Court dismisses Nggilari’s suit for pension, benefits

The National Industrial Court, Abuja has dismissed the suit filed by the former Governor of Adamawa state, Bala Nggilari seeking the payment of his pension and other benefits, for lack of proof.

Nggilari, the claimant was the deputy governor, then governor of Adamawa state from May 29, 2007 to May 29, 2015.

He instituted the suit against the state government and attorney-general of the state by way of complaint and statement of facts on November 17, 2015.

In the complaint, he averred that according to Sections 3 and 6 of the Adamawa state Governor’s Pension (amendment) Law 2010, he was entitled to pension and gratuity for life.

However, he said since the completion of his tenure, he has not been paid his pension and gratuity, hence the commencement of the action against the defendants and praying the court for some reliefs.

In defence, the defendants averred that the section of the law which was the threshold of the claimant’s case was null and void as it was made without the amount granted as pension and gratuity being determined and fixed by the Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission.

Justice Benedict Kanyip delivering the judgment read by Justice Sanusi Kado said that “the claimant’s claims are for pension, gratuity and other post-office entitlements, all of which qualified as special damages.

READ ALSO: Delta Commissioner tasks youths on use of talents

“The law is that a claim for special damages must be pleaded and particularised so that the defendant will know what he is meeting. The claims for gratuity, pension, housing fund, salary are all special damages and must be proved. Where a claimant fails in this test, the claim must fail.”

The judge further said that the claimant relied on the Adamawa srtate Governor’s Pension (amendment) Law 2010 as the instrument that granted him the entitlement to all the reliefs he sought.

He however, said that no copy of this law was made available to the court in order to see how exactly worded the said sections were, adding that “how am I to verify this when the said law is not made available, given that this court has no access to it?

“I am not satisfied that the claimant discharged the burden of proof placed on him by law to be entitled to a favourable verdict by this court. His case must accordingly fail and I so hold.”

Kanyip therefore, dismissed the suit for lack of proof and awarded no cost.