The Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, has set aside the judgment of the National Industrial Court and awarded ₦10 million in costs against the National Pension Commission (PenCom) for unlawful labour practices against 20 aggrieved staff.

In a unanimous decision delivered in appeal marked, CA/ABJ/CV/830/2024, a three-member panel led by Justice Bilkisu Bello Aliyu, with Justices Donatus Okorowa and Justice Oyejoju Oyewumi concurring, held that the workers’ appeal was meritorious and ought to be allowed.

In the judgement delivered by Justice Oyewumi, the appellate court nullified the June 13, 2023 judgement of the lower court which had dismissed the claims of the workers in their entirety.

The dispute arose from the plight of the 20 workers who were issued letters of employment by PenCom and resumed duty on May 2, 2017, but were neither deployed nor assigned roles, and were left without remuneration.

The court document showed that upon resumption, the workers were directed to “tarry” for further instructions, directives that never materialised for years despite repeated correspondence with the Commission.

The appellants told the court that they had resigned from previous employment in reliance on PenCom’s offer, only to be left stranded without salaries, responsibilities, or clarity on their employment status.

Arguing through their counsel, Samuel Ogala of Falana & Falana chambers, the workers had maintained that PenCom could not frustrate the performance of employment conditions and then benefit from its own inaction.

A Certified True copy of the appeal judgement delivered on Friday March 6, 2026, but sighted on Sunday , a three-man panel of justices In their decision agreed, held that the recruitment process, comprising advertisement, interviews, and issuance of employment letters duly accepted by the appellants, constituted a valid and binding contract.

Consequently, the appellate court emphasised that admitted facts require no further proof and ruled that a contractual relationship had been established, thereby imposing legal obligations on the respondents.

The appeal court said that the workers’ prolonged ordeal was unjustifiable, and subsequently held: “The appeal succeeds,” and proceeded to set aside the lower court’s decision.

It further awarded ₦10 million as costs against the respondents, citing the “unnecessary and unwarranted rigours of litigation” endured by the appellants since filing the suit in 2022.

The workers had, in the originating suit, accused PenCom of unfair labour practices, including non-payment of salaries, denial of promotions, and unlawful restriction from performing their duties.

They sought declarations affirming their status as employees under the Pension Reform Act 2014 and the Public Service Rules, alongside orders compelling payment of all outstanding salaries, allowances, and entitlements.

They also requested protection from alleged harassment and an injunction restraining the Commission from further obstructing their employment.

The aggrieved workers had also in their originating in the suit marked, NIC/ABJ/188/2022, sought an order of the Court directing the Commission to pay them forthwith their salaries, arrears, and allowances from the date of their employment till when the judgment of the court is complied with by the commission and the same to be calculated using the commission’s salary structure for its employees.

The claimants had also sought a declaration that “having regard to the provisions of section 28 and 29 of the Pension Reform Act 2014, regulations 040102 and 130105 of the public service rules, the failure of the Commission to pay them their salaries, arrears, allowances and promotion from the date of their employment till date is an unfair labour practice, discriminatory, ultra vires and in violation of the provisions of the PENCOM Act and the Public Service Rules.

They also had sought an order of injunction directing the Commission to immediately promote them to their rightful position in the commission based on their employment with the Commission.

“Another order restraining the Commission from further harassing, intimidating, threatening the employment of the Claimants or restraining the Claimants from performing their statutory function in the Commission as Staff of the Commission.” (The Guardian)

Update news