Sixty two disengaged staff members of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), on Monday, asked the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (NICN) in Abuja to dismiss an application filed by the apex bank.
The CBN, through its lawyer, Wilson Inam, SAN, had filed a motion on notice before Justice Osatohanmwen Obaseki-Osaghae, seeking an order to convert the claimants’ originating summons to writ of summons.
Inam had argued that the aggrieved ex-workers (claimants), in their suit, had raised substantial issues of facts which are in dispute, hence, their oral evidence would be required by filing a writ for court to arrive at a conclusive decision.
He said the motion, dated Nov. 26, was filed same date and that the claimants had been served but had not responded to the application.
Inam argued that the claimants, having not filed a counter affidavit to the apex bank’s motion on notice, had deemed all the averments deposed to in support of their application as being true and admitted as facts.
“The facts are not contested. These are facts in which judgement can’t be given to the claimants without oral evidence,” he added.
But counsel to the claimants, Ola Olanipekun, SAN, prayed the court to dismiss the CBN’s application.
Olanipekun argued that though he did not filed a counter affidavit against the application, he would be opposing the motion based on points of law.
Citing Order 17, Rule 12 of the court, the senior lawyer argued that the first three prayers sought by CBN in its five-relief application, regarding the conversion of originating summons to writ of summons, cannot be granted since the defendant (CBN) had failed to file a counter affidavit in response to their originating summons.
“My learner brother has not filed a counter affidavit to our process served on them which we also have a right to file a further and better affidavit before my lord can look at this issue holistically,” he said.
According to Olanipekun, under Order 17, Rule 12 of the rules of this honourable court, where a respondent chooses not to file a counter affidavit, the claimants can choose to address the court on points of law.
He submitted that since the CBN had conceded that it was yet to file its counter affidavit to their suit, it showed that “it is only the pleading of the claimants that is before my lord.”
He argued further that the claimants are still at liberty to file a further and better affidavit after they must have received the counter affidavit from the CBN before the motion on notice by the apex court could be ripe for hearing if the court deemed it necessary.
He cited a 2003 Supreme Court decision in Famfa Oil vs. AGF where the court made a pronouncement on the propriety of originating summons.
“So what we are saying is that the full pleadings of both parties had to be before my lord so that my lord can decide whichever way,” he said.
Olanipekun, who stated that the court has the power to resolve issues in affidavit evidence, also cited a 1978 case involving National Bank of Nigeria vs Alakija to back his argument.
He argued that Order 3, Rule 17 earlier cited by the CBN’s lawyer in his submission ran contrary to his argument.
When Justice Obaseki-Osaghae asked Olanipekun if the court could disregard the proposed counter affidavit filed by the CBN to the originating summons in its decision, the lawyer argued that “a proposed process is not a process before the court because party can change his mind.”
He said based on its name, “a proposed counter affidavit” cannot take the place of the final process filed.
Besides, he added that a counter affidavit, if filed by the defendant, “is not a complete process before the court because the claimants can still file better and further affidavit.”
According to him, the position of the law is that pleadings have to be completed so that we can see the facts before the court.
Olanipekun, who described the CBN’s application as “premature,” urged the court to discountenance it.
Justice Obaseki-Osaghae consequently fixed Feb. 10 for ruling on the application.
The 62 ex-staff, who are claimants, had filed separate suits against the nation’s apex bank as the sole defendant.
In one of the originating summons marked NICN/ABJ/26x/2024, dated Aug. 21, 2024 but filed on Aug. 22, 2024, by a team of lawyers led by Olanipekun on behalf of one of the staff, the claimants urged the court to nullify the termination letters issued to them.
They sought a declaration that the letter, titled ‘Re-ORGANISATION’ dated May 23, 2024, but with effect from May 24, 2024, issued by the CBN’s director of the Human Resources Department, and addressed to the claimants, was in contravention of the provisions of the CBN Act 2007.
They said the action contravened the bank’s human resource policies and procedure manual and, therefore, was arbitrary, unlawful, null and void.
They sought a declaration that the claimants’ contract of employment with the CBN subsisted and remained valid and of full effect to date.
They, therefore, sought an order setting aside the purported termination of the claimant’s employment vide letter titled ‘REORGANISATION’, dated May 23, 2024, for being arbitrary, unlawful, null and void.
They also asked the court for an order directing the CBN to reinstate them to the positions they were at the time of the termination letters or other higher positions as they would ordinarily have attained or been promoted in the course of their employment if the same were not unlawfully terminated.
They equally sought an order directing the bank to pay them all their monthly salaries, allowances and other emoluments/entitlements which they would have earned if their employment had not been unlawfully terminated, among other reliefs.
The judge had, on Nov. 27, 2025, awarded a fine against the CBN for stalling the hearing of the case.
Justice Obaseki-Osaghae, in a short ruling on the oral application of the counsel to the ex-workers, ordered the CBN to pay an aggregate sum of N620, 000.
Earlier when the case was called on Monday, counsel to the parties confirmed the payment of the fine by the CBN.
The ex-staff had described their employment termination between February and May 2024 as unlawful.
They had argued that no lawful procedures were followed as required by the CBN Act and relevant international labour standards.
They alleged that uproar from the action made the management of the CBN to introduce early exit programme in the later part of 2024 where other members of staff were given opportunity to voluntarily exit from the bank.
Some of the disengaged workers were said to be members of the defunct Economic Intelligence Unit (EIU) of the CBN.
