JOHN MUSA MUBI & 3 ORS -VS- ADAMAWA STATE GOVERNMENT & ORS

IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE YOLA JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT YOLA

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HONOURABLE JUSTICE K.D. DAMULAK

DATED THIS 2^ND DAY DECEMBER, 2019

BETWEEN SUIT NO: NICN/YL/03/2018

JOHN MUSA MUBI
HARUNA AND ADUWUS
JAFIYA MULLAM ………………………CLAIMANTS
PATRICK AARON

(Suing as next of kin and on behalf

of the estate of late Dr. Gad Aaron)

AND

1) ADAMAWA STATE GOVERNMENT

2) ATTORNEY- GENERAL OF ADAMAWA STATE

3) DR. LAWAN HAMIDU THE EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN

ADAMAWA STATE HOSPITAL SERVICES

MANAGEMENT BOARD

4) HINDUMO BUTE MEMBER I

ADAMAWA STATE HOSPITAL SERVICE DEFENDANTS

MANAGEMENT BOARD

5) SIMON INAZO MEMBER II

ADAMAWA STATE HOSPITAL SERVICE

MANAGEMENT BOARD

6) MUSTAPHA RIBADU MEMBER III

ADAMAWA STATE HOPSITAL SERVICE

MANAGEMENT BOARD

LEGAL REPRESENTATION

Mohammed Abubakar, (PLAO) Adamawa State Office, for the claimant.

I.S Barde, SSC II, MOJ, Adamawa State for the defendants

JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

This judgment centers on whether or not the claimants were lawfully terminated as Board members of Adamawa State Hospital Services Management Board. The claimants filed a complaint against the defendants on 05/04/2018 accompanied by all the necessary documents as required by the Rules of this Court.

The claimants claim against the Defendants jointly and severally as follows.

a)A DECLARATION of the Hon. Court that the termination of the claimant’s appointments or dissolution of their appointments with Adamawa State Hospital Service Management Board contrary to the provisions of the Adamawa State Hospital Service Management Board law No. 12 of 2006 is illegal, null and void.
b)A DECLARATION of the Hon. Court that the stoppage or non-payment of salaries, allowance and other entitlement of the claimants by the 1^st defendant by reason of the purported dissolution of the Board made up of the claimants among others and or termination of their appointments thereby is illegal, null and void.
c)AN ORDER of the Hon. Court directing the 1^st Defendant to immediately reinstate the claimants to their positions as Board members of the Adamawa State Hospital Service Management Board to serve as such and payment of their salaries, allowances and other entitlements from the date of the purported dissolution of the Board and or termination of the claimants appointments until the period of three (3) years they would have served elapses.

ALTERNATIVELY

d)AN ORDER of the Hon. Court directing the 1^st Defendant to within thirty (30) days from the date of delivery of judgment in this suit pay all salaries, allowances and other entitlement of the claimants to them from the day of termination of their appointment or dissolution of the Hospital services management Board which the claimants would have been entitled to, to the last month of the remaining period they would have served in the statutory period of three (3) years which breakdown is as follows:-
JOHN MUSA MUBI – N41,857,849.82
HARUNA ANDRAWUS – N41,857,849.82
JAFIYA MULLAM – N41,857,849.82
PATRICK AARON

(Suing as next of kin and on behalf

of the Estate of late Dr. Gad Aaron) – N44,302,851.20

Which sum up to One Hundred and sixty nine million eight hundred and seventy six thousand four hundred naira and sixty six kobo (N169,876,400.66)

Fifty million naira (N50,000,000.00) only as general damages
Ten (10) percent interest on the sum of one Hundred and Sixty Nine Million Eight Hundred and Seventy Six Thousand Four Hundred Naira and Sixty Six Kobo (N169,876,400.66) from the date it became due and payable until the determination of this suit
Ten (10) percent monthly interest on the judgment sum from the date of judgment till final liquidation
Cost of filing and persecuting this suit.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The claimants were appointed by the 1^st Defendant to serve as Board members of the Adamawa State Hospital Service management Board on 13^th January 2015 for a period of three (3) years. After serving for about eight (8) months, the 1^st Defendant terminated their appointments on 15^th September, 2015 via press release and appointed the 3^rd – 6^th Defendants to replace them.

CASE OF THE CLAIMANTS

Testifying in line with the statement of facts and the reply, first claimant, John Musa Mubi, as CW1, state that myself, the 2^nd, 3^rd and 4^th claimants were issued with letters of appointments which contained the terms of employment to take effect from 10^th January, 2015. That the Adamawa State Hospital Services Management Board is a creation of law and appointments are made by the Governor of the State in accordance with the law creating the Board. Upon issuance with our appointment letters, we accepted same in writing assumed office and carried out our functions diligently and efficiently. By the law regulating our appointments, we were to hold office for 3 years. That after serving for about eight (8) months the 1^st defendant dissolved the Board and terminated the appointment of Board members via a press statement without communicating to us. That within the period of eight (8) months we served, we diligently performed our duties.

Following the facts above, I wrote the 1^st Defendant through its secretary as per letters dated 2^nd October 2015 and 21^st October 2015 which the 1^st Defendant failed to respond or address issues raised therein. That even without any clarification on our status as employees of the 1^st Defendant and our tenure, the 1^st Defendant ceased paying our salaries and entitlements since August 2015. That on 2^nd October 2015 and 21/10/2015, I wrote the 1^st defendant through its secretary. That our counsel wrote to the 1^st defendant on our behalf on 29/2/2016 and our new counsel wrote another letter on 11/12/2017. By a letter dated 29/12/2017, the 1^st defendant invited our counsel to a meeting on 2/1/2018. Our counsel attended the meeting wherein the 2^nd Defendant, secretary to the 1^st Defendant, commissioner of finance, the permanent secretary ministry of finance and the secretary to the 1^st Defendant conveyed the willingness of the 1^st Defendant to solve the matter without resorting to litigation.

That after waiting for about a month without action from the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants, we instructed our counsel to write a letter of reminder which was written dated 2/2/2018 and served but was not responded to. Our counsel wrote another letter of intention to commence legal action dated 26/2/2018.

That in spite of this fact, the 1^st Defendant went ahead to appoint the 3^rd, 4^th, 5^th and 6^th Defendants as Board members of the Adamawa State Hospital Service Management Board to occupy our positions without proper termination of our appointment.

The witness sets out the unpaid salaries and entitlements of the claimants from September, 2015 to January 2018 in details and the total claims are as follows;

1^stto 3^rdclaimants = N41,857,849.82 each.
4^th claimant = N44.302,851.20

CW 1 tendered the following documents in evidence and they were admitted and marked as follows:

Claimant’s Appointment letter – Exhibit H.A 1
Acceptance letter – Exhibit H.A 2

Under cross examination CW1 testified that I was appointed on 13/1/2015 and was dissolved on September 2015.

CW2 JAFIYA MULLAM also tendered similar documents as CW1, JM3 and JM4.

Under cross examination CW2 stated that I don’t know the difference between political and public office holder, I served about 8 months and was paid my salaries for that period. All my entitlements within these eight months were paid. The items B, C, I and J were paid were factored into my monthly salaries. I came about the calculations in my paragraph 20-23 by the salary I have been receiving as stated in my appointment letter.

CW3 JOHN MUSA MUBI tendered the following documents

1) Appointment letter of the 1^st claimant – Exhibit J.M.M 5

2) Acceptance letter of the 1^st claimant – Exhibit J.M.M 6

3) APPOINTMENT LETTER OF THE 4^TH claimant (LATE Dr. Gad Aaron Ex JMM 7)

4) 1^stclaimants letter to 1^st Defendant dated 2/10/15 Exhibit J.MM 8

5) 1^stclaimants letter to 1^st Defendant dated 21/10/15 Exhibit JMM 9

6) Claimants counsel’s letter to the 1^st Defendant dated 29/2/2016 Exhibit J.M.M 10

7) Claimant counsel’s letter to the 1^st Defendant dated 11/12/17 Exhibit J.M.M 11

8) 1^stDefendant’s letter to claimants counsel dated 29/12/2017 Exhibit J.M.M 12

9) Letter of reminder dated 2/2/2018 – Exhibit J.M.M 13

10) PRE-ACTION NOTICE DATED 26/2/2018 – Exhibit J.M.M 14

Under cross Examination CW3 stated, I served as a member. In Exhibit J.M.M 5 through the office of the S.S.G I wrote to the government requesting for my unexhausted tenure payment. In exhibit JMM 8. I tendered the sum of N49,000,000.

I arrived at different figures because I did not know how to do it, I invited someone who knows how to calculate it.

CW 4 ABUBAKAR IBRAHIM JIMETA, A SUBPOENAED WITNESS

States that I am a Senior Admin Officer in the office of the SSG, political. Dept, the SSG received the subpoena to produce documents. The document is a letter to the ministry of justice Adamawa State dated 7/3/2018. This was admitted in evidence.

4.CASE OF THE DEFENDANTS

Testifying in line with the statement of defence, DW1, ABUBAKAR IBRAHIM JIMETA, a senior Administrative Officer (Political) in the office of the S.S.G testified as follows;

The claimants were all former chairman/Board members of Adamawa State Hospital Service Management Board, their tenure of office started from 13^th January, 2015 and they were dissolved on 15^th September, 2015.

The 3^rd, 4^th, 5^th and 6^th Defendants are the current and subsisting Board members of Adamawa State Hospital Service Management Board

I know as a fact that the claimants’ appointment letters is only a government policy aimed at targeting a specific Board and parastatal as required by law.

The claimants were fully aware of the dissolution of the Board and accepted the decision of the 1^st defendant on the matter, considering their inefficiency to promote, provide any policy throughout their 8 months in office.

The claimants are aware of their dissolution and the subsequent appointment of the 4^th – 6^th Defendants as board members and willingly handover to them. The purported calculation or computation of their unpaid salaries and entitlements of all the claimants are baseless as the claimants had never applied for the governor’s approval for the implementation of those entitlements.

The claimant appointment/dissolution of their Board membership was very well communicated to them.

The appointment of the claimants are regulated and guided by Adamawa State law no 6 of 2007 (Adamawa State New salary structure for judicial officers, public and political office Holders and legislatures) Amendment law 2007.

The suit was filed outside the prescribed period allowed by law and it is caught up by section 2 (a) of the public officers (Protection) law cap. 115, Vol. 3 laws of Adamawa 1997.

That the claimants are not entitled to any of the relief claimed against the Defendants.

DW 1 tendered two documents in evidence

Letter dated 2/10/2015 – Exhibit A.I.J1
Letter dated 21/10/2015 – Exhibit A.I.J 2

Under cross examination DWI states that the Adamawa State Hospital Management Board law provides for the appointment and termination of Board members. I do not know if the claimants were communicated in writing about their dissolution of the Board, I cannot say yes or no, I have not seen any query in the file. The claimants’ appointments of 3 years were supposed to end in January 2018.

DEFENDANTS FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESS
DEFENDANTS PRELIMINARY OBJECTION

The Defendants raised a preliminary objection to the competence of the claimants suit on the ground that the claimant’s action is statute barred by the public officer protection law.

By the provisions of section 2 (a) of the public officers law (Adamawa State 1997) suits must be instituted within three months after the acts complained occurred. The pleadings and evidence led in the case show that the dissolution of their board was done on 15 September, 2015 and while the claimants willingly hand over office and demand payment of their entitlements via a letter dated 2^nd October, 2015 and 21^st October 2015 respectively.

This case is therefore caught up by limitation law and should be dismissed.

ARGUMENT ON MERIT OF THE CASE

In his final written address, learned defendants counsel formulated two issues for determination as follows;

1.Whether considering the facts and circumstances of this suit and evidence led at trial, the claimants established their case on preponderance of evidence

2.Whether from the mode in appointing the claimants, their salaries and emoluments was not intend to be governed by the provision of section 5 of the Adamawa State New salary structure for judicial officers public and political office holders and legislature (Amendment) law 2007.

Learned counsel submitted that under cross –examination, all the witnesses who testified for the claimants admitted that they were aware that the board was dissolved and the 3^rd -6^th Defendants were subsequently appointed to occupy their position.

Considering their letters of appointment tendered before this court some items are in variance with what the claimants are seeking before this court.

Counsel further submit that it became incumbent upon this court to give recognition to the ordinary meaning/interpretation of the content/clauses of exhibit CI and other appointment letter. UNION BANK OF NIGERIA LTD Vs SAX (NIG) LTD (1994) 8 NWLR (pt) 361 at 150

“When a document is clear, the operative words in it should be given their simple and ordinary grammatical meaning.

See also EVBUOMWAN Vs ELEMA (1994) 6 NWIR PT 353 PG 638 AT 650 IDONIBOYE- OBU Vs NNPC (2008) 2 NWIR (Pt 805) at 612

Counsel further submitted that whoever desires any court to give as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts he asserts shall prove that those facts exist. Section 131 of the Evidence Act 2011.

Arguing on issue two, learned counsel submitted that claimants sought to make heavy weather of the issue of not being a political appointees and their appointment is not subject to Adamawa State LAW NO 6 of 2007 (Adamawa State new salary structure for judicial officer, public and political office holders and legislative) amendment law, 2007 which was later in time.

Counsel submits that, the records of this court would also confirm that, the DW3 admitted during cross examination that the claimants collected their respective appointment letter from the political desk of the office of secretary to the state government.

Counsel also submit that assuming without agreeing that the claimants appointment was regulated by ADS law No.12 of 2006 which was earlier in time required Government approval for all their emoluments, allowances and other benefit section 18 of law No.12 of 2006 (Adamawa State Hospital Services management Board) law counsel also submit that our case law is replete with judicial authorities on this point see the case of ATANZE Vs ATTAH (1999) 3 NWLR (Pt 596) at 647.

The claimants are not entitled to the reliefs sought having failed to establish their claim on the preponderance of evidence based on burden of proof.

That the calculation in alternative reliefs under paragraph 27 of the statement of claim i.e transport, furniture allowance and claiming same amount to illegality.

Counsel urges the honourable court to dismiss all the claims having failed to proof same.

CLAIMANTS FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESS
PRELIMINARY OBJECTION

The learned claimant counsel submitted that it is not in dispute that section 2 (a) of the public officers (protection) law cap. 115 vol.3 laws of Adamawa State 1997 prescribes a period of three months from when a cause of action arose within which a party aggrieved by the action of a public officer can institute an action against such officer.

Counsel draw the court’s attention to the fact that the claimants per their pleadings and evidence, particularly exhibits HA I, JM3, JMM 5 and JMM 7 before the Honourable court were appointed in writing. That cause of action only begins to run upon service of notice of termination which has not been done. WEST AFRICAN COTTON CO. LTD Vs OSTAR AMOS, Suit No.NICN/YL/10/2015.

Counsel submitted that for a public officer to be protected by the limitation law, he must have acted in good faith in the execution of his duties as a public officer and not in outright abuse of office with no semblance of legal justification and must have acted within the terms of his statutory or legal authority UNIVERSITY OF ILORIN V ADENIRAN (2007) all FWLR PT 382 PG 1871 at 1913.

“The public officer protection Act. Cap. 379 laws of the federation of Nigeria, 1990 is designed to protect the officer who acts in good faith and does not apply to acts done in abuse of office and with no semblance of legal justification”

Counsel urged the court to find and hold that the claimants action is not statute barred as section 2 (a) of the public officers (protection) law cap. 115 vol. 3 laws of Adamawa State 1997 no longer applies to employment claims.

MERITS OF THE CASE

The learned claimants counsel formulated a sole issue for determination thus;

Whether from the totality of evidence adduced, the claimants have proved their case on the balance of probability to entitle them to the reliefs sought.

Counsel submitted that in civil cases, a claimant discharges the burden placed on him by proving his claims on the preponderance of evidence see the case of IDOWU Vs LAL (2009) ALL FWLR PT. 483 PG 1298.

Counsel also submit that the content of exhibit H.A1, JM 3, JMM 5 and JMM 7 are clear and unambiguous as to what accrues to the claimants, more so the sole defendants witness admitted during cross examination that the contents of the above exhibits are the approved entitlements of the claimants and the witness did not show how the calculation made by the claimants was faulty see the case of OKOYA Vs SANTILI (1994) 4 NWLR (PT338) 256

The defendants made heavy weather on a perceived erroneous fact that the claimants are mere political appointees and that since they received their appointment letters from the political desk of the secretary to the 1^st Defendant, they should be treated as such. In conclusion, counsel submit that on the whole strength of the authorities and submissions herein humbly urge the court to hold that.

a)The claimant action is not statute barred
b)The claimants are entitled to the reliefs sought herein on the pleadings and evidence elicited before he Honourable court and to grant all the reliefs sought either in the main or in the alternative.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

Learned defendant counsel formulated two issues for determination as follows;

1.Whether considering the facts and circumstances of this suit and evidence led at trial, the claimants established their case on preponderance of evidence

Learned claimant counsel formulated one issue for determination as;

Whether from the totality of evidence adduced, the claimants have proved their case on the balance of probability to entitle them to the reliefs sought.

COURT DECISION
PRELIMINARY OBJECTION

The objection of the defendants is that the suit was filed outside the prescribed period allowed by law and it is caught up by section 2 (a) of the public officers (Protection) law cap. 115, Vol. 3 laws of Adamawa 1997.That the cause of action arose in September 2015 but this case was only filed on 5/4/2018.

Learned claimants counsel responded that the public officer protection Act. Cap. 379 laws of the federation of Nigeria, 1990 is designed to protect the officer who acts in good faith and does not apply to acts done in abuse of office and with no semblance of legal justification. UNIVERSITY OF ILORIN V ADENIRAN (2007) ALL FWLR PT 382 PG 1871 AT 1913.

The Public Officers Protection Law does not apply without exceptions. See



	IBRAHIM V. JSC (1998) 14 NWLR (PT. 584) 1 where it was held that;

(ii) the act done by the person in respect of which the action is commenced must be an act done in pursuance or execution of any Law, public duty or authority or in respect of an alleged neglect or default in the execution of any such Law, duty or authority.

SEE JOHN EKEOGU V. ELIZABETH ALIRI (1990) 1 NWLR (PT. 126) 345.

Section 2(a) of the Public Officers (Protection) Law, 1963 gives full protection or cover to all public officers or persons engaged in the execution of public duties who at all material times acted within the confines of their public duty. Once they step outside the bounds of their public authority and are acting outside the colour of their office or employment or outside their statutory or constitutional duty, they automatically lose protection of that Law. In other words, a public officer can be sued outside the limitation period of three months if at all times material to the commission of the act complained of, he was acting outside the colour of his office or outside his statutory or constitutional duty. Where, however, he acted within the colour of his office, he can only lose protection of the limitation law if he is sued within three months of the act, neglect or default complained of. SEE NWANKWERE V. ADEWUNMI (1967) NMLR 45 AT 49; ATIYAYE V. PERMANENT SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT, BORNO STATE (1990) 1 NWLR (PT. 129) 728; JOHN EKEOGU V. ELIZABETH ALIRI.

In the circumstance of this case, there was no termination letter, the removal is said to be by broadcast which text of broadcast is not before the Court. The absence of a formal termination or removal letter necessarily leaves us with no reason for the termination or removal. Accordingly, whether the Governor acted within the confines of his public duty or outside his statutory or constitutional duty can only be determined on the merit. I so hold.

More so, this case arises from an employment contract, it is exempted from the application of the Public Officers Protection Act. This issue has been recently laid to rest by the Supreme Court in the case of N.R.M.A.F.C V JOHNSON (2019)2 NWLR (PART.1656) P.247 AT 270 where Ariwoola J.S.C held as follows;

There is no doubt, a careful reading of the respondent’s claim will show clearly that it is on contract of service. It is now settled law that section 2 of public officers protection law does not apply to cases of contract.

In a consenting judgment, Aka’as J.S.C also held;

“Since the action instituted by the respondents is a contract of employment, the public officers protection law cannot be involved to bar the action undertaken by the plaintiffs/respondents”.

The objection also fails on this ground.

On the whole, the objection is lacking in merit and same is hereby dismissed.

B.MERITS OF THE CASE

whether the removal of the claimants was in line with the Adamawa State Hospital Services Management Board Law, 2006.

The case of the claimants is that their appointments was statutory for three years and their removal was not in line with the Adamawa State Hospital Services Management Board Law and so they are entitled to reinstatement or payment of their remuneration for their unexpired tenure.

Paragraph 10 of the claim avers that the dissolution was through a press statement but the claimants were not notified of the removal and or termination.

The Adamawa State Hospital Services Management Board Law, 2006 provides for a three year tenure in section 5. Section 7 of the said law provides for revocation of appointment of the claimants as follows;

Notwithstanding anything in the instrument or letter by which a member is appointed, the Governor may revoke the appointment of the member if he is satisfied that the member-
Has been absent from three consecutive meetings of the Board without the permission of the chairman, or
Has been convicted by a court in Nigeria for any offence involving fraud or dishonesty, or
Is incapacitated by physical or mental illness, or
Is otherwise unable or unfit to discharge the functions of a member, or
Should no longer in the public interest continue to serve;
Has otherwise ceased to possess the qualifications by virtue of which he was appointed a member.

There is neither any allegation nor evidence that the claimants’ appointments were revoked for any of the above listed reasons.

The defence of defendants is that the claimants were fully aware of the dissolution of the Board and accepted the decision of the 1^st defendant on the matter, considering their inefficiency to promote, provide any policy throughout their 8 months in office.

The relevant question is where is the instrument of dissolution citing inefficiency to promote, provide any policy throughout their 8 months in office as a reason? There is none. The averment in paragraph 10 of the claim that the dissolution was through a press statement is not denied in paragraph 7 of the defence responding to same, the only defence therein is that it was in line with the outcome of the State Executive Council Resolution.

There is no evidence before the Court that the dissolution was as a result of claimants’ inefficiency to promote, provide any policy throughout their 8 months in office, which would have led us to the question of whether inefficiency to promote, provide any policy is covered under section 7 as reproduced above.

This defence sought to be put up by the defendants herein fails. The dissolution of the claimants by a press statement for no known reason was contrary to the provisions of the Adamawa State Hospital Services Management Board Law, 2006 and therefore unlawful, null and void.

The implication of the above is that the claimants are entitled to reinstatement or payment for their unexpired tenure. The evidence before the court is that the claimants’ appointments were from 13/1/2015 for three years which would expire on 12^th January, 2018. The implication is that the tenure has lapsed and it will not be practicable to order reinstatement. In such a situation, the claimants are entitled to their alternative prayer for payment of their emoluments and allowances from September, 2015 to 12/1/2018. See EZE V GOV, OF ABIA STATE (2014) 14 NWLR (PT.1426) P.192 AT 218 – 219

According to the claimants, based on their letters of appointments, their approved emoluments, which they were also paid from January to August 2015 are as follows;

Annual basic Salary – N1,337,109.00 (for Chairman)

– N1,250, 110 (Per Annum for members)

Accommodation – 75% of Annual Basic Salary
Transport – 400% of Annual Basic Salary
Utility – 30% of Annual Basic Salary
Domestic Staff – 75% of Annual Basic Salary
Entertainment – 30% of Annual Basic Salary
Furniture Allowance – 25% of Annual Basic Salary
Personal Assistant – 25% of Annual Basic Salary
Motor Vehicle – 75% of Annual Basic Salary
Leave Allowance – 10% of Annual Basic Salary
Newspaper Allowance – 15 % of Annual Basic Salary
Severance Gratuity – 300 % of Annual Basic Salary

By the claimants’ calculations, the claimants’ entitlements from September 2015 to January 2018 are as follows;

For the 1^st to 3^rd claimants-
Annual basic Salary– N 2,916,923.33
b.Accommodation – N2,187,692.50
Transport – N11,667,693.33
Utility – N 875,077.00
Domestic Staff – N2,187,692.50
Entertainment Allowance – N 875,077.00
Furniture Allowance – N8,750.770.00
Personal Assistant – N 729,230.83
Motor Vehicle – N2,187,692.50
Leave Allowance – N 291,692.33
Newspaper Allowance – N 437,538.50
Severance Gratuity – N8,750,770,00

TOTAL =N41,857,849.82

For the 4^th claimant-

Annual basic Salary– N 3,119,921.00
b.Accommodation – N2,339,940.75
Transport – N12,479,684.00
Utility – N 935,976.30
Domestic Staff – N2,339,940.75
Entertainment Allowance – N 935,976.30
Motor vehicle/maintenance – N2,339,940.75
Furniture Allowance – N9,359.736.00
Personal Assistant – N 779,980.25
Leave Allowance – N 311,992.10
Severance Gratuity – N9,359,763,00

TOTAL =N44, 303, 851.20

The mathematical accuracy of claimants’ calculation has not been contested by the defendants. The court takes it to be an admission of the mathematical accuracy of the claimants’ calculation.

The defendants only contend that the claimants’ appointment letters is only a government policy aimed at targeting a specific Board and parastatal as required by law. The purported calculation or computation of their unpaid salaries and entitlements of all the claimants are baseless as the claimants had never applied for the governor’s approval for the implementation of those entitlements.

Section 18 of the Adamawa State Hospital Services Management Board Law, 2006 provides that the Emoluments, allowances and other benefits of the members of the Board and or Hospital Management Committee shall be determined by the Governor and be paid out of the funds of the Board.

The emoluments and entitlements of the claimants as per their letters of appointments are not subject to any further approval by the Governor as they are already stated therein as part of what the Governor has approved for them in paragraph 1 of their letters of appointment. That means that by their letters of appointments, the Emoluments allowances and other benefits of the claimants has already been determined and approved by the Governor.

I find that this defence sought to be put up by the defendants here also fails.

The Court earlier held that the claimants are entitled to their alternative prayer for payment of their emoluments and allowances from September, 2015 to 12/1/2018.

The purpose of arguments of defendants’ counsel on whether the appointment of the claimants are regulated and guided by Adamawa State law No.12 of 2006 or Adamawa State law No. 6 of 2007 (Adamawa State New salary structure for judicial officers, public and political office Holders and legislatures) Amendment law 2007 is not brought to the fore and the court cannot go on a voyage of discovery or speculate on it. In any event, the monetary claims of the claimants is based on what is approved for them in their letters of appointments and which was paid to them for the eight months they stayed in office.

Accordingly, the claimants are entitled as follows;

The 1^st to 3^rd claimants are each entitled to the sum of = N41,857,849.82
The 4^th claimant is entitled to the sum of = N44, 303, 851.20

9.COURT ORDER

For the avoidance of doubt, the case of the claimants succeed and it is hereby declared and ordered as follows;

It is hereby declared that the termination of the claimant’s appointments or dissolution of their appointments with Adamawa State Hospital Service Management Board was done contrary to the provisions of the Adamawa State Hospital Service Management Board law No. 12 of 2006 and is illegal, null and void.
The defendants are hereby ordered to pay to each of the 1^st , 2^nd and 3^rd claimants the sum of N41,857,849.82 (Forty one Million, eight hundred and fifty seven thousand, eight hundred and forty nine Naira and eighty two kobo) being what they would have earned during their tenure.
The defendants are hereby ordered to pay to the 4^th claimant the sum of N44, 303, 851.20 (Forty four Million, three hundred and three thousand, eight hundred and fifty one Naira and twenty kobo) being what he would have earned during his tenure.
Cost of 200,000 is awarded against the defendants.
The judgment debt and cost is to be paid within 30 days of this judgment, failure upon which the sum shall attract 10% interest per annum.

This is the judgment of the Court and it is entered accordingly.

…………………………………………….

HONOURABLE JUSTICE K.D.DAMULAK

PRESIDING JUDGE, NICN, YOLA.

IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE YOLA JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT YOLA

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HONOURABLE JUSTICE K.D. DAMULAK

DATED THIS 2^ND DAY DECEMBER, 2019

BETWEEN SUIT NO: NICN/YL/03/2018

JOHN MUSA MUBI
HARUNA AND ADUWUS
JAFIYA MULLAM ………………………CLAIMANTS
PATRICK AARON

(Suing as next of kin and on behalf

of the estate of late Dr. Gad Aaron)

AND

ADAMAWA STATE GOVERNMENT
ATTORNEY- GENERAL OF ADAMAWA STATE
DR. LAWAN HAMIDU THE EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN

ADAMAWA STATE HOSPITAL SERVICES

MANAGEMENT BOARD

HINDUMO BUTE MEMBER I

ADAMAWA STATE HOSPITAL SERVICE DEFENDANTS

MANAGEMENT BOARD

SIMON INAZO MEMBER II

ADAMAWA STATE HOSPITAL SERVICE

MANAGEMENT BOARD

MUSTAPHA RIBADU MEMBER III

ADAMAWA STATE HOPSITAL SERVICE

MANAGEMENT BOARD

JUDGMENT ORDER

WHEREAS the claimants took out a complaint on the 5^th of April, 2018 against the defendants seeking, among others, the following reliefs:

A DECLARATION that the termination of the claimant’s appointments or dissolution of their appointments with Adamawa State Hospital Service Management Board was done contrary to the provisions of the Adamawa State Hospital Service Management Board law No. 12 of 2006 and is illegal, null and void.

OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE

AN ORDER of Court for the defendants to pay to each of the 1^st to 3^rd claimants the sum of N41,857,849.82 and the 4^th claimant the sum of of N44, 303, 851.20.

AND after hearing the evidence of both parties and the address of Mohammed Abubakar Esq. for the claimants and I.S. Barde Esq. for the defendants, it is held that the case of the claimants succeed and it is hereby ordered as follows;

COURT ORDER

1.It is hereby declared that the termination of the claimant’s appointments or dissolution of their appointments with Adamawa State Hospital Service Management Board was done contrary to the provisions of the Adamawa State Hospital Service Management Board law No. 12 of 2006 and is illegal, null and void.

2.The defendants are hereby ordered to pay to each of the 1^st , 2^nd and 3^rd claimants the sum of N41,857,849.82 (Forty one Million, eight hundred and fifty seven thousand, eight hundred and forty nine Naira and eighty two kobo) being what they would have earned during their tenure.

3.The defendants are hereby ordered to pay to the 4^th claimant the sum of N44, 303, 851.20 (Forty four Million, three hundred and three thousand, eight hundred and fifty one Naira and twenty kobo) being what he would have earned during his tenure.

Cost of 200000 is awarded against the defendants.
The judgment debt and cost is to be paid within 30 days of this judgment, failure upon which the sum shall attract 10% interest per annum.

GIVEN UNDER THE SEAL OF THE COURT AND THE HAND

OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE, HON. JUSTICE K. D. DAMULAK

THIS ^2NDDAY OF DECEMBER, 2019.

………………………………….

HON. JUSTICE K. D. DAMULAK

JUDGE