Retired Judge, Lagos Govt Opt for Out-of-Court Settlement over Unpaid Gratuity

Wale Igbintade  

A retired Judge, Justice Samuel Candide-Johnson and the Lagos State government have opted to explore an out-of-court settlement in a suit filed by the former jurist before the National Industrial Court, in Lagos over his unpaid gratuity.

Justice Candide-Johnson had instituted the suit over the failure of the Lagos State government to pay his pension, gratuity, and other entitlements.

Apart from the state government, other respondents in the case are: the state’s Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice, Moyosore Onigbanjo (SAN); the Lagos State Judicial Service Commission; and the National Judicial Council (NJC) in the suit.

At the resumed hearing of the suit yesterday, a lawyer from the state’s Ministry of Justice, Saheed Quadri urged Justice Maureen Esowe to adjourn the matter to enable parties to discuss and agree on a settlement.

Quadri advised the judge to grant an adjournment for four weeks. The claimant’s lawyer, Yemi Candide-Johnson did not oppose the request but asked the state government to withdraw its preliminary objection to the suit to demonstrate that the request for settlement was done in good faith.

Quadri, however, opposed the move insisting that he was optimistic about the settlement talks.

Following the consent of the parties, Justice Esowe adjourned further proceedings in the matter to May 9 for a report of settlement.

The retired judge had in his statement of claim, stated that his monthly salary and other consolidated allowances as recorded in his last payslip stood at N749,166.66 net earnings, and N561,777.64.

He stated further: “The annual salary of one of the claimant’s domestic staff is N600, 000.00 at N50, 000 monthly. The claimant also received the sum of N5, 414,220.00 as furniture allowance on May 26, 2021. Thus the annual salary of four of the claimant domestic staff is N2, 400,000.00.”

The claimant stated that in accordance with provisions of the constitution, and the Pension Rights of Judges Act, he was entitled to a minimum lifetime pension of N21,145,551.6 and therefore urged the court to declare that he was entitled to the payment of his pension, severance gratuity, and other entitlements, and that the governor should calculate his entitlements and pay them forthwith.

The claimant also asked the court for an order directing the governor to pay N10 million damages for failing to pay his pension and severance gratuity in accordance with the law.

But, in their reply, the Governor and the Attorney General exonerated themselves from the action by filing a Motion on Notice, stating that the claimant’s action as constituted discloses no reasonable cause of action against them.

The first and second Respondents further stated that, “the administration and payment of pension of retired judicial officers have been transferred to the third defendant (Judicial Service Commission) pursuant to the Pension Right of Lagos State Judicial Officers Law Ch.P3, Volume 9, Laws of Lagos State 2015.”

The Respondents also maintained that the claimant belongs to the third arm of government, the judiciary, which has been constitutionally bestowed with its independence and financial autonomy that is sacrosanct, “sections 291(3) and (4) of the constitution recognised the application of State’s law in the administration and payment of pension of retired judicial officers, the claimant inclusive.”

Therefore, it stated, “all the reliefs being sought against the first and second defendants cannot be granted against them as they cannot implement the Federal Acts heavily relied on by the claimant.”

In its defence, the third defendant, the State Judicial Service Commission, urged the court to dismiss the suit, as it is vexatious and lacking in merit.

In its 20 paragraph statement of defence, the third defendant stated that the Lagos State government is not mandated to adopt the payment of the retirement benefit of judicial officers as contained in sections 291(2) and 3(a-c) stricto sensu (In the narrow sense).

The JSC stated: “The delay in the payment of the claimant and other affected retired judges’ benefits is due to administrative impediments. The third defendant is working earnestly with other agencies of the first defendant to ensure that the claimant and other affected retired judges receive their entitlements in good time after all administrative issues must have been resolved”.