Sixty-two disengaged staff members of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) have asked a National Industrial Court in Abuja to dismiss an application by the bank seeking to alter the procedure of their lawsuit.
The CBN, through its counsel, Wilson Inam, had filed a motion before Osatohanmwen Obaseki-Osaghae, presiding judge, urging the court to convert the claimants’ originating summons to a writ of summons.
Inam argued that the suit raised substantial and disputed issues of fact, which he said could not be resolved without oral evidence.
He informed the court that the motion, dated November 26, 2025, was served on the claimants, noting that they had failed to file a counter-affidavit.
“The claimants, having not filed a counter-affidavit, are deemed to have admitted the facts deposed to in support of our application,” the counsel said. “The facts are not contested. These are facts in which judgment cannot be given without oral evidence.”
However, Ola Olanipekun, counsel to the claimants, prayed the court to dismiss the application, describing it as premature.
While admitting that no counter-affidavit was filed, Olanipekun said he was entitled to oppose the motion on points of law.
Relying on Order 17, Rule 12 of the NICN Rules, the Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) argued that the first three prayers in the CBN’s five-relief application could not be granted because the apex bank failed to file a counter-affidavit in response to the originating summons.
“My learned brother has not filed a counter-affidavit to our process served on them, which we also have a right to respond to by filing a further and better affidavit before my lord can look at the matter holistically,” he said.
Olanipekun further argued that where a respondent chooses not to file a counter-affidavit, the claimant is entitled to address the court on points of law.
He said the failure of the CBN to file a counter-affidavit meant that “only the pleadings of the claimants are before my lord.”
The lawyer added that the claimants are still at liberty to file a further and better affidavit after receiving the bank’s response, noting that the application was not mature for hearing.
He cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Famfa Oil Ltd v. Attorney-General of the Federation (2003) on the propriety of originating summons, as well as National Bank of Nigeria v. Alakija (1978), to support his argument that courts can resolve disputes through affidavit evidence.
When the judge 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 a filed counter-affidavit would not conclude pleadings, as the claimants would still be entitled to file a further response.
Describing the application as “premature,” Olanipekun urged the court to discountenance it.
Obaseki-Osaghae adjourned the matter until February 10 for ruling.
The ex-staff had filed separate suits challenging the termination of their employment under a reorganisation exercise.
In one of the suits, the claimants asked the court to nullify the termination letters titled “RE-ORGANISATION,” dated May 23, 2024, arguing that they violated the provisions of the CBN Act 2007 and the bank’s internal human resource policies.
They sought declarations that their employment subsisted, orders setting aside the termination letters, reinstatement to their former or higher positions, and payment of all salaries, allowances, and entitlements allegedly lost due to the termination.