Court in Ekiti: pays legal pension to former deputy governor since 2010,…

The National Industrial Court has ordered the Ekiti State Government to pay former Deputy Governor Sikiru Tae Lawal all his severance pay, monthly salaries and arrears from October 15, 2010 to date, ruling that the annulment of his election does not erase his pension entitlement.

Pronouncing the sentence on 20 April 2026 in case no. NICN/ABJ/30/2025, Justice ED Subilim also awarded Lawal $10 million in exemplary and aggravated damages against Governor Biodun Oyebanji, the Attorney General and the Ekiti State Government for denying his rights for over 14 years.

The court said the failure to pay Lawal’s benefits under the Ekiti State Pension Grant Act, 2012, as amended in 2014 and 2015, was “unlawful, illegal and unjustifiable”.

He ordered the defendants to calculate and pay his full pension, severance pay, monthly wages with arrears and other entitlements starting October 15, 2010, plus 20 percent post-judgment interest annually until paid in full.

● The controversy: served three years, paid nothing for 14 years

Lawal served as deputy governor of Eng. Olusegun Oni from May 29, 2007 to October 15, 2010, when the Court of Appeal in the case of _Fayemi v. Oni_ annulled their election and installed Dr. Kayode Fayemi.

He told the court he had served “meritoriously” for 3 years, 4 months and 11 days, had never been impeached and had written “several letters” requesting his pension since 2010. The state ignored him.

Lawal argued that Oni, his former principal, was receiving his pension while his was withheld, which constituted discrimination and a violation of his fundamental rights. He asked for damages of 100 million dollars.

Ekiti State countered that the Court of Appeal’s quashing meant that Lawal “was never a deputy governor” and that the election was “void ab initio”.

The State claimed that he was a “pretender” for the office, not validly elected and therefore not covered by the Pensions Act.

He denied paying Oni and urged the court to dismiss the lawsuit as “frivolous and vexatious.”

● Court: the “De Facto Officer” doctrine applies; the state cannot use the service, refuse the account

Justice Subilim identified two key issues: 1) Is Lawal entitled under the Ekiti Pensions Law? 2) Does the annulment of the elections invalidate his mandate for pension purposes?

First, the Court held that the Ekiti State Pension Grant Act, 2012, as amended in 2014 and 2015, applies to Lawal.

Article 1 provides that “anyone who has held the office of Governor or Deputy of the State is entitled to the payment of a pension for life”.

The phrase “retained” covers all former occupants, even those who left before 2012, the court ruled, citing the advantageous structure of pension statutes.

Crucially, the 2012 law originally barred benefits to officials removed following impeachment or court order for constitutional violation. But the 2014 and 2015 amendments eliminated the “competent court” disqualification.

Section 124(5) of the 1999 Constitution also provides that only impeachment disqualifies a former governor/legislator from retirement.

“Since the 2014 and 2015 law…does not specifically exclude officials whose elections were annulled, and the appellant was not impeached for misconduct, he fully meets the statutory criteria,” Justice Subilim said.

On the second question, the Court drew a dividing line between electoral law and labor law.

While _Labor Party v. INEC_ and _Peter Obi v. INEC_ argue that a voided election is void ab initio, the court invoked the “De Facto Officer Doctrine” of labor jurisprudence.

“The State cannot benefit from the services of an individual, accept the validity of his official acts and then rely on a legal technicality to deny payment for those services,” the judge said.

The court noted that Ekiti State conceded that Lawal’s official acts while in office remained valid. “Considering the appellant’s appointment as a total nullity for benefits purposes would lead to an absurd outcome in which any enforcement action taken by him would be jeopardized.”

Quoting _Onyia v. Onuaguluchi_ and Section 168(1) of the Evidence Act, the court said Lawal had been operating as deputy governor under the “colour of title” for over three years.

“Annulment of an election constitutes a potential termination of the right to continue to hold office, but does not retroactively transform a period of actual, recognized and useful service into a legal void for purposes of earned wages and pensions.”

● “Oppressive, arbitrary” – Why damages N10m

The court found Ekiti’s conduct “oppressive, arbitrary and unconstitutional.” Justice Subilim said withholding Lawal’s pension for 14 years and ignoring the demand letters demonstrates “reckless indifference” and an attempt to “unfairly target the appellant, perceived as a political opponent”.

“Such conduct… is inherently oppressive, arbitrary and unconstitutional. It demonstrates reckless indifference to the appellant’s rights and a deliberate attempt to frustrate his legitimate rights,” the ruling reads.

Although Lawal had asked for $100 million, the court awarded $10 million in exemplary and aggravated damages to “deter similar future conduct by state actors and to highlight the sanctity of vested rights.”

● Representation

Lawal was represented by Adeboro Adamson, SAN, with Adedapo Adejumo and Tesleem Dauda. Ekiti State was represented by the Acting Attorney General Gbemiga Adaramola.

The case was decided “on the record” under Order 38, Article 33 of the NIC Rules, an expedited procedure for pension and salary claims in which parties file documents without oral testimony.

● Implications

The ruling sets an important precedent: Voiding elections does not automatically deprive former governors/legislators of their pensions if they served and were not impeached, especially where state pension laws do not list court removal as a disqualification.

It also reinforces that pension is an “acquired and vested right” under Section 210 of the Constitution and cannot be denied.

THE CONCLAVE reports that the ruling could concern similar requests by officials removed through the courts but who served for periods before their ouster.

Ekiti State has not indicated whether it will appeal. The judgment sum bears 20% annual interest until paid.

Related