Justice Oluwakayode Arowosegbe of the Enugu Division of the National Industrial Court, has dismissed former councilor Ugwu Alexander’s entitlement claim against Igbo-Etiti Local Government Area entirely for lacking merit.
The Court on Monday ruled that the Revenue Mobilization Allocation and Fiscal Commission, responsible for providing allowances for councilors, did not include such allowances, thus the Court cannot honor the illegal demand.
Ugwu Alexander, the claimant, asserted that despite being elected twice as councilor to represent Ozala Ward of Igbo-Etiti local government area in Enugu State, he was still owed a total of N5.8 million in allowances after completing two tenures.
He claimed that in November 2017, the Enugu State Government instructed Igbo-Etiti local government to compile and partially pay off the owed amount, with an agreement to settle the remainder by July 31, 2018, which the local government failed to honor.
In response, Igbo-Etiti Local Government, the defendant, contended that it had fully paid Hon. Alexander all his entitled allowances as a councilor and disputed owing him anything.
The Council challenged the legality of the alleged debt, citing failure to serve pre-action notice and statute-barred status under the Enugu State Actions Law [ESAL].
Additionally, their counsel, Basil Nwalem Esq, argued that the alleged debt was unconstitutional, as the Revenue Mobilization Allocation and Fiscal Commission (RMAFC) had not provided for such allowances. He urged the court to dismiss the case entirely.
The claimant’s counsel countered the defense’s assertions of illegality and urged the court to grant the sought reliefs in the interest of justice.
Delivering judgement, Justice Arowosegbe held that the pre-action notice had been properly served on Igbo-Etiti Local Government and dismissed the objections for lacking merit.
The Court found that Hon. Alexander failed to identify any law enacted by the Enugu State House of Assembly that established provisions for councilors’ allowances.
The judge said the alleged debt is, “in fact, an illegal debt as it lacks statutory and contractual support.”
