The Presiding Judge, Bauchi Judicial Division of the National Industrial Court, Hon. Justice Mustapha Tijjani has dismissed the case filed by former Councillors, Hon. Umaru Ahmed & 113 others against Gombe State Government challenging entitlement claim for lacking merit.
Justice Tijjani ruled that Hon. Umaru Ahmed & 113 others not only failed to adduce evidence proving their entitlement to the claimed, but they also failed to establish by credible evidence that they were duly elected Councilors as correctly contended by the Gombe State Government.
From facts, the Claimants- Hon. Umaru Ahmed & 113 others had submitted that upon the expiration of their tenure of office as Councilors, they were owed severance, gratuity and furniture allowance due but unpaid as at the expiration of their tenure of office which accrued from the said 25th February 2013 to 25th February 2015.
Hon. Umaru Ahmed & 113 others averred that GOVERNMENT OF GOMBE STATE paid the sum of N64,980,000.00 being 25% of the total severance, and have approached the court for the outstanding 25% of the total several benefits.
In response, the Defendants- Government of Gombe State, Governor of Gombe State, and Commissioner for Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs averred that Hon. Umaru Ahmed & 113 others were only appointed to the said offices to serve for a tenure of two (2) years which elapsed in 2015 upon which they were disengaged, and the said appointments of Hon. Umaru Ahmed & 113 others were later declared null and void by the High Court of Gombe State.
The Government of Gombe State maintained that the Governor approved the payment of 50% gratuity to Hon. Umaru Ahmed & 113 others, and during the pendency of the suit, the Executive Governor approved the payment of an additional 25% of the Claimant’s claims.
Learned counsel to Gombe State Government submitted that there is nothing to show from the exhibits tendered by Hon. Umaru Ahmed & 113 others to show that they were validly elected to the offices of Councillor in their respective wards, and urged the Court to dismiss the case in its entirety.
In a well-considered Judgment, the Presiding Judge, Justice Mustapha Tijjani held that the evidence presented by Hon. Umaru Ahmed & 113 others failed to establish their entitlement to the amounts being claimed.
The Court advised that Hon. Umaru Ahmed & 113 others ought to have pleaded the legal or contractual basis of their entitlement to the sums claimed and tendered supporting evidence, whether in the form of legislation, an instrument of appointment, or any other relevant document conferring such entitlement.
Justice Tijjani emphasized that Hon. Umaru Ahmed & 113 others not only failed to adduce evidence proving their entitlement to the sums claimed, but they also neglected from the outset to establish by credible evidence that they were duly elected Councilors – as correctly contended by the Defendant’s Counsel.
The Court stated that Hon. Umaru Ahmed & 113 others did not plead with the required specificity the essential facts needed to establish their claim for special damages, particularly the source of their entitlement to the sums claimed.
“The law is clear: in claims for special damages, a claimant must both plead with precision and provide convincing evidence in support. The Claimant’s inability to meet this standard is decisive. Courts do not award relief based on mere allegations or speculative assertions; litigants must furnish the court with all necessary evidence to validate their claims.” The Court ruled.
