Trustees of Association of Former Telecom Employees of Nigeria &17,102 Ors. V. Federal Republic of Nigeria & Ors; ECW/CCJ/JUD/20/19, emphasised that: “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.” Applying the above decisions which are quite persuasive, the court holds that the Applicant, placing reliance on the provision of The Retirement Pension Act that upon leaving the office as a Member of the Transitional Council, he will be entitled to receive all the benefits provided for as a former member of the Transitional Council in which he was a former Vice Chairman is a valid legitimate expectation which this court will protect. The Court therefore holds that the denial of the Applicants pension is a denial of his legitimate expectation. 64. Having held that the denial of the Applicant’s pension and retirement benefits is a violation of his rights as claimed, the Court will now address the reliefs sought by the Applicant same being reproduced here for ease of reference. The Applicant sought the following reliefs: 1. A Declaration that the denial of the Applicant to received his pension benefits is a violation of his human rights. 2. A declaration that Respondent pay the Applicant the amount of US$726, 982.00 which constitutes the amount due him as of the date and time of filing this action, plus 6% interests per annual; that thereafter the payment of his pension benefits, be made current. 3. A declaration that Respondent pay successful Attorney fees of 2% of the principle amount owe Applicant. 4. A declaration that the Respondent pay the sum of USD$2, 000,000.00 (Two Million United States Dollars) as compensation for the violation of the rights of Applicant, and injury caused him, his family to the absence of basic needs, such as food, decent living standard, befitting a former Vice Chairman of State, etc., which contributed to the breaking up of his family. 65. With regards to relief one, the court has based on the analysis under the various heads declared that the denial of the Applicant’s pension and other retirement 28