The Court of Appeal has reserved its ruling on the motion to adduce fresh evidence in the ongoing legal battle over the N2.5 billion debt owed to 110 disengaged staff members of Ahmadu Bello University (ABU), Zaria.
The appellants in the case are the ABU management, the Minister of Education, and the Attorney-General of the Federation, while the respondents are the 110 former staff members of the university. A three-member panel of judges, led by Justice A.B. Mohammed, adjourned the case indefinitely for ruling on the applications submitted by all parties involved.
The first case, marked CA/ABJ/CV/1064/2022, concerns a motion filed by the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) challenging the garnishee order in favor of the disengaged staff. The second case, CA/ABJ/CV/476/2023, is ABU’s motion to introduce fresh documentary evidence into the proceedings.
During the resumed hearing, Musa Yahaya, counsel for the ABU management, requested the court to admit the new evidence. In contrast, Adegboyega Kolade, representing the 110 disengaged staff, opposed the motion and urged the court to reject the appellant’s request.
The legal battle began in 1996 when the employment of 110 staff members was terminated by ABU. After the university failed to implement the recommendations of various visitation panels calling for their reinstatement and payment of entitlements, the staff sought legal redress in 2012.
In 2015, the court ruled in favor of the staff, ordering the university to reinstate them and pay their entitlements, which amounted to N2.5 billion. However, due to non-compliance with the judgment, the court issued a garnishee order on the university’s bank accounts in 2017.
While the garnishee proceedings were ongoing, the judgment debtors filed for a stay of proceedings, appealing the 2015 judgment. In November 2018, the Appeal Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the lower court’s decision.
On January 27, 2021, the National Industrial Court issued an order absolute in the garnishee proceedings, directing the CBN to pay the disengaged staff. The Court of Appeal is now set to decide whether the new evidence will be admitted into the case.
