The National Industrial Court has ordered the Chairman of Ido Osi Local Government Area of Ekiti State to pay a driver, Mr Segun John, his salaries from July 2013 to September 2025, process and issue him retirement papers as well as retirement entitlements, and the sum of N500,000 as costs of action.
Justice Kiyersohot Damulak of the Akure Division of the court gave the ruling on Friday, adding that Mr John’s employment was never terminated at any time by the local government.
The court held that the local government chairman failed to establish that John absconded from duty or that his employment was lawfully terminated, having admitted that no letter of termination was issued and that no disciplinary process was initiated against him.
According to available documents, Mr. John told the court that he was employed as a driver by the local government in May 2001 and his appointment was confirmed in March 2004. Thereafter, he was promoted to Senior Driver on Grade Level 6 Step 2.
He added that while he was attached to a traditional ruler in the town, another driver was brought in to replace him following a letter from the traditional ruler requesting a replacement, after which his salary was stopped without any letter terminating his employment or any disciplinary proceedings against him.
He also stated that despite repeatedly reporting to the local government secretariat to seek clarification, the Director of Administration refused to attend to him and instead allegedly ordered that he be driven away whenever he appeared.
In his defence, the chairman contended that Mr John’s employment was never terminated but that he absconded from duty in April 2013 without notifying the local government authorities.
The chairman, through his counsel, argued that the action brought before the court was statute-barred under the Ekiti State Limitation Law, and maintained that Mr John was not entitled to salary arrears, gratuity or pension.
The counsel further argued that salaries are payable only to employees who remain in service and that gratuity and pension are payable only upon retirement, thereby urging the court to dismiss the suit in its entirety.
Opposing the arguments, counsel to Mr John stated that his client never absconded from duty, that his employment had not been lawfully terminated, and urged the court to hold that he had established his entitlement to the reliefs sought.
Delivering judgment, Justice Damulak held that Mr John’s claim was one for unpaid salaries arising from work and labour done, constituting a continuing injury that was not caught by the limitation law, and accordingly dismissed the objection.
Justice Damulak also held that both in fact and in law, the appointment of the claimant was never terminated, as the traditional ruler was never his employer and therefore lacked the legal authority to terminate his appointment.
The judge therefore stated that the chairman failed to prove the allegation that Mr John absconded from duty, having neither issued him any query nor produced credible evidence in support of that allegation, and therefore, could not rely on it as a defence to his claim for unpaid salaries.
