After more than 16 years of arduous litigation, the National Industrial Court has ordered the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) to pay N2.8 billion to 313 reinstated Federal Urban Mass Transit Agency employees whose appointments were erroneously and unlawfully terminated.
The order was issued by Justice E. N Agbakoba in her judgment in NICN/ABJ/228M/2022 garnishee proceedings brought by judgment creditors whose appointments were unlawfully terminated by the judgment debtors listed as the President and Commander-in-Chief of the Federal Republic of Nigeria; Head of Service of the Federation; Minister, Federal Ministry of Transportation, and Federal Urban Mass Transit Agency.
The judgment debtors/applicants were all employees of the disbanded Federal Urban Mass Transit Agency, a parastatal under the Federal Ministry of Transport, who worked under the Federal Civil Service Rules.
However, under the presidency of the President and Commander-in-Chief of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the Federal Executive Council (FEC) resolved to disband the Federal Urban Mass Transit Agency.
They were sometimes issued letters of retirement from service on November 13, 2004, and the letters were backdated to August 31, 2004.
Julius Komgbenda and 313 others contested the purported retirement in an action designated NICN/ABJ/324/2013, calling it illegitimate and unlawful since it did not conform with the provisions of the 1999 Constitution or the Public Service Rules 2008.
They claimed that because they had not reached the statutory retirement age of 60, they were entitled to be transferred or seconded to other government ministries, agencies, or parastatals under the Civil Service Rules under which they were employed. They were not given formal notice or awarded any notice allowances at the time of retirement.
In her decision, delivered on December 16, 2020, Justice Agbakoba stated that “the letters of employment, an offer of appointment; tendered, the explicit words used therein, and evidence of DW1 all buttress the fact and establish to the satisfaction of the court, that the claimants are statutorily employed.”
As a result, Justice Agbakoba issued an order declaring the claimants’ alleged retirement as late, unlawful, null, and invalid, and without effect because it did not conform with the provisions of the 1999 Constitution or the Public Service Rules 2008.
Furthermore, she issued an order restoring the claimants’ offices and posts to all prerequisites.
An order from this court directing that any salaries/wages due to the claimants before to and throughout the initiation of this litigation be paid to them until their employment is correctly and legally determined or they retire.
However, three years after the foregoing ruling, the named judgment debtors refused to comply, prompting the judgment creditors to institute garnishee proceedings against them in suit No NICN/ABJ/228M/2022.
Access Bank, the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), and 15 others were named as garnishees/respondents in the litigation.
The court entered judgment in favor of the judgment creditors on June 14, 2023, as follows: “The order of garnishee nisi made on October 18, 2022, against the 2nd garnishee (CBN), is herein and hereby made absolute, the garnishee is hereby ordered to pay the judgment sum of N2, 800, 000, 000.00 being the judgment debt from the 2nd garnishee to the judgment creditor or so much thereof as will satisfy the judgment of this court delivered on 16th December 2020 in favor of the judgment creditor.
“In this suit, the judgment debtors, in fact, all four judgment debtors, filed frivolous processes arguing law and raising spurious academic submissions on issues that had long been settled in the law,” Justice Agabakoba said. “I do not believe that the judgment debtors’ position, in this case, can be classified as one of the limited circumstances, as advised by the Supreme Court. The motions of the first through fourth judgment debtors are found to be without merit and are consequently dismissed at a cost of N500,000.00 apiece.
“It is not the function of a garnishee to play the role of an advocate for a judgment debtor by attempting to hide and safeguard the judgment debtor’s money. Of course, by playing hide and seek with the court, failing or refusing to attest to an affidavit to show cause, and omitting to disclose the true account position of the judgment debtor, the garnishee merely exposes itself to problems, daring the court to do its worst!
“If the court has reason to suspect that the failure or refusal to demonstrate cause is a deliberate attempt to escape a legal duty under the law, to disclose the true state of account of the judgment debtor in its possession, it can be ordered to pay the judgment debtor’s debt.
“In these instances, it is important to note that it is not the responsibility of a garnishee to defend the debt sought to be enforced against the judgment debtor. A garnishee’s responsibility upon receipt of a Garnishee order nisi is to file an affidavit with the relevant court showing cause why the judgment debtor’s money in his custody should not be attached to satisfy the judgment debt.
“It then behooves a garnishee to present the true state of affairs regarding the monies before the court. Either there is no or insufficient fund in his custody or the available fund is under lien or assigned to a third party in which case the court instead of proceeding to make an order for Garnishee absolute may order that any issue or question necessary for determining his liability be tried or determined.
“In this situation before the court, the law is clear that the failure or refusal of the Garnishee to show cause is implied admission of the claim of the judgment creditor/ applicant, that the Garnishee holds the judgment debtor’s money sufficient to satisfy the judgment debt. I so hold accordingly.”
Comments