Sixty-two former staff members of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) have asked the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (NICN), Abuja, to dismiss an application by the apex bank seeking to alter the procedure of their lawsuit challenging their disengagement from service.
The CBN, through its counsel, Wilson Inam, had filed a motion urging the court to convert the originating summons filed by the claimants into a writ of summons.
Arguing the application, Inam told the court that the suit raised substantial and disputed issues of fact which, he said, could not be resolved through affidavit evidence alone and would require oral testimony.
He said the motion, dated November 26, 2025, was duly served on the claimants, adding that they failed to file a counter affidavit in opposition.
According to him, the failure to file a counter affidavit meant the claimants were deemed to have admitted the facts deposed to in support of the application.
“The facts are not contested. These are facts in which judgment cannot be given without oral evidence,” the counsel said.
However, counsel to the ex-staff, Ola Olanipekun, a senior advocate of Nigeria (SAN), urged the court to dismiss the application, describing it as premature.
While conceding that the claimants did not file a counter affidavit, Olanipekun argued that they were entitled to oppose the motion on points of law.
Relying on Order 17, Rule 12 of the NICN Rules, he contended that the first three reliefs sought by the CBN could not be granted because the bank failed to file a counter-affidavit to the originating summons served on it.
“My learned brother has not filed a counter affidavit to our originating process, which we are also entitled to respond to by filing a further and better affidavit before my lord can determine the matter holistically,” he said.
Olanipekun further argued that where a respondent fails to file a counter affidavit, the claimant is entitled to address the court solely on points of law.
He said the implication of the bank’s failure to file a counter affidavit was that “only the pleadings of the claimants are before the court.
The lawyer added that the claimants still retained the right to file a further and better affidavit after receiving the bank’s response, insisting that the application was not ripe for hearing.
He cited the Supreme Court’s decisions in Famfa Oil Ltd v. Attorney-General of the Federation (2003) and National Bank of Nigeria v. Alakija (1978) to support his argument that courts can resolve disputes through affidavit evidence where appropriate.
When the presiding judge, Osatohanmwen Obaseki-Osaghae, asked whether the court could rely on the proposed counter affidavit attached to the CBN’s application, Olanipekun objected.
“A proposed process is not a process before the court because a party can change his mind,” he said.
He added that even if a counter affidavit had been filed, pleadings would not be deemed closed, as the claimants would still be entitled to file a further response.
Describing the application as premature, Olanipekun urged the court to discountenance it.
The judge subsequently adjourned the matter until February 10 for ruling.
The former staff members had filed separate suits challenging the termination of their employment following a reorganisation exercise carried out by the bank.
In one of the suits, the claimants are asking the court to nullify their termination letters titled “RE-ORGANISATION”, dated May 23, 2024, because the exercise violated the provisions of the CBN Act 2007 and the bank’s internal human resource policies.
They are seeking declarations that their employment subsists, orders setting aside the termination letters, reinstatement to their former or higher positions, as well as payment of all salaries, allowances, and other entitlements allegedly lost as a result of the disengagement.
On November 27, 2025, the court fined the CBN N620,000 for delaying proceedings in the matter, a penalty which parties confirmed had been paid.
The claimants allege that their disengagement between February and May 2024 was unlawful and carried out without due process, adding that public backlash later compelled the bank to introduce an early exit programme.
