Rtd General sues Nigerian Army over alleged compulsory retirement
Retired Brig.-Gen.Abubakar Sa’ad on Tuesday dragged the Nigerian Army before the National Industrial Court, Abuja,...

Retired Brig.-Gen.Abubakar Sa’ad on Tuesday dragged the Nigerian Army before the National Industrial Court, Abuja, challenging his alleged compulsory retirement.

The other co-defendants in the suit are the Chief of Army Staff, Chief of Defence Staff, Minister of Defence and the Nigerian Army Council.

The claimant’s counsel, Mohamned Adelogun, told the court that the matter was slated for mention.

The counsel further informed the court that the matter was first filed on Sept. 7,2016, but was however struck out on Sept. 16, 2017 in a ruling.

Adelogun stated that the ruling was as a result of the preliminary objection raised by the defence on ground that the claimant failed to comply with the provisions of the Armed Forces Act, before instituting the suit.

According to the counsel, the claimant appealed the ruling  at the Appeal Court in 2018 and in a ruling delivered on June 18,2020 set aside the ruling of the trial court.

Adelogun in addition said the Appeal  Court accordingly ordered that the case be readmitted back to the NICN for reassignment.

He equally informed the court that they had been served with another preliminary objection by the defence stating lack of jurisdiction as the case had  already been decided.

He stated that he had just filed the response to the preliminary objection, a motion to amend the claimant’s claims and apologized to the court for filing out of time.

Adelogun proceeded to seek for an expeditious hearing  of the suit by citing Order 18, Rule 3 of the NICN proceeding, urging the court to take the preliminary objection together with the  substantiative suit.

The defence counsel, Timileyin Kehinde also affirmed  that the claimant’s counsel had been served the preliminary objection, however were yet to receive their response.

Kehinde also objected to the application of Adelogun  for  the court to take the preliminary objection together with the substantiative suit.

The judge, Justice Benedict Kanyip in his ruling said that the claimant’s counsel needed to adopt the procedures that would allow the court to take the preliminary objection together with the substantiative suit.

The judge therefore said the prayer and application to take them together was not granted.

He however directed that Adelogun serve the defence counsel a copy of his reply to the preliminary objection right in the court.

Kanyip also adjourned the matter until Nov.24, for hearing of the preliminary objection.

Sa’ad in his relief, is seeking a declaration that  his purported compulsory retirement dated June 9, 2016 is  null, void and of no effect whatsoever  and inconsistent with the relevant provisions of the  Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, the Armed Forces Act Cap A20 LFN 2004, the Nigerian  Armed Forces Harmonized Terms and Conditions of Service 2012 and the Manual of Military Law 2015.

The claimant is also seeking  for an order setting aside the purported compulsory retirement and compelling the defendants to reinstate him as an officer of the Nigerian Army  with all the rights,privileges and  perquisites attendant of his  status as a Brigadier General of the Nigerian Army or such next rank ( being the rank of Major General) which he claimed is entitled to assume in all its ramification.

In addition, he is also seeking an order of the court,  compelling the defendants  to effect and implement its Promotion Board exercise of 2015 which considered him for promotion to the rank of Major General and to accord him all the rights, privileges, interests, salaries, allowances and other perquisites of the rank to the date of determination of the suit and subsequently thereafter.

Sa’ad in his Statement of Facts, said he was  commissioned on Dec. 20,1986 as a member of the regular course 35, and  was compulsorily retired on June 9, 2016 after 32 years of service when he had not attained the mandatory age of 60 years  for retirement, neither had he spent 35 years as stipulated by the defendant’s governing laws.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *