo State Government. DW2 concluded that the claimants are not entitled to their claims. Upon the close of evidence, counsels for the parties filed their final written addresses which were adopted on 2/10/2018. 1ST AND 2ND DEFENDANTS’ ADDRESS In the 1st and 2nd Defendants Counsel’s Final Written Address filed on 18th July 2018, four issues for determination were identified as follows: 1. Whether this court has the jurisdiction to entertain this case. 2. Whether the Documents marked Exhibits A, B, C, D, E, G, H, I, L, M, N, O, P, V1, V2, V3, V4, and V5, W1, W2, W3 W4, W5, W6, X, V, Z1, Z2, Z3 ought to be admitted in Evidence and or be relied upon in this case. 3. Whether the Claimants proved their case to entitle them to judgment in this case. 4. Assuming without conceding that the Claimant had proved their case, against which Defendants did they prove their case i.e. who ought to pay the Claimants? Regarding issue one, counsel submitted that when the issue of jurisdiction is raised, the court must carefully peruse the writ of summons or complaint and the statement of claim (in this case statement of facts) to consider whether it has jurisdiction to entertain and determine the matter, per ADETONA vs. IGELE GENERAL ENT. LTD (2011) All FWLR 1025 at 1051 para B-D. See also MADUKOLU vs. NKEMDILIM (1962) 1 ALL NLR 587. Similarly, it was argued by counsel that there is no cause of action against the 1st and 2nd Defendants, because the action was commenced more than 3 months against the 1st and 2nd Defendants who are Public Officers protected by Section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act. According to counsel, the alleged act which purportedly led to the commencement of this suit occurred from 2007 to 2009, with the instant case filed in 2011, it is incompetent and robs the court of jurisdiction to entertain same. The case of IBRAHIM vs. JSC, KADUNA STATE (1998) 64 LRCN 5044 at 5068, and the definition of Public Officer in Section 18(1) of the Interpretation Act was commended to the Court to buttress the fact that the Defendants in this case are public officers. Furthermore, it is counsel’s contention that where a statute prescribes a specific period for the filing of an action in a court of law, any action filed after the expiration of that period is null and void, because the period of limitation starts to run from the date the cause of action accrues, as was held in CHUKWU vs. AMADI (2009) All FWLR 1189 at 1203 Para C-D. The court was urged to give effect to the clear and unambiguous words in the provisions of Section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act and hold that the suit of the Claimant is statute barred, thus the right of the Claimants have been extinguished and they are left with empty cause of action which the court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain. See A.G. ONDO STATE vs. A.G. EKITI STATE (2001) 91 L.R.C.N. 3065 at 3087 Para 3, Pg. 3088 Para H-I. With respect to issue two, counsel contended that Exhibit A (a copy of authorization paper), Exhibit B (copy of White Paper), Exhibit C (copy of Notice of Owners intention to recover possession), Exhibit D (copy of circular from the 3rd defendant) and Exhibits G, H, I, K, L, M, N, R, S, T, U, Q, V1, V2, V3, V4, V5 are Public Documents under the meaning of Section 102 of the Evidence Act 2011, and must meet the conditions provided in the said section to be admissible. The case of KWARA STATE vs. LAWAL (2000) 13 NWLR (Pt. 205) Pg. 347 at 381-382 C-A was relied on to the effect that all public documents apart from gazette and statutes must be certified before they can be tendered in evidence. Counsel argued that there was no evidence of the claimants’ application for certified true copy of the said documents or that they applied for the certified true copy but encountered any problem in any way to justify their attempt to tender the said exhibits, per HRH IGWE KRIS ONYEKURUHIJE & ANOR vs. BENUE STATE GOVERNMENT & ORS (2015) LPELR-24780 (SC) 61. Counsel urged the court to hold that Exhibits A to D are inadmissible, reject and expunge them from the court's records. On Exhibit E, it was contended by counsel that the Claimant tendered the developed photograph which is a photocopy without given evidence of the original (the negative) or calling the photographer to come and give evidence of the process of the photograph’s production, the court was urged to reject them too. On issue three, counsel submitted that the evidence of CWI and CW2 are contradictory because while the CW1 believes that he is owed by 1st and 2nd Defendants, the CW2 believes it is the 3rd and 4th defendants that will pay them. Also, counsel argued that none of the claimants have proved the period for which they were owed, or the amount of monies owed them as pension or gratuity, to discharge the burden of proving their case. The cases of UNION BANK PLC vs. ASTRA BUILDERS (WA) LTD (2010) 2-5 SC (Pt. 1) 59 and AIYETORO COMM. TRADING LTD vs. IDRIS (1999) 6 NWLR (Pt. 606) 330, were also relied on by counsel. See also Sections 131 And 132 of the Evidence Act 2011. It is counsel’s submission that the White Paper of Government is a mere recommendation to Government which cannot be carried out until it is brought as a bill to the House of Assembly, passed into law and signed by the Governor of Imo State. Referring to Exhibit Z4, the Law No 6 of 2009, counsel submitted that the Law overrides and cancels the said White Paper Exhibit B and till date, none of the parties have challenged the said law. Counsel urged the court to hold that the Claimants have not succeeded to prove that they were owed. Arguing issue four, it is Counsel’s opinion that it is a common ground between parties in the instant case that the Alvan Ikoku College of Education had been ceded or taken over by the Federal Government. Exhibits Z4, Law No.6 of 2009 was tendered through DW2 i.e. the law that transferred the assets, liabilities and responsibilities of Alvan Ikoku to the Federal Government. DW2 also conceded that the Federal Government takeover of the 3rd Defendant was on 1st January 2007, a fact confirmed by CW2 who said during cross examination that it was the 3rd Defendant that paid him salary and pays the pensions and gratuities of retired staff. Accordingly, counsel urged the court to hold that if it is proved that the Claimants are entitled to any arrears of pension or gratuity, it is the 3rd and 4th Defendants, the Federal Ministry of Education and the Federal Government of Nigeria that would pay them such indebtedness as CW1 and CW2 who gave evidence in this case retired after the Federal Government's takeover of the institution in 2007. In conclusion, counsel urged the court to hold that the Claimants had failed to prove their case to entitle them to judgment and consequently dismiss this case. 3RD AND 4TH DEFENDANTS’ ADDRESS The 3rd and 4th Defendants’ counsel filed his final address on 4th July 2018 and formulated three issues for resolution: 1. Whether the 3rd and 4th Defendants are liable to pay the Claimants their unpaid gratuities and pension arrears from 2007 to 2009 which was the portion/liability in line with the recommendation of a government constituted technical committee on the ceding of the 3rd Defendant to the Federal Government. 2. Whether the 3rd and 4th Defendants are liable for the particulars of predicaments purportedly faced by the Claimants in relation to the Claimants' occupancy of the 3rd Defendant's Staff Quarters as well as their unpaid gratuities and pension arrears. 3. Whether this suit is not statute barred, having been brought outside the time prescribed by Section 2 (a) of the Public Officers Protection Act CAP. 41, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004. On issue one, counsel contended that the CW1 testified during cross examination that it is the 1st and 2nd Defendants that have been paying the Claimants their pensions and also undertook to pay them their retirement benefits, He also said that the same 1st and 2nd Defendants have been paying them since 2012, which underscores the fact that the 1st and 2nd Defendants are the ones meant to pay the Claimants, excluding the 3rd and 4th Defendants from responsibility in respect of the Claimants' pensions and gratuities. Again, counsel was of the view that CW1, during cross-examination by Counsel to the 3rd and 4th Defendants, admitted that the Claimants made demand on the 3rd and 4th Defendants because he knew that the 3rd and 4th Defendants would reach out to the 1st Defendant, an indication that the 3rd and 4th Defendants are competent to intercede and does not extend to any specific undertaking to pay the Claimants on record their unpaid gratuities and pension arrears, as evinced by Exhibits Z and Z1, that is to say, the letter dated the 22nd day of February, 2013 by the 4th Defendant and addressed to the Honourable Minister of Education as well as the separate letters dated the 28th day of October, 2013 addressed to the Head of Service and the 1st Defendant on record. It is counsel’s opinion that in the circumstance, in view of the decision in OGBOYAGA LTD vs. NNEBE (2016) All FWLR (Pt. 820) 1310 at l312-3, the 3rd and 4th Defendants were agents acting in liaison for the purpose of meeting the threshold bureaucratic requirement for the payment of the Claimants' pensions and gratuities by the 1st Defendant; particularly considering DW2’s testimony that after the 3rd Defendant was taken over by the Federal Government on the 1st day of January, 2007, a letter from the Federal Government was issued to the 3rd Defendant to the effect that all those who retired from the 1st day of July, 2007 to December, 2009 will be absorbed by the Imo State Government. Again, it was argued by counsel referring to paragraph 6 (h) of DW2’s Amended Written Deposition that when the 3rd Defendant was taken over by the Federal Government, the Claimants’ files were moved out of the 3rd Defendant to Imo State Government and were no longer their responsibility but that of the 1st Defendant. Also, counsel submitted that paragraph 6 (f)-(i) of DW2's Amended Deposition were not effectively traversed by the Claimants; and paragraph 13 of CW1’s Written Deposition clearly shows that the Claimants are aware that it is the 1st Defendant that is responsible for the reliefs sought in this suit. The said paragraph reads: “We are aware that the Imo State Government accepted the recommendation of a Government Constituted Technical Committee on the ceding of Alvan Ikoku College of Education, Owerri, to the Federal Government, to take over (and pay) the total sum of N652,015,173.48 (Six Hundred & Fifty Two Million, Fifteen Thousand, One Hundred & Seventy Three Naira, Forty Eight Kobo) of unpaid gratuity and pension arrears of Alvan Ikoku Federal College of Education (A.I.C.E.) Owerri retirees, inclusive of us, from 1993 - 2008, which was the state (sic) portion. The then Governor not only accepted to take over the payment of the gratuities and pension arrears, but directed the Head of Service in the ensuring White Paper to "Note the Figure, compute it into her pension and gratuity chart and work out the modalities for its settlement ...” It is counsel’s contention that from this averment of the Claimants, the 3rd and 4th Defendants were wrongly joined in this suit. See GRASSOL vs. TUTARE (2015) All FWLR (Pt. 786) 475 at 484. On issue two, counsel submitted though the 3rd and 4th Defendants issued Exhibit D, a circular to the Claimants which states inter alia that if a retiring staff lives in quarters owned by the 3rd Defendant, he or she should be allowed six extra months to live in the quarters from the date he or she is paid full retirement benefits; the said exhibit by constructive implication was cancelled by Exhibit X, that is to say, the Counter Policy document/Circular captioned "PAYMENT OF GRATUITY TO RETIRED STAFF OCCUPYING COLLEGE QUARTERS" dated the 6th day of July, 2006 which inter alia gave the Claimants the deadline of the 31st day of December, 2006 to vacate the 3rd Defendant's Staff Quarters, premises upon payment of gratuity in the case of those whose gratuity is above One Million Naira and desire to collect 40% of their gratuity and those below One Million Naira who are expected to apply for 50% of their gratuity. Counsel added that the Notice of Intention to Recover Possession was issued by the 1st Defendant and not the 3rd and 4th Defendants, and such documents cannot be altered by contrary oral evidence. Counsel argued further that Exhibit E only shows damaged rooftops of buildings and nothing more, leaving a reasonable man in speculation as to the unequivocal cause or circumstance of the removal of the rooftops, which may also be attributable to natural disaster; and the maker of the photographs never testified on record, nor did any other witness on behalf of the Claimants furnish explanation on record as to the whereabouts or fate of the maker of Exhibit E, thus rendering Exhibit E incurably inadmissible, per Section 83(1) (b) of the Evidence Act. Again, counsel argued that there are no records of police reports on the incident as alleged by the Claimants in paragraphs 18, 19, 20, and 21, of their deposition, and there is nothing reasonably suggesting that the 3rd and 4th Defendants will derive any benefit from damaging the 3rd Defendant's Staff Quarters. More so, counsel argued that the Claimants' allegations of malicious damage which is a crime, by virtue of relevant criminal statutes of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, against the 3rd and 4th Defendants have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, in line with Section 135 (1) of the Evidence Act 2011, and AGODA vs. AMORI (2016) All FWLR (Pt. 839) 1063 at 1069. Section 121 (a) and (b) of the Evidence Act, 2011 was referred to by counsel which provides that:- “A fact is said to be: (a) "proved" when, after considering the matters before it, the court either believes it to exist or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, in the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it does exist; (b) "disproved" when after considering the matters before it, the court either believes that it does not exist or considers its non-existence so probable that a prudent man ought in the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it does not exist.” The argument of counsel on the above section is that the claims of the Claimants have not been proved in accordance with the law. Regarding issue three, Counsel submitted that paragraph 6 of the Amended Statement of Defence of the 3rd and 4th Defendants pleaded the facts that show that the instant case is statute barred, per ADEMETAN vs. I.T.R.C.C.G. (2016) All FWLR (Pt. 821) 1502, and where the issue of limitation is raised in defence of an action, it is only proper that the issue should be addressed first, as it makes no sense to decide the merit of a matter that is statute barred, because in the event of a successful plea of the limitation law against a plaintiff's right of actions, the action becomes extinguished and not maintainable in law, in view of AJAYI vs. ADEBIYI (2012) 11 NWLR (PT 1310) 37, It was argued by counsel that the relief sought in this action emanated from events that occurred in 2007-2009, while the suit was filed in 2014, outside the period stipulated by Section 2 (a) of the Public Officers Protection Act, making it statute barred leaving the plaintiffs with a cause of action which the plaintiffs cannot enforce. See ADEMETAN vs. I.T.C.C.G (supra). It was argued further that the instant suit having been commenced outside statutorily prescribed time, the Court has no choice but to dismiss this See ARAKA vs. EJEAGWU (2001) FWLR (Pt. 36) 830. In concluding, counsel urged the Court to hold that this suit as constituted against the 3rd and the 4th Defendants lacks merit. CLAIMANTS ADDRESS On August 7 2018, the Claimants’ counsel filed his final address, in which he adopted the issues raised by the Defendants’ counsels. On issue one of the 1st and 2nd Defendants’ counsel – Whether this court has the jurisdiction to entertain this case, and the third issue of the 3rd and 4th Defendants’ counsel on “Whether this suit is not statute barred, having been brought outside the time prescribed by Section 2 (a) of the Public Officers Protection Act CAP, 41, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004”; counsel submitted that these issues were canvassed before this court on the 8th day of July, 2015, to which ruling was given. Thus, the court is functus officio to reopen the same argument at this stage, per NWAJIOBI vs. ABA SOUTH LG (2009) All FWLR (Pt. 469) 508 at 533, A-C, and AMACHREE vs. GOODHEAD (2009) All FWLR (Pt. 461) 911 at 927 – 928, G - B. On issues 3 and 4 of the 1st and 2nd Defendants, and issue 1 of the 3rd and 4th Defendants, counsel for the Claimants submitted that the Claimants through their witnesses proved that they retired between 2007 - 2012 and that they have not been paid their accumulated pension and gratuities for the period between 2007 - 2012 which had been computed, calculated and authority for payment issued to each of them, per exhibits D, V, VI, V2, V3, V4 and V5 respectively. See the evidence of the PW1 and PW2. They also established that the 1st and 2nd Defendants paid only pensions from 2012, thereby jumping 2007- 2012. Again, counsel argued that Law No 6 of 2009 which granted the Federal Ministry of Education the assets and liabilities of the 3rd Defendant is subject to Sections 173 (1) and (2) and 210 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), and before the formal takeover of the institution by the Federal Government, agreements were reached between the State Government and the Federal Government without which there would not have been a takeover, per Exhibits B and H. counsel contended that Government white paper is a policy decision taken after recommendation. See Black’s Law Dictionary 10th Edition page 1832, and it is a final decision that does not need to be legislated on. Similarly, counsel contended further that the Imo State Government accepted to pay the retirees their pension and gratuities in order to ensure the takeover, per the evidence of DW2 on 16th November 2017, and Exhibit H which is a letter dated 9/6/2011 giving the State conditions and the State accepted by commencing payment of pension from 2012. In the same vein, counsel submitted that the Imo State Government started implementing the agreement by commencing payment of pensions of the Plaintiffs from July 2012, skipping the years from 2007 - 2012. See Exhibits I, W, N1, N2, W3, W4, W5 and W6 which are the Statements of accounts of the Plaintiffs showing payment of their pensions by the 1st and 2nd Defendants. According to counsel, the defence of not paying the Claimants from 2007—2012, on the basis of Law No.6 of 2009 is unconstitutional, considering Section 210 (1) & (2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, thus with the State Government having accepted to bear the liabilities to ensure the takeover of the institution, and by the Pensions Reform Act; the 3rd Defendant is not relieved from paying the pension of its retired staff. On issue two of the 1st and 2nd Defendants on the admissibility of Exhibits A, B, C, D, E, G, H, I, L, M, N, 0, P, V1, V2, V3, V4 and V5,W1, W2, W3, W4, W5, W6, X, Y, Z1, Z2, Z3, it is the opinion of Counsel that the said exhibits are admissible in evidence. Exhibit A being the Staff Conditions of Service is not strictly a public document within the meaning of Section 102 of the Evidence Act and can be received in evidence under Section 106 (a) (iv) of the Evidence Act being a document purporting to be printed by Order of Government. Same argument was proffered for Exhibit B also being a document printed by order of government and needs no certification. Regarding Exhibit C, Notice served on the Claimants is not a document that needs Certification, the Claimants pleaded that it is what was served on them. For Exhibit D, the CW1 informed the court that all of them were served the document in that form, and it was tendered in the form that it was served on them, bearing the name of the Claimant so it does not need certification. About Exhibit E, counsel submitted that the CW1 said that Exhibit E was taken with digital camera; it is of common knowledge that digital photos do not have negatives and they were pleaded as digital photographs. See paragraph 18 of the Further Amended Statement of Facts. Regarding, Exhibits G and H, counsel submitted further that the CW1 tendered it as what he received, notice to produce was served on the 3rd Defendant to produce the original. See paragraphs 16 and 28 of the Further Amended Statement of Facts. Also, counsel argued that Exhibits I, L, M, N, O, P, R, S, T, U are all private documents issued to the Claimants, offering them employment, and need no certification. With respect to Exhibits V1, V2, V3, V4 and V5, the Claimants’ Statements of Account to prove that they have been receiving pension from the 1st and 2nd Defendants since July 2012, are relevant in this suit; per Sections 6(1) - (2)(a) and 7 of the Evidence Act 2011 Cap E.14. Likewise, the exhibits are entries in books of accounts of banks; they refer to this matter before the court and are admissible as evidence. See Section 51 of the Evidence Act, 2011. In respect of Exhibit Q, counsel opined that a letter issued to the Claimant for allocation of accommodation is a private document which needs no certifications. Also, counsel argued that the Claimants established that by the monetization policy of the Federal Government which came into effect in 2003, the Plaintiffs are entitled to purchase their various houses which were allocated to them vide Exhibits Q, R, S, T and U. See also Exhibit G. In conclusion, counsel urged the court to grant the reliefs sought in this action. COURT’S DECISION In issue 1 of the final written address of the 1st and 2nd Defendants and in issue 3 of the final written address of the 3rd and 4th Defendants, arguments were canvassed to the effect that this court does not have jurisdiction to entertain this suit. The ground of the objection is that the Claimants’ suit is statute barred having not been filed within 3 months from the date of their cause of action against the provision of Section 2 (a) of the Public Officers Protection Act. I see the arguments of counsels for the Defendants as a reintroduction of an issue already resolved by this court in these proceedings. By a notice of preliminary objection filed on 3rd November 2014, the 1st and 2nd Defendants raised an issue of jurisdiction on the ground, among others, that this suit is statute barred by the effect of Section 2 (a) of the Public Officers Protection Act. I considered that objection extensively in my ruling delivered on 8th July 2015 where I held the view that the Claimants’ suit is not statute barred. The counsels for the Defendants have not presented any new circumstance in their written submissions to warrant a change in the position taken by this court in that ruling. The objection to the jurisdiction of this court to entertain this action raised in the final written addresses of the Defendants is overruled. During the testimony of CW1 and CW2, counsels of the Defendants indicated objection to the admissibility of some documents tendered in evidence by these witnesses. The court however granted leave to counsels to raise the objections in the final written addresses. When the final written addresses were filed, only counsel for the 1st and 2nd Defendants made submissions on the admissibility of some of the documents admitted in evidence. Arguments of learned counsel for the 1st and 2nd Defendants is that Exhibits A to D, G, H, I, K, L, M, N, R, S, T, U, Q, V1, V2, V3, V4, V5 are public documents and they are not certified. In addition, Exhibits I, K, L, M, N, R, S, T, U, V2, V3, V4, V5 are employment letters to individuals but not tendered by those they were issued to. It was also argued that the witness did not give foundation as to how he got the documents. It was further submitted that Exhibit E is a photocopy of a photograph but no evidence of the original nor is the photographer called to give evidence. Counsel urged the court to reject these exhibits and expunge them from the record. Exhibit B is an Imo State Government White Paper. It is a public document. The Claimants put heavy reliance on this document as one of the basis for their claim. However, the document is not signed by the 1st Defendant or any official of the Imo State Government. It is also not a Certified True Copy. What was tendered is a photocopy. It is doubtful if it originated from the Imo State Government. It is on this ground this court will reject the document and expunge it from the record. I so hold. As for the remaining documents, they were pleaded and I find them relevant in the determination of this case. The witnesses who tendered the documents also laid foundation for their admissibility. It is my view that the interest of justice dictates that the documents be admitted in evidence. Thus, I will invoke Section 12 (2) of the National Industrial Court Act 2006 to admit the documents in evidence. The documents remain in evidence and retain the exhibit numbers as marked. I will now determine the case of the Claimants. I have considered the facts of the case and in my view, the issue which is to be determined in this judgment is whether the Claimants have proved their case as to entitle them to the reliefs they sought in the case. Upon perusing the case presented by the Claimants, I observe that their complaints are on two issues to wit: their unpaid gratuity and arrears of pension and their interest in the quarters or houses they occupy in the 3rd Defendant’s premises. However, the reliefs sought by the Claimants in this suit are confined to the claim for the payment of their unpaid gratuity and pension arrears from 2007 to 2009 only. In view of the claims of the Claimants, I will limit the consideration of the issue for determination specifically to the claims they sought in the suit. It is the case of the Claimants that they were staff of the 3rd Defendant until they retired from service variously between 2007 and 2009. In 2007, the Federal Government took over the 3rd Defendant from the Imo State Government. During the takeover of the 3rd Defendant, the Imo State Government accepted and undertook, in a Government White Paper, to pay the gratuity and pension arrears of staff of the 3rd Defendant who retired between 2007 and 2009. The Imo State Government also went ahead to calculate, approve and issue authority for payment of the gratuity and pension of each of the Claimant. Despite the undertaking in the Government White Paper, the 1st Defendant has not paid the Claimants their gratuity and accumulated pension arrears since their retirement. The Defendants did not dispute the fact that the Claimants were retired staff of the 3rd Defendant or the fact that the 3rd Defendant was transferred from the Imo State Government to the Federal Government in 2007. The Defendants did not also deny the fact that the Claimants were entitled to be paid pension and gratuity upon their retirement. The case of the Defendants seems to be the controversy as to who between the Imo State Government and the Federal Government is to pay the Claimants their gratuity and pension. The defence of the 1st and 2nd Defendants is that the liability for the claims of the Claimant is that of the Federal Government. According to DW1, upon the transfer of the 3rd Defendant to the Federal Government, the Imo State House of Assembly enacted the Alvan Ikoku College of Education (Transfer) Law No. 6 of 2009 which law transferred all the assets, liabilities and responsibilities of the 3rd Defendant to the Federal Government. On the other hand, the 3rd and 4th Defendants contended that during the take-over of the 3rd Defendant by the Federal Government, following the recommendation of the Technical Committee, the Imo State Government undertook to pay the outstanding gratuities and pension of staff who retired between 1st July 2007 and 31st December 2009 and the Claimants fell into this group. Based on this undertaking, the Imo State Government prepared and issued the authority for the payment of outstanding gratuities and pension to the Claimants. The case of the 3rd and 4th Defendants, in effect, is that the responsibility to pay the gratuity and pension of the Claimants is that of the Imo State Government. This issue was also the focus of counsels for the Defendants in their final written addresses. In issue 4 of the final written of the 1st and 2nd Defendants, their counsel argued that the evidence of the Claimants reveals that they retired after the Federal Government took over the 3rd Defendant, consequently, it is the 3rd and 4th Defendants and the Federal Government who would pay the Claimants their gratuity and pension. For Counsel for the 3rd and 4th Defendants, as submitted in issue 1 of their final written address, the responsibility to pay the Claimants’ pension and gratuity is that of the Imo State Government who had taken steps and actions towards discharging that responsibility. In the evidence of CW1, he told the court that in the concession of Imo State Government during the takeover of the 3rd Defendant, the Imo State Government accepted to pay the gratuity and pension arrears of staff of the 3rd Defendant who retired between 2007 and 2009. This undertaking was stated in the recommendation of a government constituted Technical Committee on ceding of the 3rd Defendant contained in a Government White Paper. The 1st Defendant accepted to pay the gratuities and pension arrears and directed the Head of Service to work out the modalities for settlement. Following this directive, the entitlements of the Claimants have been calculated, approved and the State Government has issued authority for payment to each of them. Under cross examination, CW1 maintained that the 1st and 2nd Defendants were sued because they accepted to pay the Claimants’ retirement benefits and then advised the head of service to work out modalities for settlement. The 1st Defendant has been paying the Claimants pension up till January 2015. CW2 stated in his evidence that the Claimants were not paid their gratuity and accumulated pension arrears though it was calculated, approved and authority for payment by the State Government was issued. Then, the 1st Defendant started paying them monthly pension from June 2012 but the pension from 2007 to May 2012 was not paid. Under cross examination by counsel for the 1st and 2nd Defendants, CW2 said the Claimants have a case against the 1st and 2nd Defendants because they accepted to pay the Claimants retirement benefits through the White Paper, but they did not pay. He also said the Federal Government did not pay their gratuity or pension but the pension they are receiving now is from the State Government. It is clear from the evidence of CW1 and CW2 that the authority they hold responsible for the payment of their gratuity and pension is the Imo State Government. In their claim also, it is clear that they claim the relief from the Imo State Government. The Claimants relied on some documents in support of their allegation. One of them is the alleged White Paper which has been rejected by this court and expunged from evidence. Exhibits A, V1, V2, V3, V4 and V5 are titled authority for payment of retiring/death benefits and dated in the months of May and July 2012. They were issued by the Imo State Government from the office of the Head of Service Establishment and Pensions in favour of H.U.C. Chukwudire, Dr. I.E. Iheozor Ejiofor, Nosiri Chinyere P., Ekechi F.O, Jerry Nwachukwu Adibe, Onyemekara A.O. They contain a computation of the gratuity and pension of these Claimants and it is indicated in the documents that approval was given for the payment of the benefits computed therein to the retiree mentioned in each document. Exhibits W1, W2, W3, W4, W5 and W6 are bank account statements of Iheozor Ejiofor, Chinyere Nosiri, Mrs. Rachael Chukwu, Francis Ekechi, Nwachukwu J.A., and Chukwudire Hyacinth respectively. These account statement of the Claimants show payment of monthly sums into their account as pension payments from the Imo State Government. From these exhibits, the Claimants have shown that after the takeover of the 3rd Defendant by the Federal Government, the Imo State Government took steps towards payment of the Claimants’ gratuity and pension. They also proved that the Imo State Government has started payment of monthly pensions to the Claimants. The 1st and 2nd Defendants relied on Law No. 6 of 2009, which became Law in September 2009, to contend that the Federal Government ought to pay the Claimants gratuity and pension because in the law, the assets, liabilities and responsibilities of the 3rd Defendant were transferred to the Federal Government. The Law was tendered through DW2 and it was admitted in evidence as Exhibit Z4. Section 4 (2) of the law provides that all the assets, liabilities and responsibilities of the 3rd Defendant were transferred to the Federal Government through the Federal Ministry of Education. The assets of the 3rd Defendant transferred to the Federal Government were specifically listed in Section 4 (3) of the Law. However, the liabilities and responsibilities that were transferred were not mentioned or listed. Exhibits A, V1, V2, V3, V4 and V5 are authority issued by the Imo State Government for the payment of gratuity and pension to the Claimants. The Claimants have also given evidence which show that the Imo State Government has started paying the Claimants monthly pension. From the documents and evidence, it is obvious that the Imo State Government undertook to pay the Claimants gratuity and pension and has proceeded to compute and issue payment authority to the Claimants. The Imo State Government has even started paying monthly pension to the Claimants. The implication of these actions of the Imo State Government is that pension and gratuity of staff of the 3rd Defendant who retired before the Law was made was not part of the liability or responsibility transferred to the Federal Government. The Imo State Government could not, in view of her own law, start to pay pension to retired staff of the 3rd Defendant unless she knows that the issue of pension was not one of those transferred to the Federal Government. The witness for the 3rd and 4th Defendants tendered Exhibits Z1 and Z2 in evidence. Exhibit Z1 is a letter dated 22nd February 2013 from the 3rd Defendant to the Federal Ministry of Education pleading for the Ministry to intervene in the payment of the gratuity of staff of the 3rd Defendant who retired from 1st July 2007 to December 2009. The 3rd Defendant mentioned in the letter that “this group was absorbed by the Imo State Government who started paying their monthly pension from August 2012” and that these retirees were absorbed into the State pension Board. The response of the Federal Ministry of Education is Exhibit Z2 dated 18th April 2013. In paragraph 2 thereof, it was stated that the issue be taken to the Imo State Government, as the Federal Government was not responsible for the employment of the retirees in question. The content of these documents further discloses the fact that Imo State Government is responsible to pay the Claimants their gratuity and pension and had commenced payment of pension to the Claimants. From the facts and evidence presented by the Claimants and the 3rd and 4th Defendants, it is clear to this court that in the agreement for the take-over of the 3rd Defendant by the Federal Government from the Imo State Government, it was the responsibility of the Imo State Government to pay the pension and gratuity of staff of the 3rd Defendant who retired between 2007 and 2009. The Claimants retired at various times within this period. Therefore, it is the Imo State Government who ought to pay the Claimants their gratuity and pension. I also find that in performance of that responsibility, the Imo State Government did issue authority for payment of the Claimants’ pension and gratuity in Exhibits A, V1, V2, V3, V4 and V5 and even commenced payment of monthly pension to the Claimants. The Claimants claim in this case is for payment of their gratuity and pension arrears from 2007 to 2009. When the 1st and 2nd Defendants alleged that it was not their responsibility to pay the Claimants’ gratuity and pension, they impliedly admitted that they have not paid same to the Claimants. Therefore, since it is found in this judgment that the Imo State Government is liable to pay the Claimants their gratuity and pension, it is in order to make an order directing the 1st and 2nd Defendant to pay the Claimants their gratuity and pension arrears. From the facts before me, it is not the duty of the 3rd and 4th Defendants to pay the Claimants their gratuity and pension arrears. The 3rd and 4th Defendants are accordingly excused from liability for the claims of the Claimants. The counsel for the 1st and 2nd Defendants argued in issue 3 of the final written address of the 1st and 2nd Defendants that the Claimants did not prove how much each of them is owed and did not prove the indebtedness. I think this argument is immaterial in view of the case presented by the defence. The Claimants’ allegation that their gratuity and pension arrears have not been paid has not been controverted by the Defendants. The Defendants only shifted blames to each other. The 1st and 2nd Defendants whose duty it is to pay the Claimants have not been heard to say that the Claimants have been paid. In Exhibits A, V1, V2, V3, V4, and V5, what is due to each of the Claimants as gratuity and pension have been computed therein and approved for payment by the 1st Defendant. It means that the 1st and 2nd Defendants cannot claim ignorance of the amounts each of the Claimants are entitled to be paid. The fact that the Claimants did not mention specific amounts due to each of them is not substantial to defeat their case. This is more so that pension and gratuity is a constitutional entitlement of the Claimants. See Section 210 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) which protect the right of a retired officer to pension. The Claimants ought not to be denied such entitlement. In the reliefs sought by the Claimants, they limited the period of their claim for arrears of pension to the period from 2007 to 2009. Also, in their further amended statement of facts, particularly in paragraphs 11, 28 and 29 thereof, what the Claimants pleaded is that they retired between the period 2007 and 2009 but their pension arrears were not paid to them. The testimony of CW1 is in line with these facts. From the pleading of the Claimants and the evidence of the CW1, the Claimants claim for arrears of pension is specifically what was not paid between 2007 and 2009. However, CW2 said in his evidence that the 1st Defendant started paying them monthly pension from June 2012 but the pension from 2007 to May 2012 was not paid. He also said CW1 made a mistake in his evidence when he said that the period they were not paid pension was 2007 to 2009. CW2 stated that the correct period of the arrears of their pension was 2007 to 2012. It will appear that CW2 attempted to amend the period of their claim for pension through his evidence. That procedure is not known to law. The Claimants ought to have amended their facts to reflect the evidence of CW2. Sadly, no corresponding attempt was made to amend the statement of facts or the claim to reflect the evidence of CW2. It is certain to me that the period referred to by CW2 is not pleaded neither did the Claimants make any claim for pension arrears for the period 2007 to 2012. As it is, the court cannot amend the pleading of parties or grant a relief not sought by a party. Going by the case presented by the Claimants, their claim for arrears of pension is for the period 2007 to 2009. In view of the foregoing, I find that the Claimants have proved their case and they are entitled to the reliefs they sought. The 1st and 2nd Defendants are ordered to forthwith compute and pay to the Claimants their individual gratuity and pension arrears from 2007 to 2009. Cost of N1,000,000.00 (One Million Naira) is also awarded in favour of the Claimants. The 1st and 2nd Defendants have 30 days from the date of this judgment to comply with the orders hereby made. Judgment is entered accordingly. Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe Judge