Alhaji Muhammed Goni -VS- Borno State Government & ANOR

IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT ABUJA

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP THE HON. JUSTICE E. N. AGBAKOBA

DATED 18^THDEEMBER 2019 SUIT NO: NICN/ABJ/140/2019

BETWEEN:

ALHAJI MOHAMMED GONI ………………… CLAIMANT

AND

BORNO STATE GOVERNMENT
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BORNO STATE ……..DEFENDANTS

REPRESENTATION

DEJI MORAKINYO for the Claimant

BULUS ADAMU Director Civil Litigation Ministry of Justice Bornu State for the Defendant.

JUDGEMENT

The Claimant instituted this action via Originating Summons filed on 30^thMay, 2019 supported by a 20 paragraph affidavit deposed to by the Claimant against the Defendants/Respondents seeking for the resolution of the question set out below:

“WHETHER by the combined reading of Sections 3 (1) and (3) of the Borno State (Grant of Pension to Governors and Deputy Governors) Law, 2005 (as amended in 2009): Section 312 (2) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), as well as Section 6 of the Interpretation Act, Cap 123, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004, the Claimant who was Executive Governor of Borno State from 1979-1983 is not entitled to receive monthly pension for life and the additional benefits enumerated in subsection 3 (i)-(ix) of the Bomb State (Grant of Pension to Governors and Deputy Governors) Law, 2005 (as amended in 2009,), chargeable upon the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Borno State.”

RELIEFS SOUGHT BY THE CLAIMANT

DECLARATION that by the combined reading of Sections 3 (1) and (3) of the Borno State (Grant of Pension to Governors and Deputy Governors) Law, 2005 (as amended in 2009): Section 312 (2) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), as well as Section 6 of the Interpretation Act, Cap 123,Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004, the Claimant who was Executive Governor of Bomb State from 1979-1983 is entitled to receive monthly pension for life and entitled to receive the additional benefits enumerated in subsection 3 (i)-(ix) of the Borno State (Grant of Pension to Governors and Deputy Governors) Law, 2005 (as amended in 2009), chargeable upon the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Borno State.

A MANDATORY ORDER of this Honourable Court directing the defendants to immediately pay to the Claimant, Claimant’s accrued pension as a former elected Governor of Borno State and to immediately provide the Claimant the additional benefits enumerated in subsection 3 (i)-(ix) of the Borno State (Grant of pension to Governors and Deputy Governors) Law, 2005 (as amended in 2009), chargeable upon the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Borno State.

CLAIMANT’S WRITTEN ADDRESS IN SUPPORT OF ORIGINATING SUMMONS

ISSUE

WHETHER by the combined reading of Sections 3 (1) and (3) of the Borno State (Grant of Pension to Governors and Deputy Governors) Law, 2005 (as amended in 2009): Section 312 (2) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), as well as Section 6 of the Interpretation Act, Cap 123, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004, the Claimant who was Executive Governor of Borno State from 1979-1983 is not entitled to receive monthly pension for life and the additional benefits enumerated in subsection 3 (i)-(ix) of the Borno State (Grant of Pension to Governors and Deputy Governors) Law, 2005 (as amended in 2009), chargeable upon the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Borno State.

Learned Counsel for the Claimant submitted that the action and or inaction of the 1st and 2nd defendants in their deliberate refusal to comply with the clear and unambiguous provisions of the Borno State (Grant of Pension to Governors and Deputy Governors) Law, 2005 (as amended in 2009) and by extension the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) with respect to the payment of claimant’s monthly pension and the provision of additional benefits to him is ultra vires their powers. And that the claimant being a former executive governor of the defendant is entitled to the payment of monthly pension as guaranteed by Section 3 (1) of the Borno State (Grant of Pension to Governors and Deputy Governors) Law, 2005 (as amended in 2009).He submitted that the provision of Section 312 (2) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) is clear and same is a bulwark of sort against the rather erroneous and irrational contention that since the claimant was not elected under the 1999 Constitution (as amended), he therefore is not qualified and or entitled to the benefits provided for under Sections 3 (1) and (3) of the Borno State (Grant of Pension to Governors and Deputy Governors) Law, 2005 (as amended in 2009). Claimant’s Counsel referred this Honorable Court to the provisions of Section 6 of the Interpretation Act, Cap 123, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 which provides that the repeal of an enactment shall not “affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability accrued or incurred under the enactment”.Consequently, that the repeal of the 1979 Constitution under which the claimant was elected as governor in 1979-1983 shall not affect all the rights and privileges of the claimant as a former elected Governor of Borno State. AG, ONDO STATE V. AG, EKITI STATE (2001) 17 NWLR (Pt. 743) 706; (2001) EWIR 1431 at pages 1472 and 1473, per Karibi Whyte, .JSC; OBUSEZ V. OBUSEZ (2007) 10 NWIR (Pt. 1043) at P. 446; in AG, ABIA STATE V. AG, FEDERATION (2005) 37 WRN at 1; ANZAKU V. EXECUTIVE GOVERNOR, NASARAWA STATE (2006) 17 WRN at page 140, per Nzeako, JCA (as he then was).He argued that the provisions of the Sections 3 (1) and (3) of the Bomb State (Grant of Pension to Governors and Deputy Governors) Law, 2005 (as amended in 2009); Section 312 (2) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) as well as the provisions of Section 6 of the Interpretation Act, Cap 123, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 are very clear and unambiguous as to warrant a recourse to any extrinsic aid in their interpretation.

The Claimant’s Counsel contended that a holistic consideration of Section 3 (1) and (3) of the Borno State (Grant of Pension to Governors and Deputy Governors) Law, 2005 (as amended in 2009): Section 312 (2) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) as well as the provisions of Section 6 of the Interpretation Act, Cap 123, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 would reveal in unmistakable and inimitable terms that the claimant is entitled to be paid his monthly pension for life as well as well as to be provided the additional benefits enumerated in Section 3 (3) of the Bomb State (Grant of Pension to Governors and Deputy Governors) Law, 2005 (as amended in 2009) being a former elected governor of the defendant. Positing that the apex court has had cause to pronounce on the implication of the employment of the word “shall” in midwifing a statutory or constitutional provision in the case of UGWU V. ARARUME (2007) 31 WRN,where Niki Tobi, JSC(as he then was) enthused on the implication of the word “shall” in a statutory or constitutional provision:

“In the interpretation of statute, the word “shall” have various meanings. It may be used as implying futurity or implying a mandate or as contended by Dr. lzinyon, direction or giving permission. The word ‘shall’, when used in statutory provision imports that a thing must be done and that when the negative phrase “shall not”, is used, it implies that something command or mandate. See Nigeria LNG Limited v. Africa Development Insurance Co.Ltd (1995) 8 NWLR (Pt. 416) 677. Generally, when the word ‘shall’ is used in a statute, it is not permissive. It is mandatory. See Col. Kaliel v. Alhaji Alieno (1999) 4 NWLR (Pt. 597) 139. The word ‘shall’, in its ordinary meaning is a word of command which is normally given a compulsory meaning because it is intended to denote obligation”.

The Defendant filed a 4 paragraph COUNTER AFFIDAVITon 26^thJuly, 2019 deposed to by Mohammed Inusa.

WRITTEN ADDRESS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTSCOUNTER AFFIDAVIT

ISSUES

Whether by the combined reading of section 3(1) and (3) of the Borno State (Grant of pension to Governors and Deputy Governors) Law 2005 as amended in 2009; section 312(2) of 1999 constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended as well as section 6 of the Interpretation Act Cap 123 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004, the claimant who was Executive Governor of Borno State from 1979 — 1983 is not entitled to receive monthly pension for life and the additional benefits enumerated in subsection (3) (i) — (ix) of the Borno State (Grant of pension to Governors and Deputy Governors) Law 2005 as amended in 2009 chargeable upon the consolidated Revenue fund of Borno State.
Whether claimant originating summons is properly signed thereby making it competent for the court to determine same.

ON ISSUE 1

Whether by the combined reading of Section 3(1) and (3) of the Borno State (Grant of pension to Governors and Deputy Governors) Law 2005 as amended in 2009; Section 312(2) of 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended as well as Section 6 of the Interpretation Act, Cap 123 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004, the claimant who was Executive Governor of Borno State from 1979 — 1983 is not entitled to receive monthly pension for life and the additional benefits enumerated in subsection (3) (i) — (ix) of the Borno State (Grant of pension to Governors and Deputy Governors) Law 2005 as amended in 2009 chargeable upon the consolidated Revenue fund of Borno State.

Learned Counsel for the Defendants while admitting that the Borno State (Grant of pension to Governors and Deputy Governors) Law 2005 as amended in 2009 is clear without ambiguity as to those who are to be granted pension for life under section 3(1) and the additional benefits as enumerated under subsection (3) of the said Section 3, the claimant cannot said to be one of those to benefit having regard to Section 312 (2) of the 1999 Constitution

as amended, contended that Section 312 (2) is misinterpreted by the claimant to suit his interest in his quest to benefit under the provisions of the Borno State (Grant of pension to Governors and Deputy Governors) Law, 2005 as amended in 2009, made pursuant to Section 214 (5) of the 1999 Constitution as amended.

Defendants Counsel argued that below are the salient words and phrases in Section 312 (2) of the 1999 Constitution that will be considered in details

(1) “Any person who before the coming into force of this constitution was elected to any elective office mentioned in this constitution”, is referring to those who were elected prior to the coming into force of this constitution on 29/5/1999. These were local government councillors’ election on December 5th 1998, Governorship election on 9th January 1999 as well as the presidential election on 27 February 1999.

(2) “In accordance with any law in force” is referring to the Presidential Election (Basic Constitutional and Transitional Provision) Decree No. 6 of 1999 (for presidential election) and the State Government (Basic Constitutional and Transitional Provision) Decree No 3 of 1999 (for governorship election). These were the laws in force by which the Independent National Electoral Commission used in conducting election for the various elective offices mentioned in the 1999 constitution as amended in 1999 immediately to the coming into force of the 1999 Constitution as amended on 29/5/1999. Falae v. Obasanjo (No. 1) (1999) 4 NWLR (part 599) and the case of Jidda v. Kachalla (1999) 4 NWLR (part 599).

(3) (3)”Immediately before the coming into force of this constitution” The elective offices which are referred to in the 1999 constitution as amended and the persons elected to such offices which was done immediately before the coming into force of the 1999 constitution as amended were the president on 27/2/1999 and the Governors on 9/1/1999. Therefore, in accordance with any law in force and immediately before the coming into force of this constitution is not referring to the 1979 constitution or any ether law apart from the Presidential Election (Basic Constitutional and Transitional Provision) Decree No. 6 of 1999 for presidential election and the State Government (Basic Constitutional and Transitional Provisions) Decree No. 3 of 1999 for governorship election. The word immediately used in section 312 (2) means the law used for electing those to the elective offices mentioned in the 1999 constitution as amended to mean law in force without any intervening time/space or next to the date the 1999 constitution came in to force on 29/5/1999.

ON ISSUE 2

Whether Claimant’s originating summons is properly signed thereby making it competent for the court to determine same.

Learned Counsel submitted that there is no stamp and seal of counsel who claimed to have signed the originating summons affixed to the originating summons as required by Rule 10 (1), (2) and (3) of the Rules of Professional Conduct for legal Practitioners 2007.

Counsel argued that the name that appears on the stamp and seal of the NBA affixed is: “AYODEJI OMONIYI MORAKINYO” while the name of counsel purported to have signed the originating summons is: “DEJI MORAKINYO ESQ.” And that without explanation, the two names are not the same and the two names cannot be referring to the counsel who signed the originating summons.

CLAIMANT’S REPLY ON POINT OF LAW TO DEFENDANTS’ WRITTEN ADDRESS IN SUPPORT OF COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT filed on 5^thAugust, 2019.

Counsel contended that paragraphs 3 (b), (c), (d), (e), (h), (i) and (j) of the 4 paragraph Counter-Affidavitconflicts with the provision of the Evidence Act in that the said depositions are a combination of legal argument and conclusion respectively; as by the provision of Section 87 of the Evidence Act, an affidavit shall not contain extraneous matter, by way of objection, or prayer or legal argument or conclusion. I.T.N.A.G.P.P.E. V. P.C.N (2012) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1284) Para. 277.

Counsel submitted that it is the duty of Court to interpret a statute within the context of its constructive words and refrain from seeking its meaning outside the clear words employed by the legislators. NOBIS-ELENDU V. (NEC (2015) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1485) 197 S.C.; ANZAKU V. EXECUTIVE GOVERNOR, NASARAWA STATE (2006) 17 WRN at page 140, Nzeako, JCA (as he then was).

Counsel noted that the defendants in respect of its Issue Two have misguidedly submitted that the name of the learned Counsel who signed claimant’s Originating Summons: “DEJI MORAKINYO” is different from the name on the seal affixed on the Originating Summons which is “AYODEJI OMONIYI MORAKINYO”. That in defendants’ bogus opinion, these names are different and the claimant’s Originating Summons should for that reason be discountenanced as not meeting the requirement of the Rules of Professional Conducts for Legal Practitioners.

Reacting, counsel posited that the position of the law is far from the erroneous submission of the defendants’ Counsel as the law is clear as to the fact that a Legal Practitioner admitted to the Nigerian Bar can validly announce his/her appearance and/or sign a court process or any legal document in his/her abbreviated name or initials. DANKWAMBO V. ABUBAKAR (2016) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1495) 157 at 163 and 208, per Ariwoola, JSC at page 208.

Buoyed by the above pronouncement of the apex court, counsel submitted that the name: “AYODEJI OMONIYI MORAKINYO” appears on the roll of the legal practitioners of the Supreme Court of Nigeria but has been abbreviated as “DEJl MORAKINYO”, submitting that both names are one and same and refer to the same Counsel who signed the claimant’s Originating Summons.

Arising from the foregoing therefore, Counsel urged the Court to discountenance the submission of the defendants on the two issues and grant Claimant’s reliefs as set out in his Originating Summons.

On the 5^thNovember, 2019 parties adopted and adumbrated their respective processes and positions, thereafter, this matter was adjourned for this judgement.

Court’s Decision

I have carefully summarized the contention, submission and arguments of both sides, having carefully reviewed all the authorities cited, read through all the relevant processes and digested the contention of the parties. Their written submissions 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 whether there is any merit in the Claimant Applicants application.

Before I address the merits of this case it is necessary to look a the issue of which the defendants have made such heavy weather, that the claimant counsel signed his name in abbreviation Deji instead of Ayo Deji as is written on the NBA Stamp.

Now considering the definition of signature in Black’s Law dictionary 9^th Edition and the pronouncement of Augie, JCA as she then was in ELEPHANT INVESTMENT LIMITED v. MR. ADENIRAN OLAPOJOYE FIJABI – (2015) LPELR-24732(CA)that “ It would have been sufficient if Mr. Adewale Adesokan had simply written or stamped his name on top of Adewale Adesokan & Co. because Mr. Adewale Adesokan is a legal practitioner registered to practice law in the roll at the Supreme Court and not Adewale Adesokan & Co.”. There it is – the icing on the cake made available by the Supreme Court – it is sufficient if the legal practitioner writes or stamps his name on top of the name of a law firm, which is what “Funmi Lesi (Mrs.)” did in this case. In the said Statement of Claim dated 15/4/1998, she stamped – “Signed Funmi Lesi (Mrs.)” and then signed before the stamped word “Solicitor-Ayo Ajadi & Co.”, which is sufficient compliance with Sections 2 and 24 of the Legal Practitioners Act 2014, and renders this issue inconsequential.” Per AUGIE, J.C.A. (Pp. 34-37, paras. A-AJCA. This is a voidable issue I find and hold.

Now to the merits of this case; –

The Claimant in this suit is seeking payment of his Pension for life under the prevailing law. H instituted this suit on the 30^th May 2019 and in furtherance of his quest posed the question WHETHER by the combined reading of Sections 3 (1) and (3) of the Borno State (Grant of Pension to Governors and Deputy Governors) Law, 2005 (as amended in 2009): Section 312 (2) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), as well as Section 6 of the Interpretation Act, Cap 123, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004, the Claimant who was Executive Governor of Borno State from 1979-1983 is not entitled to receive monthly pension for life and the additional benefits enumerated in subsection 3 (i)-(ix) of the Borno State (Grant of Pension to Governors and Deputy Governors) Law, 2005 (as amended in 2009), chargeable upon the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Borno State.

The Claimant contends that having been Executive Governor of Borno State from 1979-1983 he is by law, entitled to receive monthly pension for life and the additional benefits enumerated in subsection 3 (i)-(ix) of the Borno State (Grant of Pension to Governors and Deputy Governors) Law, 2005 (as amended in 2009), chargeable upon the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Borno State. The Borno State (Grant of Pension to Governors and Deputy Governors) Law, 2005 (as amended in 2009), being the law in question.

The Defendants on their part argued that those who are to be granted pension for life under The Borno State (Grant of Pension to Governors and Deputy Governors) Law, 2005 made pursuant to Section 214 (5) of the 1999 Constitution as amended do not envisage or include the claimant.

To the defendants the claimant is misinterpreting Section 312 (2) of the 1999 constitution as amended, which they argue contain salient words and phrases

(1) “Any person who before the coming into force of this constitution was elected to any elective office mentioned in this constitution”, is referring to those who were elected prior to the coming into force of this constitution on 29/5/1999. E,g These were local government councilors’ election on December 5th 1998, Governorship election on 9th January 1999 as well as the presidential election on 27 February 1999.

(2) “In accordance with any law in force” is referring to the Presidential Election (Basic Constitutional and Transitional Provision) Decree No. 6 of 1999 (for presidential election) and the State Government (Basic Constitutional and Transitional Provision) Decree No 3 of 1999 (for governorship election). These were the laws in force by which the Independent National Electoral Commission used in conducting election for the various elective offices mentioned in the 1999 Constitution as amended in 1999 immediately to the coming into force of the 1999 Constitution as amended on 29/5/1999. Falae v. Obasanjo (No. 1) (1999) 4 NWLR (part 599) and the case of Jidda v. Kachalla (1999) 4 NWLR (part 599).

(3) (3)”Immediately before the coming into force of this constitution” The elective offices which are referred to in the 1999 constitution as amended and the persons elected to such offices which was done immediately before the coming into force of the 1999 constitution as amended were the president on 27/2/1999 and the Governors on 9/1/1999. Therefore, in accordance with any law in force and immediately before the coming into force of this constitution is not referring to the 1979 Constitution or any ether law apart from the Presidential Election (Basic Constitutional and Transitional Provision) Decree No. 6 of 1999 for presidential election and the State Government (Basic Constitutional and Transitional Provisions) Decree No. 3 of 1999 for governorship election. The word immediately used in section 312 (2) means the law used for electing those to the elective offices mentioned in the 1999 constitution as amended to mean law in force without any intervening time/space or next to the date the 1999 constitution came in to force on 29/5/1999.

This court asked that parties address the court on the effect of retroactive or retrospective ness in this law and it effect,

The defendants argued along the lines that the Law envisages the claimant and as such the use of the words ‘all’ and ‘shall’ give effect to their contention, while the Claimant counter argued that the law is not to be construed to have a retrospective effect.

Now Sections 3 (1) and (3) of the Borno State (Grant of Pension to Governors and Deputy Governors) Law, 2005 (as amended in 2009):

Provides:

3 (1) Any person duly elected as Governor and Deputy Governor of the State shall upon the completion of their tenure of office be entitled to a grant of pension for life by the State.

3 (3) In addition to the Pension to be paid to them, the Governor and Deputy Governor shall been titled on the expiration of their tenure to leave with one of their official cars as part of their benefits on leaving office.

Section 312 (2) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended),

provides thus;

Any person who before the coming into force of this Constitution was elected to any elective office mentioned in this Constitution in accordance with the provision of any law in force immediately before the coming into force of this Constitution shall be deemed to have been duly elected to that office under this Constitution.

Section 6 of the Interpretation Act, Cap 123, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004,

Effect of repeals, expiration, etc.

(1) The repeal of an enactment shall not—

(a) revive anything not in force or existing at the time when the repeal takes effect;

(b) affect the previous operation of the enactment or anything duly done or suffered the enactment;

(d) affect any penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred in respect of any offence committed under the enactment;

(e) affect any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any s right, privilege, obligation, liability, penalty, forfeiture or punishment,

and any such investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continuer enforced, and any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment may be imposed, as if the enactment had not been repealed.

(2) When an enactment expires, lapses or otherwise ceases to have effect, the provisions of subsection (1) of this section shall apply as if the enactment had then been pealed.

Retroactive

The first provisions, I find, establish the grant of pension to Governors and Deputy Governors of the State of Bornu, while the constitutional provisional enables persons who were in elective office under law immediately prior to 29^th may 1999 are deemed to be elected under this constitution.
The interpretation law refers to the effect on an enactment repealing a previous enactment and the survival of interests, actions, rights, obligations privileges etc.

By implication I find that the combined reading of these section I find create a situation where persons who were elected into posts recognized and created by the 1999 CFRN (as amended) immediately before the constitution came into operation shall be deemed as having been elected under the constitution and be entitled to all rights obligations and privileges incidental to their posts as guaranteed by the 1999 CFRN (as amended).

But then can the claimant be said to be elected into any elective office in accordance…… with any law in force immediately before the Constitution came in to force. ? I do not think so

And more poignantly can the claimant claim

In BORNO STATE URBAN PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD MINISTRY OF LAND AND SURVEY, BORNO STATE & ANOR v. BAMS INVESTMENT (NIG) LTD(2017) LPELR-43290(CA) It is a fundamental rule of our laws in this country that statutes operate prospectively and no statute shall be construed so as to have retrospective operation as to impair an existing right or obligation unless its language is such as plainly require such construction and such effect cannot be avoided without doing violence to the language of the enactment -Adegbenro Vs Akintola (1963) 1 All NLR 299 at 301- 302, Okafor Vs Ibeziakor (1965) 1 All NLR 407 at 411. The Council of University of Ibadan Vs Adamolekun (1967) 1 All NLR 213 at 214, Johnson Vs The State (1981) 2 SC 29 at 38, Ikpasa Vs Bendel State (1981) 9 SC 7 at 15-16, Adesanoye Vs Adewole (2000) 9 NWLR (PT. 671) 127. However, statutes dealing with matters of procedure constitute an exception to this fundamental rule as nobody has a vested right in any course of procedure, and such statutes, once they become operational, are applicable to all pending actions and processes in respect of further steps to be taken therein, unless it is expressly made inapplicable to them- Afolabi Vs Governor of Oyo State (1985) 9 SC 177 at 128-129, Ojokolobo Vs Alamu (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt 61) 377 at 396, Orthopaedic Hospitals Management Board Vs Garba (2002) 14 NWLR (PT. 788) 538; Abdullahi Vs The Governor of Kano State (2011) LPELR-CA/K/185/2006(R), Elias Vs Federal Republic of Nigeria (2016) LPELR- CA/YL/141/2015.” Per ABIRU, J.C.A. (Pp. 19-20, Paras. E-E)

By OJOKOLOBA v. ALAMU (2004) ALL FWLR (PT.237) 579 at 620 which held:”It is well settled principle of law that an Act of Parliament cannot be construed as having retroactive effect unless there are express words in the enactment showing such an intention. This is based on the presumption that the legislature does not intend what is unjust. Statutes are construed as operating only in cases or on facts which came into existence after the statutes were passed unless a retroactive effect is clearly intended.” Per NIMPAR, J.C.A. (P. 32, Paras. A-C)

See also FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA V IFEGWU (2003) 15 NWLR (PT.842) 113 and there is a presumption against retroactive legislation.”Per NIMPAR, J.C.A. (Pp. 35-36, Paras. F-B)

In IMPERIAL MEDICAL CENTRE & ANOR v. AHAMEFULE (2017) LPELR-42886(CA), the established principle of law is that the provisions of the Constitution or a Statute are interpreted and applied from the date they were enacted and signed or by clear and express provisions therein, stating the date it was to come into force, operation or effect. Unless clearly and expressly stated, provisions of the Constitution and Statutes are not interpreted and applied to have retroactive or retrospective effect. ADAMU V. STATE (1991) 4 NWLR (187) 530; OHMB V. GARBA (SUPRA); GOLDMARK NIG. LTD. V. IBAFON CO. LTD. (SUPRA); EZE V. GOV. ABIA STATE (2010) 15 NWLR (1216) 324.

Now bearing in mind that the law governing a cause of action is the law as at the date/time of the cause of action occurred. See CBN Vs. OBUIEWIBE

Case law as we find above require that with regards to retroactive effect of a law resort should be had to the words of the law. In this circumstance, the Borno State (Grant of Pension to Governors and Deputy Governors) Law, 2005 (as amended in 2009): does not contain any specific words that would directly indicate that the intention of the law makers was or is to make the effect of its law have a retroactive effect. And the law itself gives a commencement date in Section 1 as 10^th day of October, 2005, it states that the law shall come into force on the 10^th day of October 2005. having so proclaimed, the law cannot apply to any one or officer prior to 10^th October, 2005, I find and hold.

Nowhere in this law is it stated that this particular law repeals or replaces any previously subsisting law so as to extend it benefit retroactively.

What all this means is that by case law and the words of the statute itself, the Borno State (Grant of Pension to Governors and Deputy Governors) Law, 2005 (as amended in 2009), does not extend to the tenure of the claimant which ran from 1999-1983.