IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA
IN THE KANO JUDICIAL DIVISION
HOLDEN AT KANO
BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: HON. JUSTICE E.D.E. ISELE (JUDGE)
DATE: 27TH NOVEMBER, 2018
SUIT NO: NICN/KN/46/2016
BETWEEN:
Nigerian Civil Service Union
(Hospital Management Board Chapter)
Bashir Mu’azu Idris
Muhammad B. Garba
Dauda Adamu ……..CLAIMANTS
Bello Yakasai Tukur
Tasi’u Tijjani
Yusuf Kilishi Kassim
Ibrahim Musa
AND
Head of Service, Kano State
Chairman Kano State Civil Service Commission
Attorney General Kano State .RESPONDENTS
Kano State Hospital Management Board
REPRESENTATION:
Claimants – Present
Respondents – Absent
APPEARANCES
S.S. Ali, Esq. for the Claimants
Mukhtar Sani Daneji, Esq. Solicitor General of Kano State for all the Respondents
JUDGEMENT
The Claimants originally commenced this action by the writ of complaint filed on the 21st September 2016. And by the amended complaint filed on the 3rd of July 2017. The made following the claims:
A declaration that the Claimant’s members employed by Kano State Hospital Management Board are entitled to continue enjoying their Salary Structure of CONHESS.
A declaration that the claimant’s members having been employed by Kano State Hospital Management Board Pursuant to the Hospital Management Board Edict 1995 are not subject to any circular or directives given by the Head of Service.
An order of this Honourable Court declaring the circular No 11/2016 with reference No. HCS/ADM/5/61/7 SUB. I dated 6th Zulhajj 1437 AH/ (5th September, 2016.) Issued from the office of Kano State Head of Civil Service as void and with no effects to claimants members.
An order of this Honourable Court declaring that the claimant’s members have the right to retire from their employment any moment they so wish provided every give the Board the required notice and their entitlement is to be computed based on the salary structure on which they retire i.e CONHESS.
An order directing the Defendants to refund to the claimants the amounts deducted in the Claimants’ Salaries and other entitlements as a result of the implementation of circular No. 11/2016 with reference No. HCS/ADM/5/61/7.
General damages and the cost of this suit as may be assessed by this Honourable Court.
By the endorsement on the complaint the Claimants maintain that it is a Union of Employees of Kano State Government working with Kano State Hospitals Management Board, a body established by the laws of Kano State saddled with the responsibility and powers to recruit, employ by train place and or promote members of the claimant. And that members of the Claimant were employed pursuant to the powers donated by the enabling law that established the Board. Thus the salary structure of members of the Claimant is that consolidated Health Salary Structure (CONHESS) and their emoluments and other entitlements are governed based on the said CONSHESS.
The Claimants maintain that the Kano State Government through the office of the Head of Civil Service, issued a circular NO. 11/2016 to the effect of Deploying members of the Claimant to other ministress under Kano State Government including the office of the Head of Service that the issuance and implementation of the said circular No. 11/2016 is detrimental to the claimants and its members consequence of which is discrimination against the Claimants and its members. The claimants also averred that the 1st Defendant lacks the capacity to transfer 894 employees of the claimants members from the Board to other ministries that the said circular No. 11/2016 is void and of no effect because their employment is governed by the Hospital Management Board Law and the regulations made there under.
The Claimants also averred that as a result of the issuance and implementation of that said a circular No. 11/2016 they were affected negatively and were transferred and posted out of the 4th Defendant, the Kano State Health Management Board and its zones and their salaries and other entitlement were no longer calculated or paid on the basis of CONHESS and the claimants sought to reply on their pay slips and statement of accounts. The claimants also averred that they are subject to transfer within the zonal office of the 4th Defendant and the transfer is within the powers of the 4th Defendant and not the 1st Defendant.
The Claimants also averred that sometime within the year 2009 the National Salaries and wages commission issues a circular to the effect that the claimants should be placed on the new salary structure of CONHESS and they placed reliance on the commission’s letter. They also maintained that pursuant to the said circular a letter dated 12th December 2009 was written by the medical & health workers Union of Nigeria notifying the Defendants of this implemented date of January, 2010. And that this was implemented by the Kano State Government and their Salary and other entitlements were calculated based on the said CONHESS as directed by the circular issued by the National Salaries incomes and wages commissions and the CONHESS had since January 2014 been up warded from 87% to 94% implementation level by Kano State Government and the letter of 10th February 2014 was to be relied on by the claimant on the approval.
The claimants averred that they had been subjected to discrimination as employees of the Kano State Government owing to the reduction of their salaries in the guise of revenue generation. That the executive Government of Kano State was advised by a letter dated 26th July, 2016 to review the salary of the claimants and that of tertiary institution of the state which has been detrimental and injurious to the claimants. They also maintain the said circular No. 11/2016 deployed the 2nd to 8th Claimants to other Ministries and agencies under Kano State Government including the office of the Head of Civil Service. They averred further that some of the affected members of the Claimant have written letters of Notice of their retirement but the Defendants refused to collect same. That as affected members of the Hospital Management Board they have the right to retire any moment they so wished provided they had given the required Notice and their entitlement is to be calculated based on their current CONHESS salary structure, promotion and training and transfer of staff working not only under the Board but the entire civil service. That the letters of appointment of all Government employees and its agencies including the Hospital Management Board contain a proviso to the effect that employees could be posted or re-deployed to anywhere within the state.
The Defendant also maintained that the circular NO. 11/2016 referred to by the Claimants only affirm the position of the Government as enshrined in circular no 10 of 1995. They also contended that salary is negotiable between an employer and employee and is determined by each of the Federating units. They also maintained that the issuance of the circular re-aligning the disposition of the non-professional staff was just non-discriminatory and in line with the rules of employment.
They maintained that the Claimants were not eligible for CONHESS and the issuance of the circular redeploying the nonprofessionals was for the purpose of putting thing in proper perspective and was never an attempt to deprive them of their legitimate earnings but rather to give them what legitimately belongs to them and that redeployment is tied to the issue of salary and the action was just and in line with due process. And that the attempt by some of the Claimants to retire was not brought to the attention of the Defendants and retiring at that stage was not proper since they were not entitled to CONHESS.
By virtue of Order 38 R.33C of the NICN Civil Procedure Rules 2017 parties by mutual consent to the close of pleadings agreed to a trial on the record where frontloaded and the need documents and exhibits frontloaded and the need for oral testimony and/or cross examination dispensed with and parties filed their written addresses.
THE WRITTEN ADDRESS OF THE PARTIES
In the written address of the Claimant the following issues were formulated for determination.
Whether having regards to the clear and unambiguous provisions of sections 3, 7, and 8 of the Hospital Management Board Edict 1995 the 1st Defendant can rightly issue circular No. 11/2016 to affect the claimants.
Whether the claimants have discharged the burden of power on the balance of probability to warrant Judgment to be entered in their favour.
Whether the implementation of the circular No. 11/2016 by the Defendant during the pendency of this suit is not illegal null and void having regard to the doctrine of his pendens.” On the other hand, the Defendant formulated 2 issues for determination:
Whether the 1st Defendant (Head of Service) can exercise his power over the Claimants.
Whether the Claimants are entitled to CONHESS.
In the Legal argument at issue one formulated by the Claimant it was submitted that the case of the Claimant rests squarely on documentary evidence which had been frontloaded. That reliance was also placed on the Hospital Management Board Edict of 1995. That the provision of this Edict on the matter were clear and unambiguous and the Court could give no other meaning to it. Citing ATT. GENERAL ABIA STATE VS. ATT. GEN. FEDERATION (2005) All FWLR (PT 275) pg 415 at 450 paragraph C – E and ATT. GENERAL LAGOS STATE VS ATT. GENERAL FERATION (2005) ALL FWLR (pt 244) pg 805 at 897 paragraphs E – F.
At paragraph 4 – 4 the Claimants submitted that the 1st Defendant (Head of Service Kano State) lacks legal capacity to transfer the Claimants being employees of the 4th Defendant Hospital Management Board of Kano State placing reliance on sections 3(1) and (2); 7 and 8 of Hospital Management Board Edict 1995. These sections provide.
Section 3
There is hereby established for the state a body to be known as the Hospital Management Board.
The Board shall be a body corporate with perpetual succession and a common seal and with power to sue and be sued in its corporate name and to acquire hold and dispose of any property moveable or immovable.
Section 7: It shall be the duty of the Board subject to general supervision and policies established by the ministry of health to maintain and manage all hospital within the state.
Section 8: The Board shall have powers:
To make standing orders to regulate its own procedure and the conduct of its meetings, custody of its common seal and the award of contracts.
To appoint and remunerate agents and servants to carry out any of its functions.
To regulate coordinate and supervise the activities of all zonal Hospital Management committee in the state.
To operate its own Bank account.
To employ and train its staff and exercise disciplinary control over such staff.
To perform inter zonal transfer of all category of staff.
To recruit, place or promote its staff and
To do such other acts and things as may appear to the Board necessary for carrying out any of its functions under this edict or any other enactment.
On this basis counsel submitted for the Claimant that the 1st Defendant lacks the capacity to transfer the claimants and all other employees of the Board which were affected by the circular No. 11/2016 outside the Board to other ministries and agencies of the Kano State Government as they are only subject to transfer within the Board zonal offices as provided in section 8 (f) of the Edict.
By way of response the Defendants at issue one of their written address had maintain at paragraph 4.0 that although the Board has been given the power to employ such power is not absolute but subject to control particularly by the 1st and 2nd Defendants who are responsible for the implementation of government policies. It was also stated for the Defendants at paragraph 7.0 that the 1st defendant having derived his power from the constitution has an inherent power aside those expressly conferred upon him by Government over the civil service of the state and its civil servants. Which includes but not limited to transfer deployment and secondment.
It was also urged for the Defendants at paragraph 8.0 that it was not in dispute that the Claimants are civil servants were working for the Kano State Government as it was evidently clear from the name of the claimants’ union (Nigeria Civil Service Union, Hospital Management Board Chapter) and also from paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit of the Claimant dated and filed on the 19th October, 2016 and filed on the 12th October, 2016 where the Claimant had stated that: The Claimant is not suing for its self but on behalf its members which are employees of Kano State Government”
Further reliance was placed on sections 206 and 207 of the 1999 constitution which provides for the establishment of the state civil service which is headed by the 2nd defendant and the commission with power of delegation.
The defendants urged the Court in considering this provision to give a liberal interpretation stripped of legalism citing ATTORNEY GENRAL V. MOMODU JOBE (1984) AC. 6 8 9, ATTORNEY GENERAL V. WHITEMAN (1991) 2 WLR 1200, 1204 and NAFIU RABIU V. STATE (1980) 8 – 11 SC 130, 148 – 149.
And submitted that a proper interpretation of the cited sections of the constitution will leave no one is doubt that the Head of service has powers over the Claimants.
On the 2nd issue whether the Claimants were entitled to CONHESS, the Defendants submitted that they were not entitled as the evidence and documents placed before the court spoke volumes for themselves. That the only basis upon which the Claimants were basing their claims are no more than the facts that they have for sometimes and they exhibited their pay slips which clearly showed that HSMB is not responsible for payment but the computer center which is a Unit under the direct control and supervision of the Head of service through the Permanent Secretary salaries and wages Directorate, the office created for a central payment system introduced in 2015 to ensure predent and efficient resource allocation and reference and reliance was placed on paragraphs 4, 5 and 11 of the amended statement of Defence and exhibit MOJI particularly paragraph 3 thereof.
At paragraph 14.0 the Defendants emphasized that the circular from the salary and wages commission which the Claimants relied heavily on did not help their case as reference was only made to the Federal Health professionals and staff employed in Federal Hospital/Medical Centres as well as Clinics in the Federal Ministries, Department and Agencies (MDA’s) and all professionals in the Federal Ministry of Health, that it was to be noted that there was no mention of states. The Defendants contended further that in MOJI the word staff had been expressly interpreted in exit MOJI to mean pharmacist, Nurses, Medical Laboratory, Technicians, Health, statisticians, Health Assistants, Health Attendants and other similarly designated staff who are engaged in medical and Health Care delivery and also clearly excluded the Claimants by expressly enumerating the lights which tally with the lights of the Claimant’s members as provided under paragraph 27 of their statement of facts to the amended complaint. That the said circular was addressed to the Head of Service, and this was a further testimony of his powers over the civil servants.
The Defendants went on to make further 2009 from the salaries and wages commission and JOJ and 3 and MOJ 4 of 10th and 24th February 2014 from the office of the Head of Civil Service of Kano State on the approval of upward review of CONHESS.
COURT’S DECISION
Now, having heard this case and having gone through the documents relied on by the parties. The one at the heart of this litigation marked exhibit A by the Claimant must come up for required consideration Exhibit A is the circular No. 11dated 5th September 2016 (6 Zhul Hajj 1437 AH) it is from the Head of Civil Service, Kano State, it is addressed to the following and states:
The Principal Private Secretary,
Government House,
Permanent Secretary,
Deputy Governor’s Office,
The Secretary to the State Governor
Cabinet Office
All Honourable Commissioners,
All Permanent Secretaries,
All Special Advisers/Directors General,
The Clerk/Permanent Secretary,
State House of Assembly
The Secretary Judicial Service/Law Reform Commission
The Chief Registrars,
High Court/Sharia Court of Appeal & JSC,
The Auditors General,
State/Local Governments,
All Chief Executive of other MDAS.
DEPLOYMENT OF CENTRALLY CONTROL CADRE STAFF
In pursuit of the on poring reforms initiatives towards reinvigoration, strengthening and stream lining/fine-tuning the civil service, which is in tandem with the global best practice, as well as the need to ensure efficient and effective manpower Planning/Human Resource Data for improved performance/capacity building, an approval has been granted to deploy staff of the following centrally controlled cadres:
S/N CADRES DEPLOYED TO
Administrative OfficersOffice of the Head of Civil Service
Executive Officers (Admin)Office of the Head of Civil Service
Confidential SecretaryOffice of the Head of Civil Service
Computer Assistant Office of the Head of Civil Service
Data Processing Assistant Office of the Head of Civil Service
Accounting Ministry of finance
Executive Officers (Accounts)Ministry of finance
Stores Ministry of finance
Engineering Technical and Superintendents Ministry of works Housing and Transport
Planning Officers/AssistantsMinistry of Planning & Budget
Accordingly, it is to be noted that all staff affected by the deployment will remain in their present MDAs on posting, while all records, including payroll will be transferred to the MDAs controlling the cadres through this office.
In addition all affected staff are requested to the Establishment Directorate under this office for Registration and necessary documentations. Similarly, the affected MDAs should ensure strict compliance.
Kindly give the circular the utmost attention it deserves, Please.
Signed
Muhd S. Abdullahi
Director (AGS)
For: Head of Civil Service.
It is the above circular the Claimants are grieving about. And having considered the case of both parties the following facts emerged as settled.
As the above circular had the singular effect of transferring the Claimants out of the 4th Defendant (Kano State Hospital Management Board)
The Claimants had their members affected were employed at various times by the 4th Defendant. Among the documents tendered by the Claimant is a list of 894 affected staff of the 4th Defendant and letters of offer of Appointment of four named persons as staff.
While this case which was filed on the 21st September 2016 which first came up before the court on the 12th of October 2010 where both parties were represented and the Defendant entered appearance by Memorandum of 28th September 2016 and filed a notice of preliminary objection as well as a counter affidavit in response to the claimant’s motion for interlocutory injunction. The Defendants continued its effort to carrying out postings of Directors/Management staff in the circular HCS/POS/514/XXII/183 on posting No. 2/2017 dated 29th January 2017 and that 7th November 2016.
The parties had sought out of court settlement between 1st November 2016 and 7th December 2016 on which date the court was informed of the failure in attempts to settle. Thereafter the court struck out the preliminary objection filed by the Defendants by a Ruling of 30th May, 2017.
By the letters of offer of pensionable appointment of Dauda Adamu, Tukur Bello Yakasai, Bashari Ali, Ibrahim Musa the Claimant, It is stated as part of condition No. vii that: … you will be subjected, in all respects to all conditions of service stipulated in the Boards regulations and instructions.
The Kano State Health Management Board is an statutory body/agency in the public service of the Kano State Government having been established by virtue of the Hospital Management Board Edict of 1995 which by adoption of laws has the same standing as a law passed by the Kano House of Assembly.
It must be stated here that I having made the finding of fact out of the arguments that the parties have put before me in order to avoid any doubt in the determination of the case at hand. The 1999 constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) in section 318 defines the Public Service of a state to mean the service of the state in any capacity in respect of the Government of the State and includes service as:
Clerk or other staff of the House of Assembly,
Member of staff of the High Court, Shari’a Court of Appeal, the Customary Court of Appeal or other Courts established for a state by this constitution or by law of a House of Assembly.
Members or staff of any Commission or authority established for the State by this Constitution or by a law of a House of Assembly.
Staff of any Local Government Council,
Staff of any Statutory Corporation established by a law of House of Assembly.
Staff of any education institution established or financed principally by a government of a state, and
Staff of any company or enterprise in which the government of a state or its agency holds controlling shares or interests.
The same section of the Constitution defines the Civil Service of a state to mean, service of the Government of a State in a Civil Capacity as staff of the office of the governor or a ministry or department of the Government of the State assigned with the responsibility for any business of the Government of the state.
From the above definitions it is clear that the public service connotes a wider variety of workers, comprising employees of the Judiciary, legislature, government established commissions local Government, Statutory corporations as well as government financed incorporated companies, Civil Service on the other hand connotes employment in the ministries, offices of the vice president and his vice as well as government financed incorporated companies, civil service on the other hand connotes employment in the Ministries, offices of the president and his vice as well as the Governor and his Deputy – the Civil Service constitutes only a branch of the numerous branches in to which the Public Service. It can be subdivided and it is in this sense that the term “Civil Service” has been described as more restrictive in application than Public Service it can therefore be said that public service covers all employments in Civil Service, the same cannot be said of Civil Service. See ACHU V. CSC CROSS RIVER STATE (2009) 3 NWLR (pt1129) 475 Per Amaizu JCA at pg 187, and See also OLORUNTOBA – OJU V. LAWAL & ORS (2001) 31 WRN 171.
In the case of OKOMU OIL COMPANY V. ISERHIENRHCEN (2001) 21 WRN 161, (2001) 6 NWLR (pt. 710) 660 it was decided by the Court that the Civil Service Rules did not avail the Respondent protection as he was not an employee of the civil service commission, since he was employed by the Appellant company which was largely funded by the Federal Government who had majority shares in it.
It is on the basis of the above reasoning’s and authorities that I hold that as many as the Claimants or their members are or may be and as long as they are employed by the Kano State Health Management Board they are public servants in the public service of the Kano State Government Here I must acknowledge that the Defendants had made some reasonable arguments in paragraphs 13, 14, 15 and 16 of their written address. But these arguments did not answer the legal question begging for an answer: Whether the circular in exhibit A dated 5th September 2016 was issued in tandem with the letters and spirit and intent of the law establishing the Health Management Board whose salient provision I had laid out earlier. I hold that these arguments fail to oust the applicability of the edict to the Claimants, as staff of the 4th Defendant. Specifically, I hold that it is the Board and not the Head of Service of the Kano State Civil Service in the first Defendant, that has power by virtue of section 8 to regulate, Coordinate and Supervise the activities of all Zonal Hospital Management Committee in the State and to operate its own Bank accounts to employ and train its staff and exercise disciplinary control over such Staff and to perform inter – zonal transfer of all categories of staff.
To recruit, place or promote its staff and to do such other acts and things as may appear to the Board necessary for carrying out any of its functions under this edict, or any other enactment, amongst others.
I also hold that those arguments of the Defendants fail to oust the applicability of the above provision because the argument taken together as a whole fail to address these very provisions and referred to a pre-existing state of affairs in which CONHESS was applied to the Claimants which the circular No. 11/2016 seeks to upturn.
Now, the claimant at issue No. 3 had raised the issue of lis pendens and had submitted that where a Defendant is aware of the pendency of a suit against him he is expected to restrain himself from taking law in to his hand by proceeding with the act which is subject of determination before a court of law. Citing OJUKWU V. GOVERNOR OF LAGOS STATE (1985) 2 NWR (pt10) 806 where it was held that once a dispute has arisen between a person and the government or authority and the dispute has been brought before the court thereby invoking the judicial powers of the state, it is the duty of the government to allow law to take its course or allow the legal and judicial process to run its full course. That it was on record that the instant suit was mentioned before this Honourable Court on the 12/10/2016 and both parties were before this Court, thus the defendants ate very much aware of the pendency of this suit. That the Defendants have by letters of 7th November, 2016 and 25th January, 2017 implemented the circular No. 11/2016 which is the subject of determination before this Honourable Court.
I have had to go over the Defendants final written address, and even though the Claimants filed their written address first and formulated 3 issues for determination, the third and last of which of:
“Whether the implementation of the circular No. 11/2016 by the defendant during the pendency of this suit is not illegal null and void having regard to the doctrine of lis pendens.”
I must say that the Defendants did not address this issue lis pendens, going on to act in the manner it had despite the pendency in this Court of the suit against them. To say the least it was very unhelpful to all the Defendants and the stand they took in the present case, which had always been are bordering on the powers of the Head of Service Kano State over the Service and Civil Servants. The Court does not gainsay this position of the Defence from paragraph 10.0 in the Defendants written address, but those powers must be carried out according to law. Even though, the Defendants cited sections 206 and 207 of the 1999 constitution, I have earlier in the Judgment set out the define distinctions between those in the Civil Service and Public Service of the State. Beside the Claimants had submitted in the reply on points of law that sections 206 and 207 of the Constitution of Nigeria (1999 as amended) as relied on by the Defendant is irrelevant to this suit as the provisions of the said sections are dealing with the establishment of the State Civil Service Commission and appointment of Head of Service and not their powers. I hold here that, that is the correct position on Sections 206 and 207 as regards this case those section provide: 206: There shall be for each State of the Federation a Civil Service: 207: “subject to the Provisions of this Constitution a State Civil Service Commission may, with the approval of the Governor and subject to such conditions as it may deem fit delegate any of the powers conferred upon it by this constitution to any of its members or to any Officer in the Civil Service of the State. I hold that it is clear from a reading of the section 207 of the Constitution that the powers are not absolute and are made subject to the Constitution and such conditions.
In the case of AMAECHI V. I.N.E.C (2008) 5NWLR (pt 1080) 227 SC it was settled that the doctrine of lis pendens and its application had grown beyond its native formation. Here, the Supreme Court. Per Aderemi, JSC held at pp 445 to 446 that:
“The Lawful Occupation of the Governor of River State is the subject matter of the appeal. The right to the subject matter was already in court for adjudication before the 1st Respondent went ahead to conduct the election of 14th April 2007 and eventually swore in the 2nd respondent as the Governor of the state.
The doctrine of his pendens fuids expression in the assertion that it prevents any transfer of any right or the taking or any steps capable of foisting a state of helplessness and or hopelessness on the parties or the court during the pendency in court of an action and even after. By that doctrine, the law does not allow to litigant parties or give to them during the currency of the litigation involving the rights in it so as to prejudice any of the litigating parties. The doctrine negates and disallows any transfer of rights or interest in any subject matter that is being litigated upon during the pendency of litigation in respect of the subject matters. The well-known maxim is “Pendente lite nihil innovetur” meaning: During a litigation nothing new should be introduced see DAN JUMBO V. DAN JUMBO (1999) 11NWLR (pt 627) 445. Going by the facts of this case as set out above, it is my humble view that the doctrine applies. The declaration of the respondent as Governor of Rivers State founded upon an illegal and or unlawful election is null and void.”
In the present case I hold that the continued act of the Defendants in proceeding to transfer the Claimants members in the letters of 7th November 2016 and 25th January 2017 was unlawful and void in the face of the pending litigation between the parties, which litigation had commenced on the 12th October 2016 with both parties represented in Court.
Having made the above determinations in the suit, with regards to the relief sought by the Claimants, and having found and held the circular No. 11/2016 unlawful and void. It is hereby so declared.
It is declared that the Claimants who are employees of the Kano State Hospital Management Board are entitled to continue enjoying their salary structure of CONHESS without any deductions and they are not subject to the directives given in the said circular.
Now the Claimants had contended with the Defendants on 2 issues which relate to the 4th and 5th reliefs sought in this suit. That on the 4th relief having to do with the right to retire based on the salary structure on which they retire ie CONHESS. And the 5th relief for refund to the claimants the amount deducted in the Claimants’ salaries as a result of the implementation of circular No. 11/2016.
As to the 4th head of claim whether resignation could be rejected, the Supreme Court held in PROFESSOR T.M YESUFU V. GOVERNOR OF EDO STATE AND VISITOR, EDO STATE UNIVERSITY & ORS (2001) 6 SCNJ I that a resignation need not to have been formally accepted by the respondent before taking effect. So, following this authority, it is hereby declared that the Claimant have the right to retire from their employment with the Board the moment they so wished on the basis of the salary CONHESS structure they had with the 4th Defendants.
In the 5th head of claim, the Defendants are hereby ordered to refund forthwith to the affected claimants (those transferred unlawfully) from the Health Management Board of Kano State by circular No. 11/2016 amounts deducted in salaries and other entitlements as a result of the implementation of the said circular.
The claim for general damages is refused. There are no awards as to costs.
The Judgment is entered accordingly.
___________________________________
HON. JUSTICE E.D.E. ISELE (JUDGE)
27th November, 2018
