Section 173 (1) “Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the right of a person in public service of the Federation to receive pension or gratuity shall be regulated by law.” Section 173 (2) “Any benefit to which a person is entitled in accordance with or under such law as is referred to in subsection (1) of this section shall not be withheld or altered to his disadvantage except to such extent as is permissible under any law, including the Code of Conduct”. Section 210 is a repeat of the above provisions. The purport of S173 (1) & (2) and S 210 of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria is a guarantee of the right of a person in public service of the Respondent to receive pension or gratuity subject however to law, additionally any denial or alteration with adverse effect must be to the extent permissible by law. In other words the right to pension though guaranteed is not absolute, it can be altered or denied to the extent that it is in accordance with law. The question to ask is can the payment of a 5 year pension buyout which was agreed upon by the Applicant’ union on their behalf to be deemed “be withheld or altered to their disadvantage” to render it inconsistent with S173 (2) of the Nigerian Constitution. The Court notes that the authority of the said union to act on their behalf was not controverted at any time. The Court therefore finds that the 5 year buy out having been agreed upon, the Applicant is precluded from reactivating the 20 years failed negotiation. Terms of any agreement in the absence of any vitiating factors is not voidable. In Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [1947] KB 130, Lord Denning J stated that: “Parties should be prevented from going back on a promise to waive certain rights. The time had come for this to be recognized as giving rise to an estoppel.” A further claim of the Applicant is that the monthly pension payment is inconsistent with the S173 of the Nigerian Constitution. Indeed the constitution guarantees pension for all public servants but makes no provision as to the mode of payment. The Applicants have not established the overriding reason neither does the court understand the basis of rejection of a monthly pension payment. Were NITEL/MITEL not privatised, same would have been the mode of payment of a life pension when accruable to the Applicants. The court therefore holds that neither the 5 year buyout plan nor the proposed monthly payment is in violation of S173 (2) & (3) of the Nigerian Constitution. 17