Court Orders Federal Ministry Of Industry, Trade And Investment To Pay Repatriation Allowance To Amb. Adejuwon

The National Industrial Court of Nigeria (NICN) has ordered the Federal Ministry of Industry Trade and Investment to pay repatriation allowance to Ambassador David Ademola Adejuwon to enable him move his family and personal effect from World Trade Organisation Geneva, Switzerland back to Nigeria.

Justice Ayodele Obaseki-Osaghae gave the order while delivering judgment on Tuesday, March 12, 2024 in suit number NICN/ABJ/301/2017 filed by Amb. Adejuwon. The Federal Ministry of Industry Trade and Investment was the defendant in the matter.

The claimant filed before the court his complaints against the defendant on October 23, 2017 together with accompanying processes.

The claimant, by a further amended statement of facts filed before the court, sought for an order directing the defendant to renew his diplomatic passport and that of his wife which expired in December 2018 and to obtain one year Schengen multiple entry Visas on the renewed passports to enable him travel to Geneva to enable him hand over to new ambassador and to bring back his families and personal effects immediately after the payment of the outstanding allowance and repatriation allowance.

Justice Obaseki-Osaghae granted all other reliefs sought by the claimant in his statement of facts and amended statement of facts filed before the court.

The court dismissed the counter-claims of the defendant as frivolous and lacking in merit having noted that as at the day of judgment of the court, “the claimant’s repatriation allowance remains unpaid; that there is no evidence of any estimate for renovation, or loss of any rental revenue by the defendant.”

Justice Obaseki-Osaghae awarded N400,000 in favour of the claimant on the counter-claim by the defendant.

The judge said all payments ordered by the court must be made to the claimant within 30 days of the judgment stressing, “thereafter, any sum outstanding will attract interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum.”

Justice Obaseki-Osaghae, citing several authorities, held that the claimant was treated differently and disadvantaged on the same set of facts and circumstances by the Federal Ministry of Industry Trade and Investment, stressing that the tenure policy of the Federal Government denied by the defendant is common knowledge for which this court has taken judicial notice of in several decisions.

The court held that the claimant’s evidence in the entirety of the case is not controverted, emphasising that by the defendant’s failure to cross-examine the claimant on his claims, the defendant’s pleadings in paragraphs 11 (L) (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), and (vi), and paragraph 25 (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e) of the statement on oath of DW, the Defendant has admitted the claims of the claimant.

Citing several decided cases, the judge held that the law is settled that parties are bound by their pleadings and facts pleaded by one party and admitted by another needs no further proof.

The court held that the claimant is therefore entitled to the orders hereinafter made having succeeded in his claims.

The judge ordered the defendant to pay the claimant his statutory repatriation entitlements.

On the claim for unpaid Foreign Service Allowance, Justice Obaseki-Osaghae held that ”the claimant is yet to be recalled and repatriated. I agree that he still remains technically Nigerian Ambassador to the World Trade Organisation; and this is unchallenged by the defendant. Furthermore, I find from the uncontroverted evidence that the claimant’s predecessor Ambassador Y.F. Agah who was retired in January 2010 continued to be paid Foreign Service Allowance till October 2013 (which is 45 months); and the allowance ceased after his repatriation entitlements were paid.

“The defendant has not shown this court any reason why the claimant should be treated differently from his predecessor on the same set of facts and circumstances, and why different executive or administrative actions have been applied. This is wrong, and ought not to be.”

The trial judge held that on the whole, the claimant’s case succeeds.

The court berated the defendant over the treatment the claimant has been subjected to by the defendant.

The judge noted: “the claimant served and represented Nigeria as Ambassador/Resident Representative to the World Trade Organisation Geneva, Switzerland. He ought not to be treated in this degrading manner having served his country meritoriously. No Nigerian Ambassador/Envoy should be subjected to this type of embarrassment.

“The claimant gave the required notice to the defendant and so the process of recall ought to have commenced timeously and payment of repatriation allowances to enable the claimant return home with his family, personal effects and prevent hardship. There can be no excuse since September 2016 for this situation that is clearly an embarrassment to Nigeria, particularly in view of its high profile leadership role in the World Trade Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.”

“The defendant Ministry as part of the Executive Arm of Government must abide by the Foreign Service Rules; and there must be equality in the treatment of Ambassadors to the World Trade Organization. The Defendant Ministry can do better than this for the image of Nigeria”, the judge said.

The claimant, in his pleadings stated that at the material time to this suit, he was the Nigerian Ambassador to the World Trade Organization and other Trade Related International Organizations in Geneva, Switzerland.

He averred that by the approval of Mr. President on 29 June 2013 conveyed through a letter from the Federal Ministry of Industry. Trade and Investment dated 24 July 2013 he was appointed as the Nigerian new Ambassador to the World Trade Organization in Geneva Switzerland, and he assumed duty in Geneva on 3rd March 2014 after his predecessor Amb Yonuy Fredrick

Agah who was retired from the Federal Civil Service in January 2010 vacated the office.

He averred that though Ambassador Y. F. Agah was retired by the Federal Government with effect from January 2010 based on the tenure policy, his foreign service allowance and other entitlements were never stopped by the Ministry from January 2010 to October 2013 until after his repatriation entitlements were paid, a new Ambassador appointed by the Federal Government and the World Trade Organization duly notified by the Federal Ministry, Trade and Investment. He stated that other officers posted by the Federal Ministry of Commerce to the Nigeria Trade Office, Geneva in 2004 for a tenure of four years to work with Ambassador Agah included Ms. Z. Abdullahi, Mr. S. Muazu and Mr. S. A. Audu; and they were recalled in May 2016, and 12 of January 2017, and returned to the headquarters Geneva in February 2019 without the Ministry stopping their Foreign Service Allowance after collecting their repatriation entitlements.

The claimant averred that technically, he is still the Nigerian Ambassador to the World Trade Organization Geneva as the Federal Ministry of Industry, Trade and Investment has up till now not issued him his letter of recall from Geneva to Nigeria as required; not appointed a new Ambassador to take over from him; has not officially notified the World Trade Organization that he has been recalled and a successor appointed by Mr. President; not returned the statutory budgetary provision for his foreign Service Allowance and entitlements from September 2016 to date to the treasury; and not paid his repatriation entitlements and travelling expenses as an Ambassador to enable him return to Nigeria in line with provisions of the Foreign Service Rules.

The Claimant further stated that under the Public Service Rules and Nigeria Foreign Service Regulations, following the acceptance of his retirement notice, he Ministry is to issue a letter of recall and arrange for air passage for himself, wife, four children and two servants if it did not want him to continue to serve as an Ambassador.

He averred that his Foreign Service Allowance and other entitlements were unlawfully stopped by one Mr. Sulaiman A. Audu, Minister (NTO) and Mr. Shehu N. Muazu {Finance Attache (NTO), both of whom were signatories to the NTO account, from September 2016 without recourse to the extant rules.

The claimant averred that that in line with the FSR and extant circulars he is entitled to a maximum of 40-foot container plus shipment of personal car at government expense.

He further averred that by his letters dated 2nd February 2017; 6th March 2017 and his solicitors letter dated 8th May 2017, he demanded for his repatriation allowance from the defendant to no avail.

He stated that he was invited by the defendant to meetings for amicable settlement in the defendant’s office on 20th February 2019, and 23rd June 2021 consequent upon which the defendant made an unfair, unrealistic and unreasonable ridiculous offer to him vide its letters dated 16th May 2019, and 23rd June 2021 which he rejected.

The claimant stated that at the meeting held on 20th February 2019, the Defendant collected and offered to renew his diplomatic passport and that of his spouse which expired in December 2018 and to obtained one year Schengen multiple entry visas on the renewed passports to enable them travel to Geneva to hand over to the new Ambassador and to bring back his family and personal effects.

The claimant stated that by his Solicitors’ letter dated 27th May 2019, he rejected the offer and restated his claims submitted to the defendant for settlement, and by his letters to the Defendant dated 4th July and 1st September 2019 he demanded for full settlement of his outstanding claims in the spirit of out of court settlement.

The claimant averred that the defendant Ministry has violated the provisions of the Public Service/Foreign Service Rules.

The Claimant averred that the failure of the Defendant to pay his repatriation allowance has exposed him and his family to serious hardship, embarrassment and ridicule. And that as a result of the Defendant’s stoppage of his foreign service allowance and failure to repatriate him from Geneva, Switzerland to Nigeria, he incurs average of $600 USD for the upkeep of his wife and four children daily since 8th September, 2016.

In his reply to the defense counterclaim, the claimant averred that he locked up his official residence in Geneva, Switzerland with his personal effects in May 2017 when he travelled to Nigeria to follow up on his series of requests to the defendant for his letter of recall having stopped payment of his Foreign Service Allowance and entitlements, appoint a successor to whom he will hand over and pay his outstanding statutory entitlements.

The defendant’s case on the pleadings is that by effluxion of time the claimant ceased to be an envoy of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, and has ceased to be a Federal Civil Servant upon attaining retirement age on the 7th September 2016, as provided in the Federal Civil Service Rules.

The defendant stated that it has a high respect for the claimant and that in demonstration of this, the Permanent Secretary of the defendant Ministry constituted a committee to advise on the payment of repatriation allowance of the claimant and other related matters with a view to out of court settlement of this suit, payment of repatriation allowance of the claimant, opening the Federal Government Property in Geneva where the claimant lived before his retirement in 2016 which the claimant put under lock and key till date.

The defendant further stated that the claimant and his counsel attended the committee meeting on the 20th February 2019 where compromises on the side of the parties and far-reaching agreements were made but that a few days later, the claimant through his counsel wrote a letter to the Ministry repudiating all the agreements.

The defendant stated that it was due to this unexpected reaction from the claimant that informed the delay in payment of the agreed sum to the claimant; and that the parties were at this position when the Federal Executive Council was dissolved.

The defendant stated that it took a while before a new cabinet was put in place and as a result of that, it became impossible to have further discussions regarding out of court settlement with the claimant.

The defendant averred that another committee was set up by the defendant Ministry and that resolutions were reached in the presence of the claimant’s counsels: Mr. Kayode Abodunrin and Mr. Adebayo Eniwaye who requested for the copy of the resolutions and same was availed them.

The defendant stated that a few days later the claimant by a letter dated 28th June 2021, rejected almost all the terms of offer making it the second time that the offer made by the defendant would be rejected by the claimant.

The defendant stated that the entitlements due to the claimant are as computed by the relevant Federal Ministry and Departments of the defendant Ministry as provided for in the Federal Government Public Service Rules.

In respect of the counter claim, the defendant admitted that the claimant gave notice of his retirement and this was accepted.

The witness of the defendant’ counterclaimant is Mr. Edet lyam Egbe (DW) Senior Executive Officer stated that there was no Tenure Policy in the defendant Ministry.

He informed the court that he wasn’t aware if the claimant had been recalled as an Ambassador from the foreign service and the World Trade Organization.

The witness stated that he was aware the claimant’s personal properties in the Avileiny have not been repatriated.