This is an appeal against the judgment of the court of Appeal, Holden at Lagos in appeal No.CA/L/461/2000 delivered on the 5th day of December, 2006 dismissing the appeal of the Appellant against the judgment of the Federal High Court, Holden at Lagos in Suit No.FHC/L/CS/52471999 delivered on the 22nd day of May, 2000 in favor of the Plaintiffs, now, Respondents in this Court.

The Respondents were former employees of the Appellant who instituted the action seeking several reliefs and also in alternative to a particular relief, an order of mandatory injunction compelling the Respondent to pay the Applicants forthwith all accrued pensions calculated as described and subsequently all such pensions as and when they fall due.

The Respondents' employment was made pursuant to Section 14(3) of the Central Bank of Nigeria Decree No. 24 of 1991 while the terms and conditions of their employment are as contained in the staff Manual of the Central Bank of Nigeria made pursuant to the aforesaid section 14(3) of Decree 24 of 1991. All the Respondents retired from the service of the Appellant before 1991 and were being paid their pension as prescribed by the Board of the Central Bank of Nigeria, the appellant herein.

However, in 1997, the Federal Government of Nigeria issued two circulars and a White Paper thereon in which the said government directed that statutory bodies, including the appellant, should comply with the White Paper and the circulars on Harmonization of Pension Policy as a result of which the Respondents initiated correspondence with the Appellant on the issue demanding payment of their pension in accordance with the provisions of the White Paper and the said Circulars. The White Paper and two circulars are Exhibits JAJI; JAJ2 and JAJ3 respectively - see pages 47 -57 of the record. The above Exhibits were the Federal Government's reaction to the report of the Review Panel on Civil Service Reforms which directed the harmonization of pensions of officers who retired before 17 January, 1991, which were based on their basic salaries only, in line with the pensions of officers who retired thereafter, which were based on their basic salaries and certain approved allowances so as to ensure equality and uniformity of payment of pension such retired officers who retired on the same salary grade, irrespective of their dates of retirement, with effect from 1st January, 1991 and that the said pensions should continue to be reviewed upwards immediately salaries and allowances are reviewed.

Following the correspondence between the parties, the appellant, by Exhibit JAJ6 dated 31st July, 1997, informed the Respondents inter alia:

However, by a letter dated 12th March, 1998, following further correspondence between the parties, the Appellant informed the Respondents, inter alia:

The Respondents however, continued to press for implementation of the harmonized pension as approved supra to no avail resulting in the institution of the action, the reliefs of which had earlier been reproduced in this judgment. At the conclusion of arguments, the learned trial Judge entered judgment in favor of the Respondents holding in effect that: The Appellant had not withdrawn its admission as contained in Exhibit JAJ6 of its willingness to comply, with the provisions of Exhibits JAJI; JAJ2 and JAJ3; That the action is not statute barred as the special defence ought to have been raised at the commencement of argument on the matter and that, in any event, the said contention is erroneous because pensions are of recurrent nature as a result of which the cause of action relating thereto arises afresh every month when the Appellant pays the Respondents less than their full harmonized entitlement.

It is the appeal against the above decision that was dismissed by the lower court resulting in the instant further appeal to this Court.