Download PDF
By their General Form of Complaint dated 29th March, 2012 and filed same date, the claimants seek the following reliefs: (i) A declaration that the purported retirement of the claimants by the respondent on ground of age before attaining the mandatory retirement age of 65 years contained in the Federal Government Public Service Rules (PSR 020810) 2008 edition, regulation governing Service contained in the staff manual of Rufus Giwa Polytechnic, and Federal Ministry of Education Circular Ref. No. DHE/POLY.53/C.2/IV/57 is unlawful, invalid and of no effect whatsoever. (ii) A declaration that the retirement age for Academic Staff of Polytechnic as contained in the Federal Government Public Service Rules (PSR 020810) 2008 edition and Federal Ministry of Education Circular Ref. No. DHE/POLY.53/C.2/IV/57 dated 16th June, 2010 remain 65 years and not below. (iii) A declaration that the compulsory retirement of the claimants who were Academic Staff in the institution by the respondent before attaining the retirement age of 65 years is a violation of the mandatory provisions of Public Service Rules (PSR 020810) 2008 edition, the staff manual of the Rufus Giwa Polytechnic and the Federal Ministry of Education Circular Ref. No. DHE/POLY.53/C.2/IV/57 dated 16th June, 2010. (iv) An order setting aside the decision of the respondent compulsorily retiring the claimants vide the letters dated 4th day of June, 2010 from the respondent service. (v) An order directing the respondent to reinstate/and or restore the claimants back into service of the institution with immediate effect. (vi) An order directing the respondent to pay the claimants all their salaries and allowances from 1st of May, 2010 till when judgment is delivered. (vii) An order of injunction restraining the respondent and/or anybody however, from determining any of the claimants’ service with the institution without recourse to the laid down rules and regulations for the time being in force in the institution and any other applicable legislations. Filed along with the complaint are the Statement of Facts, Documents to be relied upon at trial, List of Witnesses to be called and Claimants’ Witness Statements on Oath. In its reaction, the respondent filed its memorandum of appearance, statement of defence, list of witnesses, respondent’s witness statement on oath and list of documents to be relied upon dated 25th May, 2012. Thereafter, the claimant filed a reply to the statement of defence and documents to be relied upon dated 18th June, 2012. The case of the claimants is that until the 4th of June, 2010 when they were compulsorily retired by the respondent, they were all academic staff members of Rufus Giwa Polytechnic, Owo and are Principal Lecturers status and above. That the event leading to their compulsory retirement started with the respondent’s letters dated 1st June, 2010 sent to them with the caption “Decision extracts from the meeting of the Governing Council held on 28th May, 2010 – voluntary retirement of staff who have attained the age of sixty years and above†and advising them to forward their letters of voluntary retirement to the Registrar without further delay. The claimants pleaded that they did not forward any letter of voluntary retirement to the respondent as advised as none of them had attained the 65 years retirement age in Public Service referred to in the letter in line with the institution staff manual. That the respondent in the said letter of 1st June, 2010 confirmed that the retirement age of academic staff according to the institution staff manual is 65 years and that none of the claimants is yet to attain the retirement age. That as at 4th June, 2010 the age of the 1st claimant is 60 years having been born on 16th May, 1950, the age of 2nd claimant is 61 years born on 19th January, 1949, the age of the 3rd claimant is 61 years born on 8th August, 1948, the age of 4th claimant is 62 years born on 6th July, 1948, the age of 5th claimant is 62 years born on 6th July, 1948, the age of 6th claimant is 60 years born on 17th January, 1950 and the age of the 7th claimant is 62 years born on 9th May, 1948. The claimants further pleaded that three days after the first letters, they received another letters from the respondent dated 4th June, 2010 captioned – “Retirement from the Service of Rufus Giwa Polytechnic, Owo†conveying their retirement from the Service of the respondent with effect from 28th May, 2010. That after the letter of 4th of June, 2010 retiring them, the ASUP Rufus Giwa Polytechnic Chapter through its Chairman wrote a letter on their behalf to the Governing Council drawing its attention to express provisions of Chapter 15 (3) of the Institution Senior Staff Manual and urged it to reverse the decision in the interest of industrial harmony. That within that same time the ASUP Rufus Giwa Polytechnic Chapter the Chairman wrote another letter on the state of affairs at the respondent’s institution to the Hon. Speaker, Ondo State House of Assembly and included the issue of the claimants’ compulsory retirement requesting the Speaker to look into their retirement by the respondent. That the House of Assembly through the Chairman Committee on Education agreed to look into the matter but asked them to give the committee time to investigate it. That when they did not hear from the legislators as promised they went back to see them only to be told by the Chairman of the Committee that they could not do anything on the matter because the respondent said their retirement was not on ground of age alone but there other grounds. They also pleaded that by the Federal Government Public Service Rules (PSR 020810) 2008 edition issued vide Government Notice No. 278, the retirement age for Academic Staff of Polytechnic and Colleges of Education is 65 years which was confirmed by Federal Ministry of Education Circular Ref. No. DHE/POLY.53/C2/IV/57 dated 16th June, 2010. That in most academic institution, retirement and resignation are normally effected at the end of a semester or end of session which is to allow affected staff to tidy up their assignment but their own was done mid semester. That they have attained the principal lectures equivalent status and above in the respondent institution and are entitled to three months notice but were directed to retire instantly by the respondent. That they have contributed immensely individually and collectively to the development and growth of the respondent over the past years and as such deserve the respondent appreciation and not vilification. That their salaries and allowances from the month of May, 2010 when they were prematurely retired have not been paid by the respondent thereby subjecting their families to untold hardship. That all the efforts made by them through the Ondo State House of Assembly was rejected. That by the recent Act of the National Assembly on the retirement of University and Polytechnic lecturers, the retirement age is 65 years for Polytechnic and College of Education Academic Staff. That the respondent is not above its own regulation as it is meant to be obeyed. They finally reiterated their prayers as per their complaint. The case of the respondent is that the pension matters as it affects the claimants are within the Exclusive List of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended in respect of which only the Federal Government possesses legislative power, which can neither be regularized nor altered by a state, individual person, corporate or incorporate. That Chapter 15 (3) of the respondent’s Senior Staff Manual has been put in abeyance and therefore not put to use since the advent of the Polytechnic having been found to contravene the provision of existing Pension Act and the circulars issued there under. The respondent pleaded that aside from realizing the fact that the respondent was established under Ondo State Legislative Power, the respondent is not in position to proffer any reason or idea for any stand taken by Ondo State House of Assembly or any of its committees in respect of the claimants’ action or claim. That the claimants’ claim of entitlement to 65 years retirement age limit is made subject to a substantive legislation by the National Assembly which has just been promulgated by virtue of Retirement Age of Staff of Polytechnics and Colleges of Education (Harmonization) Act, 2012, which had not been initiated much more of being legislated as at the time or date the claimants were retired. That the claimants are not entitled to stay a day longer or beyond the statutory day of their retirement. That the claimants did not perform beyond the obligation required of them by virtue of their employment and they were duly retired. The respondent also pleaded that the fact contained in paragraph 21 of the statement of facts is an admission that the required National Assembly Act envisaged and making 65 years the compulsory retirement age for academic staff in Polytechnics was not promulgated until sometime in the month of May, 2012 by the National Assembly. That the claimants are not entitled to remain in employment beyond the date they were retired by the respondent on the ground that they or most of them had attained 60 years of age as at August, 2009, which was the effective date of Government Notice No. 278. That the respondent will raise by way of preliminary issue or objection, on point of law, that the claimants’ action is not maintainable against the respondent having been caught by Section 2 (a) of the Public Officers Protection Law of Ondo State of Nigeria. The respondent finally urged the court to dismiss the claimants’ case with substantial cost. In their reply to Statement of Defence, the claimants pleaded that the assertion that the respondent’s Senior Staff Manual has been put in abeyance is an afterthought as same manual was referred to in the respondent’s letter of compulsory retirement sent to them and would not have been referred to if it has been put in abeyance. That as men and woman of honour they are not ready to stay a day longer than 65 years statutory date of retirement. That contrary to the respondent’s assertion, the retirement age for the claimant under the Government Notice No. 278 is 65 years and not 60 years. That the respondent having decided to retire them at 60 years instead of 65 contained in the Senior Staff Manual is required in law to give them 3 months notice in lieu of retirement. The claimants pleaded that the recently enacted Act of the National Assembly titled the “Retirement Age of Staff of Polytechnics and Colleges of Education (Harmonization) Act, 2012†harmonized the disparity in retirement age between academic staff and non-academic which before was 65, 60 years respectively now as 65 years across board. That retirement age for academic staff of Polytechnics and Colleges of Education has been 65 years since 2008 ever before the passage of the recent Act as contained in official government gazette and circular such as the one dated 8th January, 2009. Both counsel agreed to argue this suit on records before the court. Consequently, on 2nd August, 2012 this court ordered counsel to file their respective Final Written Addresses. Claimant’s Final Written Address is dated 20th August, 2012 but filed on 22nd August, 2012. The respondent’s Final Written Address is dated 13th September, 2012 and filed on 14th September, 2012. The claimant also filed a Reply on Points of Law dated 24th September, 2012 and filed on 25th September, 2012. The claimants’ counsel formulated two issues for determination as follows: i. When are the claimants due for retirement under the respondent senior staff manual, provisions of the Federal Government Public Service Rules (PSR 020810), 2008, Federal Ministry of Education Circulars dated 8th January, 2009 and 16th June, 2010. ii. Whether the decision of the respondent purporting to compulsorily retire the claimants before attaining the 65 years retirement age contained in the respondent’s Senior Staff Manual Public Service Rules and Federal Ministry of Education Circulars is lawful, legal and valid. On issue one, claimants’ counsel submitted that by the Senior Staff Manual of the respondent which came into operation on 24th April 1997, the claimants who are academic staff are due for retirement at the age of 65 years. He submitted that by the express provisions of Chapter 15, Clause 3 at Page 73 of the said Senior Staff Manual headed “Pension and Gratuitiesâ€, the compulsory age of retirement for the staff of the Polytechnic shall be 65 years for Academic and 60 years for Non Academic staff. He submitted that the respondent is bound by its own regulations and cannot pick and choose which to comply with or which not to comply with citing the case of Amasike v. The Registrar General CAC [2010] A FWLR (pt. 541) p. 1406 at pp. 1488. Learned Counsel submitted that it is a principle of law that a statutory institution has a duty to comply with statutory provisions when removing an employee. That any procedure for removal or retiring an employee outside the scope of the regulations will be illegal, null and void. He cited the case of Akinyaju v. University of Ilorin [2011] A FWLR (pt. 569) p. 1080 at pp. 1147. Counsel submitted that the respondent herein is a creation of statute originally known as Ondo State Polytechnic, Owo Edict passed in 1990 but now known as Rufus Giwa Polytechnic, Owo and that the regulation known as the Senior Staff Manual was made pursuant to the said 1990 Edict. That the power exercisable by all persons and authorities in the Polytechnic must orbit within the compass of the legislative framework of the Edict and such regulation as may be made thereunder. Learned Counsel further submitted that the respondent’s contention that the Senior Staff Manual which came into operation in 1997 ran counter to existing law, that is, the Pension Act is an afterthought and weak attempt to cover its unlawful act. The respondent’s Senior Staff Manual came into operation in 1997 while the Pension Act commenced in 1990 with seven years gap. He submitted that ignorance of the law is not an excuse and that the introduction to Chapter 15 of the manual at page 73 of the regulation corroborated the position that the respondent made the Regulation consciously aware of the provision of the Pension Act. He further submitted that the Senior Staff Manual has enjoyed applicability since it came into operation in 1997 and several members of the academic staff in the respondent’s institution had been retired at the age of 65 years by the respondent. That for the respondent to suddenly wake up and discover in 2010 that the said regulations ran counter to existing law is in bad faith. He urged the court to set aside the respondent’s decision to retire the claimants before the age of 65 years as same is ultra vires, unlawful and illegal. Learned Counsel submitted that aside from the Senior Staff Manual which provided for 65 years as age of Retirement for Academic Staff, the 65 years retirement age for academic staff in Polytechnics and Colleges of Education has been encapsulated in the Federal Republic of Nigeria Official Gazette on Public Service Rules (2008 edition). He cited Public Service Rules 020810 (i), (ii) and (iii) which provides for retirement of civil servants put retirement age at 60 years or 35 years of pensionable service whichever is earlier without prejudice to the prevailing requirements for judicial officers and Academic Staff of Universities and other Tertiary Institutions who retire to 70 and 65 years respectively. He submitted that following conflicting interpretation and application of the above Rules particularly Ruled 020810 (iii), the Federal Ministry of Education issued two Circulars dated 8th January, 2009 and 16th June, 2010 to clarify the issue. Learned Counsel referred to the cases of Shitta-Bay v. Federal Public Service Commission [1981] 1 SC 40, George v. Federal Republic of Nigeria [2011] AFWLR (pt. 587) p. 664 at pp. 753 to submit that the Civil Service Rules governing the conditions of service of Federal Public Servants have constitutional force and invest the public servant over whom they prevail with legal status. He submitted that it was held that the Federal Government Circular on policy guidelines for procurement and award of contract qualifies as a lawful order. That circulars assumes the status of a subsidiary legislation having been made pursuant to an existing law and therefore has the force of law citing the case of Abubakar v. Bebeji Oil & Allied Products Ltd [2007] 18 NWLR (pt. 1066) p. 319 pp. 384. He submitted that the recently enacted Act – Retirement Age of staff of Polytechnics and Colleges of Education (Harmonization) Act, 2012 suggest the existence of disparity which it was enacted to bridge. On issue two, Learned Counsel submitted that having argued issue one on the strength of documentary evidence and judicial authorities, it follows that the decision to retire the claimants before the 65 years retirement age is unlawful, illegal and invalid. That the combined effect of Chapter 2 Clause 22 and Chapter 15 Clause 16 is that 3 months notice is required from Principal Lecturers who wish to retire or resign and also vice versa from the respondent when retiring any Senior Officer. He submitted that the respondent did not comply with the mandatory provision of the regulation when it requested the claimants to submit their letter of voluntary retirement in a letter dated 1st June, 2010 and by its letter of 4th June, 2010 retired them from service. That strict performance of the notice condition is required in all cases citing the cases of Longe v. First Bank of Nig. Plc [2010] 2 CLRN p. 21 pp. 54, Olaniyan & Ors v. The University of Lagos [1985] 2 NWLR (pt. 9) p. 599, Eperokun v. University of Lagos [1986] 4 NWLR (pt. 34) p. 162, Olatunbosun v. Niser [1988] 3 NWLR (pt. 80) p. 251. He submitted that failure of the respondent to comply with notice provision in the regulations before compulsorily retiring the claimants makes the retirements ultra vires, illegal, null and void. He submitted that the Pension Act is inapplicable to this case and same goes for the other circulars exhibited by the respondent which are irrelevant without any evidential value. He urged the court to set aside the decision of the respondent and grant the claimants reliefs with cost. The respondent on its part formulated a lone issue which is – “whether or not the respondent was right in its action retiring the claimants on their default, failure and refusal to retire voluntarily, each of them having attained the compulsory retirement age of sixty yearsâ€. Learned Counsel submitted that pension matters are within the exclusive list of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and it is only the Federal Government that possesses legislative power to the exclusion of the state and all other organs of government throughout the Federation of Nigeria. He cited the case of Karimu Adisa v. Emmanuel Oyinlola [2000] 10 NWLR (pt. 674) p. 116 at 206. Counsel also referred to Section 4 (1) of the Pension Act, 1990 which provides that, “every officer shall retire upon attaining the age of sixty years, so however, that the officers retiring on, or before 31st March 1977, the compulsory retiring age shall be fifty-five yearsâ€. He submitted that the above Pension Act was the operative law regulating the claimants’ pension right. That all circulars and regulations issued by either the Federal or State authorities or institutions on pension matters are required to be made within the provisions of the Pension Act. He also submitted that even though the respondent’s Staff Manual was made bearing in mind the provisions of the Pension Act, same having been found to run fowl of the said law cannot operate in isolation or in vacuum. He cited the case of Mr. Popoola Elabanjo & Anor v. Chief (Mrs.) Ganiat Dawodu [2006] A FWLR (pt. 328) p. 604 at pp. 649 – 650 to submit that it is settled that even the mandatory rules of court are not as sacrosanct as mandatory statute or Act. He submitted that the Federal Government Public Service Rules (PSR 020810) 2008 edition dated 25th August, 2009 and the Federal Ministry of Education Circular Ref. No. DHE/POLY.53/C2/IV/57 dated 16th June, 2010 relied upon by the claimants cannot assist their case as same were supposed to have their root in the Pension Act. That a subsidiary legislation derives its validity from the enabling law, and its provisions must therefore be in conformity with the terms of its enabling law citing the case of Odeneye v. Efunuga [1990] 7 NWLR (pt. 164) p. 618 at p. 635. He submitted also that in determining the relevant law, the court is enjoined to look at the enabling law to see if the circular emanating from the Federal Ministry of Education has the backing of the law. That when the circular was issued all that was in place was the approval of the Federal Government, which was yet to be giving the force of law by amending the relevant law to reflect same. Learned Counsel further submitted that the above position was only given effect to by the National Assembly sometime in March, 2012 when it passed into law Retirement Age of the Staff of Polytechnics and Colleges of Education (Harmonization) Act, 2012. He submitted that the said Act lends support to the case of the respondent that the retirement age at the time the claimants’ were retired from Service was actually 60 years. He submitted that it is a fundamental rule of Nigeria law that no statute shall be construed to have a retrospective operation unless such a construction appears very clearly in the terms of the Act or Law citing the case of Ojokolobo v. Alamu [1987] 3 NWLR (pt. 61) p. 377 at p. 402. Learned Counsel further submitted that it is the principle of law that where a specific remedy is given by a statute, it deprives the person who insists upon a remedy of any other form of remedy than that given by the statute citing the case of Wema Bank Plc & Ors v. Chief Amina Abiodun [2006] A FWLR (pt. 317) p. 430 at 463. That the provision of Chapter 15 (3) of Ondo State (now Rufus Giwa) Polytechnic, Owo Senior Staff Manual; the Federal Ministry of Education Circular dated 16th June, 2010 as well as the Federal Public Service Rules, 2008 edition relied upon by the claimants as basis for claiming entitlement to 65 years retirement age to the extent of their inconsistency with the 1990 Pension Act, which provides for 60 years retirement age are null and void to the extent of their inconsistency. Counsel cited the case of Ekulo Farms Ltd v. Union Bank of Nigeria Plc [2006] A FWLR (pt. 319) p. 895 at 918. He also referred to paragraph 7 of the respondent’s witness statement on oath of Barr. Kayode Ikotun which states the ages of the 1st to 7th claimant as 60, 61, 61, 61, 60, 60 and 62 respectively and that each of the claimants in paragraph 8 of their respective statement on oath admitted their age as being 60 years or above. He also referred to Section 123 of the Evidence Act, 2011. Learned Counsel submitted that the respondent was right and supported by law in its act of retiring the claimants having attained 60 years of age or above as at 4th June, 2010. He submitted that the Circular from Federal Ministry of Education dated 16th June, 2010 was issued 12 clear days after the letter retiring the claimants were served and that the simple and unambiguous interpretation to be given to it is that having been retired from the service of the respondent before the coming into life of the circular, none of the claimants can benefit under it. That where the wordings of a document or statute are clear and unambiguous as in the circular, its literal meaning should be enforced for reason of there being no ambiguity citing Ibrahim v. Ojomo [2004] A FWLR (pt. 203) p. 2109 at 2123 – 2124. He finally urged the court to dismiss the claimants’ claim with substantial cost. In their reply on points of law, Learned Counsel for the claimant submitted that Chapter 15 (3) of the respondent’s Senior Staff Manual, Federal Ministry of Education Circular of 16th June, 2010 and the Federal Government Official Gazette on Public Service Rules 2008 dated 25th August, 2009 are not inconsistent with the Pension Act, 1990. He submitted that it is a fundamental principle of law that a party cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate on an issue at the same time citing Savannah Bank Plc v. Ajilo [1989] 1 NWLR (pt. 97) SC p. 305. Learned Counsel also submitted that on matters listed under the concurrent list of the 1999 Constitution such as education upon which the state and federal tiers can legislate, the state is permitted to pursue independent policy direction. That the respondent in making provision for different age of retirement for its academic staff is simply exercising its right in line with the principle of federalism and constitutionalism which cannot be inconsistent by reason of disparity. He submitted that Government Official Gazette and Circulars are legal tools used by government to give its new policy the required force of law citing Shitta-Bay v. Federal Public Services Commission (Supra). Counsel urged the court to discountenance the entire submission of the respondent and grant the reliefs of the claimants. I have carefully considered the processes filed, the submissions of counsel and the authorities cited. The claimants were erstwhile academic staff of the respondent who had attained the age of 60 years and above. By a letter of 1st June, 2010 the respondent requested the claimants to forward their letter of voluntary retirement to the Registrar without delay consequent upon their attaining the retirement age of 60 years in public service. The claimants refused to heed to the instruction of the respondent. By its internal memorandum dated 4th June, 2010 addressed to the claimants, the respondent retired the claimants with effect from 28th May, 2010. The claimants herein contend that by the respondent’s Senior Staff Manual, the retirement age of academic staff is 65 years and none of them have attained that age. They also contended that by the Federal Government Public Service Rules 020810, 2008 Edition the retirement age of academic staff of Polytechnics and Colleges of Education is 65 years. They also relied on the Federal Ministry of Education Circular Ref. No. DHE/PLOY.53/C2/IV/57 dated 16th June, 2010 to buttress their contention that their retirement age is 65 years. The respondent’s position is that it took the decision to retire the claimants because the retirement age of its academic staff is 60 years and not 65 contrary to the contention of the claimants. That the Pension Act, 1990 puts the retirement age of its staff at 60 a law which was not amended at the time the claimants were retired. The respondent also contended that the Retirement Age of the staff of Polytechnics and Colleges of Education (Harmonization) Act, 2012 which put retirement age at 65 years relied upon by the claimants came into effect after the claimants were retired from its service having attained 60 years of age and above. It is in evidence that the claimants were retired by the respondent by virtue of its letter dated 4th June, 2010. The retirement age of Polytechnics is a subject that is regulated by statute and it is not subject to speculation. This court has taken judicial notice of Retirement Age of Staff of Polytechnics and Colleges of Education (Harmonization) Act, 2012 which was clearly passed into law after the claimants were retired from Service. The Supreme Court in the case of P.H.H.B v. Ejitagha [2000] 11 NWLR (pt. 677) p. 154 that, “By virtue of Section 4 (1) of the Pension Act, the retirement age for public officers is sixty years.†It is important to refer to the Federal Ministry of Education Circular dated 8th January, 2009 which states that implementation of the approval of the Federal Government approving 65 years as the retirement age for academic staff of Federal Polytechnics and Colleges of Education has been awaiting amendment of the enabling laws of Federal Polytechnics and Colleges of Education to that effect and publication in the Federal Government Gazette. This alludes to the fact that the said Circulars have no force of law in regulating the retirement age of academic staff of the respondent which is regulated by law. The claimants have placed heavy reliance on the provisions of the senior staff manual of the Polytechnic which provides for compulsory retirement age for Academic Staff of the Polytechnic to be 65 years. This provision of the said staff manual for senior staff does not preclude the Governing Council who is the claimants’ employer from altering or reviewing the conditions of service of its employees from time to time. As a matter of fact, the enabling Act establishing all Polytechnics in the country gives the Governing Council powers to make policies for the general administration of the institutions including conditions of service of all staff. It is evident in the letters to the claimants that the said retirement letters were authorized by the Governing Council. What this means is that the Governing Council decided to review the retirement age of academic staff to align with what obtains in the Federal Polytechnic Act, 2004 as regards retirement age for academic staff of the Rufus Giwa Polytechnic, Owo. In any event, retirement age for academic staff of Tertiary Institutions is an issue of law. The claimant did not place before this court any legislation at the time they were retired which provides for retirement age at 65 years. Instead what the claimants placed before this court are circulars which enjoins Polytechnics in the country to stay action on academic staff who have already attained 60 years of age pending the enactment of an enabling legislation to that effect. The circulars do not have the force of law and so not binding. The retirement age of the claimant which was hitherto fixed by law can only be amended by law and not by circulars and that is what exactly the Retirement Age of Staff of Polytechnics and Colleges of Education (Harmonization) Act, 2012 was promulgated to address. It is clearly in evidence that the claimants were retired before the coming into effect of the Act when they attained the age of 60 years and above. Consequently, the claimants are not entitled to benefit from a law enacted after their retirement which did not have them in contemplation especially because the law was not made to apply retrospectively. In addition, the Federal Ministry of Education Circular Ref. No. DHE/POLY.53/C2/IV/57 dated 16th June, 2010 relied upon by the claimant which was issued after the claimants were retired from the service of the respondent and the Public Service Rules (PSR 020810) 2008 Edition referred therein are not capable of fixing the retirement age of academic staff of the respondent which is a creation of statute. I therefore find and hold that the retirement of the claimants was in accordance with the Law. For all the reasons given above, I hold that this case lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. Judgment is entered accordingly. …………………………………… Hon. Justice J. T. Agbadu Fishim Judge