“The plaintiff is entitled to all the benefits he would have received for the rest of the course of his contract if his appointment had not been terminated.” In line with the above jurisprudence, the Court finds that the Applicants are entitled to all the benefits and emoluments accruable to them were their services not discontinued by the Respondent in the light of their legitimate expectation. The Respondent must ensure that no Applicant is denied life pension entitlement due to reasons of not attaining pension age. It is trite law that a legitimate expectation is capable of sustaining a claim on the right to property as same is subject to protection. In the instant case, the Applicants never envisaged that their services will be cut short by the Respondent. Upon assumption of office they had a legitimate expectation that barring any death or infraction by their actions, they will earn a life pension in accordance with the law. An abrupt termination of their services denying pension benefits which is a legitimate expectation was not within their legitimate contemplation. The Court finds that the Applicants are entitled to their legitimate expectation of life pension payment. 35. While the court had earlier come to a determination that the burden of proof of the entitlements rests with the Respondent who did not file a defence, records before the Court however show that the Respondent in 2012, paid a 5 year pension buyout as agreed by the Applicants’ union on their behalf. The Court notes that the agreed 5 year buy out was intended to satisfy the legitimate expectation of the Applicants not to be denied their pension benefit. The consequence is that irrespective of years of service, every Applicant received a computed sum of pension. However, the Applicants claim is that even though the negotiation for a 20 year buy out failed, the payment of a 5 year buy out is a flagrant violation of a continuous right of the Applicants as provided in section 173(1), (2), (3), & 210 of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria. Furthermore, the later proposal by PTAD in 2017 to pay a monthly pension was rejected by the Applicants as being in violation of S 173, 1, 2, 3, & 210 of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria. Indeed in the letter dated 17th May 2017 in response to the request by PTAD for submission of document to enable the monthly payment, the Applicant stated categorically “Therefore the monthly payment is hereby rejected”. It is necessary at this point to examine the provision of the above referred 1999 constitution of the Respondent to enable a proper understanding of its content and relevance to the case of the Applicants. 16