Download PDF
REPRESENTATION: I. A. Akaraiwe Esq. appeared with E. W. Oji Esq, Joy Nnani (Mrs) and N.T. Ilokwe (Mrs) for the Claimant. Solomon Igwesi Esq. appeared for the Defendants. JUDGMENT On the 10th day of May, 2013 the Claimant initiated this action by way of a Complaint (accompanied with all the necessary originating processes) dated same date. In paragraph 13 of the Statement of Facts he claims the following reliefs against the Defendants jointly and severally: 13. WHEREOF the Claimant claims against the Defendants jointly and severally as follows: 1. A Declaration that the Claimant served the Nigerian Police Force for more than thirteen (13) years; 2. A Declaration that the purported dismissal which was converted to compulsory retirement is illegal; 3. A Declaration that the refusal of the Nigerian Police to enlist the Claimant’s name on the Pension Register is unjust, arbitrary, and a malicious breach of contract; 4. An Order mandating the police to enlist the Claimant’s name on the Pension Register, and to pay the Claimant all his entitlement, benefit and pension from 1999 till date; 5. GENERAL DAMAGES of N20, 000,000.00 (Twenty Million Naira) only against the Defendants. Upon being served the Originating Processes of the Claimant, on the 19th day of September, 2013 the defendants entered appearance in the case and further on the 17th day of January, 2014 filed their Statement of Defence with all the accompanying processes which were regularized with leave of court on 19th March, 2014. The case thereafter proceeded to trial and the Claimant gave evidence as CW1 wherein he adopted his written Statement on oath and was cross examined by the learned defendants’ counsel. He tendered Exhibits C1, C2, C3, C4, C5 and C6. The defendants did not call any witness. Parties filed final written addresses which were respectively adopted. The learned claimant’s counsel filed his written address dated 11th day of November, 2014 on 12th November, 2014. The Defendants final written address dated 11th day of May, 2015 was filed on 18th May, 2015. In his final written address the Claimant’s counsel formulated and argued two issues as follows: (a) Whether the Claimant’s dismissal which was later converted to compulsory retirement was lawful? (b) Whether the Claimant having served the Defendants for more than thirteen (13) years and having turned forty-five years is not entitled to be enlisted in the Police pension register and to be paid accordingly? In his own final written address the learned Defendants’ counsel formulated and argued a lone issue for determination which is whether the Claimant has satisfied the court to be entitled to all the reliefs sought? Having carefully considered all the processes filed, the evidence led as well as the arguments and submissions of the parties, the issue for determination is whether or not the Claimant has proved his case on balance of probabilities to entitle him to judgment in this matter? Before I delve into the determination of this issue, let me state briefly the facts of the case. The Claimant is a retiree from the Nigeria Police Force and has Force Number 7388 at the rank of Corporal. According to him, the Defendants forcefully retired him on allegations of crime which were never proved. He now alleges that his dismissal was because of his Christian faith, which he practices actively and made him to refuse to collect money from commuters at Police Checkpoints he was posted to and even to wherever he was posted to. He therefore asserted that he was persecuted and victimized for his moral rectitude. His initial dismissal was converted to retirement on the 2nd day of September, 1987, following his petition to the Inspector-General of Police, the 2nd Defendant in this suit. The Claimant was paid gratuity accordingly. Upon reaching the age of forty-five (45) years in 1999, the claimant through his counsel on the 8th day of August 2007 wrote to the 2nd Defendant, the Inspector-General of Police, requesting for the payment of his pension. This letter of request has not been responded to till date. He also complained to the Director of Police Pension in Lagos, on the 22nd day of April, 2009 but no reply was received till date. Hence this action by the Claimant. In addressing the issue for determination I shall start with the point that the Claimant was unlawfully dismissed. He has averred that prior to his retirement he was dismissed from the Nigerian Police on spurious allegations of criminal cases which were never proved. That he was persecuted and victimized because of his Christian faith which made him to refuse collecting money from commuters during his work. See paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the Statement of Facts as well as paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the written Statement on Oath. The said paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Claimant’s averment and evidence were refuted and denied by the Defendants. The onus therefore is on the Claimant to prove his case on the balance of probability. This is necessary even though the defendants never called evidence on the issue. See Chief Rowland Tukuru & Ors vs Chief Nathan Sabi&Ors (2013) LPELR-20176 (SC) p. 22 paras, A-C, Per Ngwuta JSC, where the principle was re-sated thus: It is an established principle in a claim for declaration of title, that though the plaintiff may rely on evidence of the defendant which supports his case, he, the plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his own case and will not rely on the weakness of the defence. See Kodilinye vs Odu 2 WACA 336 at 337-338; Abey vs Alex (1991) 73 LRCN 3471 at 3493. See also Samuel Ugela vs Akohol Tarvenda & Ors (2013) LPELR-21232(CA) p. 34, Paras E-F; and Monier Construction Co Ltd vs Agbejure Enterprises Ltd (2013)LPELR-21167(CA) p. 11, paras A-B. Having said that the question is whether the Claimant has made out a case on the point. The allegation that he was victimized for his refusal to collect money in the course of his work informed by the strength of his religious belief has not been supported by any credible evidence. In fact the letter written and signed by one A. Henshaw AG, DCP, for Assistant Inspector General of Police dated 2nd September, 1987, tendered as Exhibit C1, by the Claimant himself only goes to show that the claimant was subjected to series of penalties on offences against the Police Service Rules. The said letter states in part as follows: 2. The Assistant Inspector-General of Police having carefully looked into his case and found that his records of service were not as clean as he made you to understand. He has attended several Police orderly room to duty trial due to his uncompromising attitude to duty. He incurred six entry punishments for spanning 14 years of service as follows: In 1975-For neglect of duty-fined N4.00 Major Entry. “ 1977-For Neglect of duty and disobedience to orders fined N4.00 “ 1982-For neglect of duty- Fined N3.00 Minor Entry. “ 1982 again-For discreditable conduct-Fined N10.00 Major Entry. “ 1985 – For absence from duty – Fined N6.00 Major Entry. “ 1986 – For neglect of duty – Fined N4.00 Major entry, respectively. Certainly these depict him unsuitable for further service in the Force. However, the Assistant Inspector-General of Police considering his length of service has varied his dismissal to retirement. He is therefore advised to process his papers with the Commissioner of Police, Anambra State where he served last. From the content of this document it seems to me that the case of the Claimant about victimization falls to pieces. This is because in the absence of clear evidence from him about specific instances of the said victimization and persecution, what is before the court is a piece of evidence raising doubts about the conduct of the claimant by the defendants. Furthermore, the declaration sought by the Claimant is to the effect that the dismissal was unlawful. Here, while I agree with the learned defendants’ counsel that no basis for the unlawfulness of the dismissal has been shown, it is quite clear that the said dismissal had since been converted to retirement and it is difficult to fathom what exactly the claimant was talking about. Apart from that his gratuity following that conversion had since been paid to him. On the whole I do not find merit in the second claim in relation to illegality of the dismissal and is hereby dismissed. I will now consider reliefs 1, 3 and 4 together. The Claimant has pleaded and led evidence on the fact that he served for 13 years in the Nigeria Police Force. This fact has been admitted by the Defendants and so there is no need for proof. See Section 123 of the Evidence Act, 2011. See also, A-G of Nassarawa State vs A-G of Plateau State (2012) LPELR-9730(SC); Festus Mrakpor & Anor vs The Police Service Commission (2010) LPELR-4545(CA)p. 8, paras B-C; and Okoebor vs Police Council (2003) 12 NWLR (pt. 834) 444. The issue therefore is whether by the length of Service of 13 years in the Police Service Commission, the Claimant is entitled to pension, having also clocked the age of 45 in 1999? From the claimant’s submissions he has written to the defendants for the payment of his pension but that he has not even received any replies. His claim for a declaration that he is entitled to pension which should be followed with an order for payment, can only succeed where he met the criteria set by law. Here although the learned Claimant’s counsel has not drawn the Court’s attention to the relevant extant law or regulations which show that the Claimant is indeed entitled to the said pension, it is clear to me that since the Claimant was retired in 1987 and reached the age of sixty (60) by 1999, it is the Pensions Act Cap 346, Laws of the Federation, 1990 that is applicable to his case. Having said this, it must be pointed out that there is no outright entitlement to pension by every public servant. He must have served for the requisite number of years as a public servant and attained the required pensionable age. See Psychiatric Hospital Management Board vs E.O. Ejitagha (2000) 11 NWLR (Pt. 677) 154. In the instant case, the claimant in Exhibit C3, a letter to the Director of Pensions of the Nigeria Police Force dated 22/04/2009, stated the basis of his claim to the right to pension as follows: APPLICATION FOR THE PAYMENT OF PENSION I humbly and respectfully apply for the payment of the above subject. I was enlisted into the Fore on 1/10/73. I served meritoriously for Thirteen years (13) three month (3) and fourteen days without stain and voluntarily retired on 15th of January 1987. All documents to facilitate the payment of my gratuity and pension were forwarded to the Inspector General of Police Force Headquarters Moloney street Lagos in 1987 by the commissioner of police, Enugu State under letter reference No. AH:8430/AS/MSS/VOL.18/351 of 2nd November 1987. The Claimant maintains that having served for 13 years, 3 months and 14 days and having attained the age of 45 years in 1999 he is entitled to pension. Here the provisions of the pensions Acts, Cap 346, LFN, 1990, in section 3(1) (a) provides that: 3. (1) No pension or gratuity shall be granted under this Act except on his retirement from the public service in any of the following circumstances, that is- (a) on voluntary retirement after qualifying service of ten years up to 31st March, 1977 and fifteen years as from 1st April, 1977; The qualifying period and the percentage is further provided in details in tables A and B of the First Schedule to the Pension Act, Cap 346, LFN, 1990. From the case of the Claimant his retirement occurred in 1987 and so his qualifying period of service for entitlement to pension is fifteen years since he retired after 31st of March, 1977. According to the said table B of the First Schedule to the Pensions Act, pension can only be paid to persons who have served for 15 years and above. Since the Claimant served for only 13 years and therefore did not serve for the minimum period of fifteen years, he cannot be entitled to any pension. This I so find and hold. The reliefs 1, 3 and 4 are therefore refused and dismissed. The last relief is that relating to general damages. This relief too must fail in view of the dismissal of all the other claim in the suit. On the whole the claimant has failed to prove his case on the balance of probabilities and I so hold. The suit is accordingly hereby dismissed. I make no order as to costs. Judgment is entered accordingly. Hon. Justice Auwal Ibrahim Presiding Judge