Court Dismisses Salary Entitlement Claim Against Army Chief

Justice Isaac Essien of the National Industrial Court, Makurdi Division has dismissed the salary entitlement claim suit filed by one, Retired Sgt.Johnson, against the Chief of Army Staff, Taoreed Lagbaja and the Nigerian Army for lacking in merit.

In a judgement, Justice Essien held that the Retired Sgt. Johnson’s claim for salaries from April 1999 to June 2006 when he was declared AWOL, was misconceived as he cannot claim salaries for the period he did not work.

The judge held that the claim of Sgt. Johnson that a worker who absconds from work and resurfaces and is tried and punished for abscondment can be rewarded with a pat on the back by paying him salaries for the period he offered no services to the employer is preposterous and has no place in labour jurisprudence.

Justice Essien also dismissed the objection filed by the Chief of Army Staff and the Nigerian Army for lacking in merit and affirmed that the limitation of action does not apply again to employment claims.

The court also held that the claimant failed to prove that the practice that a related and relisted officer is entitled to salaries for the period of being declared AWOL exist as part of the military tradition or is regulated by the Army Act or any other military regulation.

The court awarded the sum of N500,000 against the claimant and in favour of the Chief of Army Staff and the Nigerian Army. The claimant had submitted that the army authorities declared him AWOL in March 1999 and he was delisted from the army on 7 June 1999.

He further submitted that he was re-jabbed and reinstated following his complaint that his de-listment was wrongful and did not follow the proper procedure.

He argued further that in accordance with military tradition, upon his reabsorption, he is entitled to be paid his salaries and allowances from the month he was declared AWOL up to when he was re-jabbed. In defence, the defendants- Chief of Army Staff and the Nigerian Army maintained that the case is statute-barred and as such the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain it.