Download PDF
REPRESENTATION INNOCENT. C. OVAT, J. N. OKARE, E.A ACHIBONG for the claimant ANTHONY EFFIOM for the defendants JUDGEMENT The Claimant instituted this action via a Complaint with the accompanying frontloaded documents filed on 26th November, 2013 against the defendants for the following reliefs: 1. A declaration that the termination of Appointment letter issued to the claimant on 15/11/2013 by the 1st defendant is wrongful, null and void and of no effect whatsoever in that the relevant disciplinary provisions of the operational Cross River State Public Service Rules, 2004 were not complied with. 2. A declaration that the purported termination of the claimant’s appointment as staff of the Unified Local Government Service of Cross River State of Nigeria is unlawful, illegal, unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect whatsoever same having been done contrary to the rules of natural justice, in gross breach of the claimant’s right to fair hearing and in flagrant violation of the relevant provisions of the operational Cross River State Public Service Rules, 2004. 3. AN ORDER of the court directing the defendants to forthwith reinstate the claimant to his office of employment as staff of the Unified Local Government Service of Cross River State of Nigeria with full entitlements from eh date of termination of the appointment till judgment and thereafter. 4. AN ORDER directing the 1st defendant to forthwith pay the claimant all his outstanding monthly salaries, allowances and benefits/entitlements as staff of the Unified Local Government Service of Cross River State of Nigeria from the month of May, 2013 to the date of judgment. 5. General damages of Fifty Million Naira (#50,000,000.00) only. The Claimant case on the record is that he was employed under the Unified Local Government Service of Cross River State as Personnel Assistant on 01/12/1992 and that his appointment had statutory flavour as its conditions of service is provided, governed and protected by statutes particularly the Cross River State Public Service Rules, 2004. According to him, his appointment was duly confirmed with effect from 01/01/1995 and being a confirmed officer he continued to earn regular promotions until he became a senior staff attaining the rank of Senior Accountant on Grade Level 10 with effect from 01/01/2010. He was initially serving at Obubra Local Government Council before he was transferred by the 1st defendant to Akpabuyo Local Government Area. The Claimant stated that that whilst he resumed duty at Akpabuyo Local Government Council serving as Cashier, Legislative Unit of Akpabuyo Local Government Council, his monthly salaries and allowances from the month of May, 2013 were, for undisclosed reasons, withheld and not paid to him by the 1st defendant. Yet he continued to render his services until the Head of Personnel of Akpabuyo Local Government approved that he proceeds on a 30-day leave with effect from 06/11/2013. And that precisely on 15/11/2013 within the period of the leave that he was surprisingly issued with a letter from the 1st defendant terminating his appointment on the ground that he absented from duty for 5 undisclosed months without leave or permission. It is against this background that the claimant instituted this action. The defendants filed their STATEMENT OF DEFENCE dated 10th February, 2014 on 12th February, 2014. The case of the defendant on the pleading is that Cross River State Public Service Rules, 2004 regulating the claimant’s employment did not make it mandatory that claimant must be in the service of the 1st defendant for 35 years, rather, it stipulates that claimant can only be in the service of the defendant for 35 years if he is of good behavior, conducts himself within the confines of the rules and is not terminated or dismissed from service as in this case. The defendants pleaded that claimant did not resume at his new place of posting until months after and that the purported letter of resumption of duty dated 4th May, 2013 did not get to the 1st defendant. Furthermore, that claimant was still enjoying his salary until when his appointment was terminated in August, 2013 and that the 2013 annual leave issued to the claimant was made in error as of that time as the claimant had already received his letter of termination of service. The defendants further pleaded it was not true that claimant received the letter of termination of his appointment on 15th November, 2013, rather, that he received it immediately it was issued to him; and subsequently wrote to the Chairman of the 1st defendant appealing for reinstatement into the service. The defendants pleaded that the period of absenteeism in consideration was stated in the query dated 17th December, 2012 which claimant refused and or neglected to reply. And that absenteeism for a day or days without lawful permission is enough for dismissal and it need not be for five months or more before a person can be terminated. The defendants pleaded that they are not aware of any petition dated 18th November, 2013 addressed to the 1st defendant. And that the only letter of appeal for reinstatement from the claimant was dated 6th September, 2013. The defendants pleaded that claimant was not issued letter of termination on 15th November, 2013 rather, it was issued in August, 2013 necessitating him to write an appeal for reinstatement to the Chairman of the 1st defendant on 6th September, 2013. The Defendants maintain that claimant is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought. The claimant in reaction filed a REPLY TO STATEMENT OF DEFENCE dated 17th February, 2014 and file on 21st February, 2014. The claimant pleaded that he resumed at his new station – Akpabuyo Local Government Council following the 1st defendant’s circular of 04/04/2013 was released and made public and the 1st defendant was served with the letter of 04/05/2013 informing her of the claimant’s resumption. The Claimant restated that the defendants withheld his salaries from the month of May, 2013 and continued to do so until 15/11/2013 when the 1st defendant’s letter purporting to terminate the claimant’s appointment was issued. The Claimant admitted that a query dated 17/10/2012 was issued to him which he promptly replied and the said reply was adjudged satisfactory as was later disclosed to him by one Mr. Eno Ibiang Edet who issued and the said query and dealt with same. The Claimant denies that the 1st defendant did at any time or by any means whatsoever invite him to appear before it for any reason whatsoever. And that the 1st defendant before terminating his appointment did not at all afford him the opportunity to appear before it and defend any allegation made against him before, during and after the report against him was made, presented and discussed before it. At the trial the claimant testified as CW adopted his written statements on oath of 26th November 2013 and 28th April 2014 which were marked exhibit s C1 and C2 respectively. The claimant as CW also tendered 19 other exhibits. S/N TENDER BY NICN/CA/172/2013 DOCUMENT’S DATED DATE TENDER MARK 1. Claimant Counsel Witness on oath 29/1/2015 29/1/2015 CW 2. Written statement on oath 26/11/2013 29/1/2015 C1 3. Additional statement on oath 27/4/2014 “ C2 4. Letter of appointment 19/11/1992 “ C3 5. Cross River State P.S.R. C4 6. Notification of confirmation 12/4/1996 “ C5 7. Notification of promotion 25/10/1996 “ C6 8. Notification of promotion 15/1/1996 “ C7 9. Conversion of appointment 10/11/1996 “ C8 10. Notification of promotion 20/4/1999 C9 11. “ “ “ 15/10/2001 C10 12. “ “ letter of conversion 22/3/2007 C11 13. “ “ of promotion 1/4/2013 C12 14. Senior staff posting 4/4/2013 C13-C131 15 Assumption of duty 4/5/2013 C14 16. Internet posting 12/7/2013 C15 17. Annual vacation/leave 7/11/2013 C16 18. Termination of appointment 12/8/20113 C17 19 Re: petition against termination 18/11/2013 C18 20. First Bank list C19 21 Query: Absence from duty 17/10/1012 17/4/2015 C20 22. Reply to query 13/11/2012 “ C21 The defendants called one witness Mrs. Esther Dan Okorma who testified as DW adopted her written statement on oath which was marked as exhibit D1 and tendered three (3) other exhibits. 1. Defendant Counsel Witness on oath 30/6/2015 30/6/2015 DW 2. Written statement on oath 12/2/2014 30/6/2015 D1 3. Query letter absent from duty 17/12/2012 “ D2 4. Perpetual absentees from duty 29/4/13 “ D3-1 5. An Appeal for reinstatement 6/9/2013 “ D4-1 At the close of trial the matter was adjourned for parties to file and adopt their respective final written addresses and adoption of same was taken on 9th December 2015. On that date parties adopted their final written addresses and adumbrated their respective positions. The claimants at the efluxion of the time for the defendants to file, the CLAIMANT’S filed their final WRITTEN ADDRESS dated 3rd November, 2015. With the following listed as ISSUES for determination.; 1. Whether the claimant from the pleadings and evidence on record has proven the claims on the balance of probability and hence entitled to the reliefs sought and prayed for in the present action. 2. Whether the documents tendered in evidence and marked exhibits C20, C21, D2, D3 – D31 and D4 – D41 are legally admissible evidence and ought to be relied and acted upon in determining the present action. ON ISSUE 1 Whether the claimant from the pleadings and evidence on record has proven the claims on the balance of probability and hence entitled to the reliefs sought and prayed for in the present action. Learned Counsel for the claimant Innocent Ovat answered this in the affirmative contended that the claimant adduced cogent and credible evidence in support of his claims and he has on a balance of probability established his claims against the defendants and hence entitled to judgment. ADEDOYIN v. AFRICAN PETROLEUM PLC (2014) 11 NWLR (PT. 1419) 415 @ 427, PARAS. E-F; S.P.D.C.N. LTD. v. EDAMKUE (2009) 14 NWLR (PT. 1160) 1 @ 32 PARA. A. Learned Claimants Counsel noted that claimant copiously pleaded and adduced abundant evidence proving that he is an employee of the Cross River State Local Government Service and also pleaded and proved the terms of the contract of employment and in what manner the said terms were breached by the defendants. IBAMA v. S.P.D.C.N. LTD. (supra) 92-93, PARAS. H-B; NIGERIAN ROMANIAN WOOD INDUSTRIES LTD. v. AKINGBULUGBE (2011) 11 NWLR (PT. 1257) 131 @ 148, PARAS. C-G. It is claimant counsel’s submission that in law, for an employment to enjoy the status of statutory flavour, the manner of appointment, the terms, tenure and termination of same is protected and governed by statute or regulation. GOV. EKITI STATE v. AKINYEMI (2012) 4 NILR 140 @ 180-181, PARAS. B-A; C.O.E., EKIADOLOR v. OSAYANDE (2010) 6 NWLR (PT. 1191) 423 @ 451, PARA. E; F.M.C., IDO-EKITI v. OLAJIDE (2011) 11 NWLR (PT. 1258) 256 @ 283, PARA. B; U.B.N. PLC v. SOARES (2012) 11 NWLR (PT. 1312) 550 @ 579, PARAS. E-F. Consequently Counsel to the claimant argued that given the fact that the claimant’s employment enjoys statutory flavour, this invests him with a legal status higher, over and above the ordinary master and servant relationship. P.H.C.N. PLC v. OFFOELO (2013) 4 NWLR (PT. 1344) 380 @ 408, PARAS. C-D; GOVE. EKITI STATE v. AKINYEMI (supra) 180, PARAS. D-F. Furthermore, that being an employment with a statutory backing, its termination must also be in the way and manner prescribed by the relevant statute or regulation and any other manner of termination which is inconsistent with the statute or regulation will be null and void and of no effect. IBAMA v. S.P.D.C.N. (2012) 4 NILR 75 @ 110, PARAS. B-D. Learned Counsel to the claimant contended that since the service of exhibit D2 (the query of 17/12/2012) is vehemently denied by the claimant, the defendants in this circumstance do have a legal burden/obligation to prove that the said query was in fact served on the claimant before the termination of his employment. He submitted that in law, proof of receipt/service of document is established by: a. Dispatch indicating the receipt; or b. Evidence of dispatch by registered post; or c. Evidence of witnesses, credible enough, that the person was served with the document in question. NLEWEDIM v. UDUMA (1995) 6 NWLR (PT. 402) 383 @ 394, PARA. B. Claimants Counsel submitted that the law remains that where there is failure to communicate/serve the query on the claimant, any step or action taken to terminate the claimant’s appointment goes to naught and amounts to a nullity in law. On the effect of failure of a party to properly communicate his adversary on official matters, he cited P.H.C.N. PLC v. OFFOELO (supra) 408, PARAS. E-H. Submitting further that by the primary rules of pleadings, any specific averment which is not specifically traversed is deemed to be admitted. EKE v. OKWARANYA (2001) FWLR (PT. 51) 1974 @ 1996, PARAS. B-C; 1997, PARAS. D-F; GOVERNOR OF EKITI STATE v. OJO (2006) ALL FWLR (PT. 331) 1298 @ 1328, PARAS. D-G. Learned Counsel to the claimant went on to argue that the failure to constitute a Tribunal of Inquiry or Administrative Panel of Inquiry is in violation of Rule 02202 of Exhibit C4 and that this failure robbed the claimant of the chance and opportunity to defend the allegations against him before the termination of his employment. Thus, that the said failure to constitute the said panel constitutes a violation of conditions precedent for termination of appointment of officer in civil service of Cross River State of Nigeria. J.S.C., CROSS RIVER STATE v. YOUNG (2013) 11 NWLR (PT. 1364) 1 @ RATIO 14. Learned Counsel also submitted that the defendants’ refusal and failure to produce and tender the Invitation Letter of 26th July, 2013 does not only lend credence to the claimant’s case that he was never invited and no such invitation letter was ever issued and served on him but also entitles the claimant to invoke the provisions of Sec. 167 (d) of the Evidence Act (as amended), 2011 on presumption of withholding evidence against the defendants. THE PEOPLE OF LAGOS STATE v. UMARU (2014) 7 NWLR (PT. 1407) 584 @ 620, PARAS. A-H; F.R.N. v. SANNI (2014) 16 NWLR (PT. 1433) 299 @ 338, PARAS. D-G; ODOGWU v. STATE (2013) 14 NWLR (PT. 1373) 74 @ 115, PARAS. B-D; EKWEOZOR v. REG. TRUSTEES, S.A.C.N. (2014) 16 NWLR (PT. 1434) 433 @ 475, PARAS. C-E; GEROGE v. STATE (2009) 1 NWLR (PT. 1122) 325; IGBEKE v. EMORDI (2010) 11 NWLR (PT. 1204) 1 @ 35, PARAS. B-F; N.E.R.D.C. v. GONZE NIG. LTD. (2000) 9 NWLR (PT. 673) 532 @ 594, PARAS. B-C. It is claimant’s counsel’s submission that in view of the established facts that the claimant’s employment which is clothed with statutory flavour was determined in a manner without recourse to the procedures prescribed in exhibit C4, this Court is empowered to declare the said termination null and void and pronounce eh employment as valid and subsisting. P.H.C.N. PLC V. OFFOELO (supra) 410, PARAS. E-F. Therefore, the claimant will be entitled to all his salaries and allowances. F.M.C., IDO-EKITI v. OLAJIDE (2011) 11 NWLR (PT. 1258) 256 @ 286, PARAS. B-C. Furthermore, that the established fact that the claimant’s employment was determined in a manner without recourse to the statutory procedures justifies the award of general damages as prayed in this case. OSOH v. UNITY BANK PLC (2013) NWLR (PT. 1358) 1 @ 43, PARAS. D-F. He submitted that this claim for general damages is a claim which by its nature is presumed to be the direct, natural and probable consequences of the wrongs complained against the defendants in this case. BRITISH AIRWAYS v. ATOYEBI (2014) 13 NWLR (PT. 1424) 253 @ 287, PARAS. F-G; EMIRATES AIRLINE v. NGONADI (NO. 1) (2014) 9 NWLR (PT. 1413) 429 @ 500, PARAS. E-F. Furthermore, that given the wrongs established against the defendants, the claimant, as the aggrieved party consequentially becomes entitled to the claim of general damages prayed in this case as to compensate him for the damage, loss or injury he has suffered and that this general damages assessed at #50 Million only need not be specifically pleaded and strictly proved. AGI v. ACCESS BANK PLC (2014) 9 NWLR (PT. 1411) 121 @ 159, PARAS. E-F. ON ISSUE 2 Whether the documents tendered in evidence and marked exhibits C20, C21, D2, D3 – D31 and D4 – D41 are legally admissible evidence and ought to be relied and acted upon in determining the present action. Counsel admitting that exhibits C20, C21, D2, D3 – D31 and D4 – D41 are relevant to these proceedings, argued however, that relevance alone does not determine admissibility of evidence, submitting that one of the 3 fundamental criteria governing the admissibility of documents in evidence is whether the document is admissible in law. OKOYE v. OBIASO (2010) 8 NWLR (PT. 1195) 145 @ 163, PARA. H, RATIOS 3 & 4; ANAJA v. U.B.A. (2011) 15 NWLR (PT. 1270) 377 RATIO 10; SUBERU v. STATE (2010) 8 NWLR (PT. 1197) 586 @ 604, PARAS. C-E; ASHEIK v. M.T. NIGERIA LTD. (2010) 15 NWLR (PT. 1215) 114 @ 155, PARAS. G-H. Counsel argued that given that these documents are secondary copies of public documents, Sections 89 (e), 90 (1) (c) and 105 of the Evidence Act requires that only certified true copies thereof are admissible in evidence before this Honorable Court. INEC v. ACTION CONGRESS (2009) NWLR (PT. 1126) 524 @ 629, PARAS. C-D; ACHOR v. ADEJOH (2010) 6 NWLR (PT. 1191) 537 @ RATIO 13; ORLU v. GOGO-ABITE (2010) 8 NWLR (PT. 1196) 307 @ RATIO 11; HOUSE OF REPS. V. S.P.D.C.N. (2010) 11 NWLR (PT. 1205) 213 @ RATIOS 6-7; CRPDIC LTD. v. OBONGHA (2001) FWLR (PT. 54) 353 RATIO 18; TABIK INVEST. LTD. v. G.T.B. PLC (2011) 17 NWLR (PT. 1276) 240 @ 262, PARAS. B-C; OKOREAFFIA v. AGWU (2012) 1 NWLR (PT. 1282) 425 @ 452, PARA. D, RATIO 12; INEC v. ACTION CONGRESS (supra) 629, PARAS. C-D. He argued further that Sec. 104 (1-2) of the Evidence Act has categorically stated the proper mode of certifying a public document and that it is only such properly certified documents that would be produced in proof of the contents of the public document. ARISBISALA v. OGUNYEMI (2001) FWLR (PT. 31) 2867 RATIO 1; TABIK INVEST. LTD. G.T.B. PLC (supra) 262, PARAS. A-B; P. 259, PARA. H, per Onnoghen, JSC; NWABUOKU v. ONWORDI (2006) ALL FWLR (PT. 331) RATIO 10. The DEFENDANTS’ FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESS was dated and filed on 26th November, 2015. Wherein the defendants raised the following ISSUES 1. Whether the employment of the claimant was properly and legally terminated. 2. Whether in the circumstance the claimant can be reinstated. 3. Whether the claimant is entitled to the #50,000,000.00 (fifty million Naira) general damages claimed. ON ISSUES 1 & 2 Whether the employment of the claimant was properly and legally terminated and Whether in the circumstance the claimant can be reinstated. Learned Counsel to the defendants Anthony Effiom Esq. submitted that a person’s employment can still be terminated even if the absence is for a day and is not justified and that with the admission of the claimant in exhibit D4, no further proof of his misconduct is needed as it is trite that fact admitted need no further proof. Thus, the misconduct is deemed proved. SEC. 123 of the EVIDENCE ACT, 2014; CONDIFENCE INSURANCE LTD. v. TRUSTEE OF OSCE (199) 2 NWLR (PT. 591) 373, RATIO 13. Learned defence Counsel further submitted that all the necessary opportunities were given to the claimant to defend himself but he did not utilize them apparently as he admitted in exhibit D4 that he was absent from duty for 4 months due to various personal challenges he had, that claimant cannot therefore claim he was denied fair hearing as he did not utilize the opportunities open to him. FEDERAL HOUSING AUTHORITY v. KALEJAIYE (2011) ALL FWLR (PT. 562) 1633 @ 1651, PARA. F, per Onnoghen, JSC. ON ISSUE 3 Whether the claimant is entitled to the #50,000,000.00 (fifty million Naira) general damages claimed. Counsel submitted that if the Court decides to reinstate the claimant and pay his outstanding monthly salaries, grant of general damages will therefore be a bonus to him which the law frowns at. TOTAL NIGERIA PLC v. MORKAH (2003) FWLR (PT. 148) 1343 @ 1359, PARAS. B-D; UBN LTD v. ODUSOTE BOOKSTORE LTD. (1995) 9 NWLR (PT. 166) 136; OZIGBU ENGINEERING CO. LTD. v. IWUAMADI (2011) ALL FWLR (PT. 553) 1975 @ 1991, PARAS. C-E. Counsel submitted that claimant would have been restored to the situation he would have been if he was not terminated in the first place, if this court reinstates him and order all his salaries to be paid. Indeed, that he would have earned salaries he did not work for. Accordingly, that the general damages claimed cannot be granted. MAKINDE v. OMAGHOMI (2011) ALL FWLR (PT. 989 @ 1004, PARAS. C-D. The Court’s Decision Having carefully summarized the evidence of both sides, the arguments of opposing counsel and having carefully reviewed all the authorities cited, read through all the relevant processes and digested the contention of the parties, their written submission are herewith incorporated in this judgement and specific mention would be made to them where the need arises. I find the issues as formulated by the defendant to more properly address all the aspects of this suit and shall be adopted as the Court’s issues for determination in this suit, to my mind. Hence the issues for determination in this suit to my mind are;- 1. Whether the employment of the claimant was properly and legally terminated. 2. Whether in the circumstance the claimant can be reinstated. 3. Whether the claimant is entitled to the #50,000,000.00 (fifty million Naira) general damages claimed. Before delving into the merit of the case it is necessary to address a pertinent point, the parties made heavy weather of the averment of the claimant that Exhibit D4 was a forgery. The claimants had in paragraph 4(d) of his reply to statement of defence averred that exhibit D4 was a forgery stating 4 particulars of the said forgery that it was not authored or signed by the claimant, that the signature contained therein was false, and the exhibit D4 predates the termination whilst purporting to appeal against it and a denial of the charge of absenteeism. The defendants’ position is that the claimant after pleading forgery and gave particulars did not prove the forgery in any way or manner citing Section 135 of the Evidence Act 2011. “If the commission of a crime by a party to any proceedings is directly in issue in any proceedings civil or criminal, it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.” The claimant responding in their oral reply on point of law argued that the claimant was not cross examined on this and that the defendant had lost the opportunity to cross examine the veracity of the evidence relying on EMIRATES AIRLINES Vs. IGBONADI (No,2) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1430) also the issue was not challenged in the defendants subsequent process. What the defendants mean by subsequent process is peculiar as from the courts record the claimant further statement on oath is the last process filed in this court before final addresses being filed alongside his reply to the defendants statement of defence was dated and filed on 21st February 2014 and, this defendants statement of defence which frontloaded Exhibit D4 was dated 10th February and filed 12th February 2014. With regard to the position of the law as concerns allegations of forgery in a civil suit the Evidence Act 2011 particularly in section 101 has stated what should guide the Court in determining whether a signature is made by a particular person. Section 101 provides this:- (1) In order to ascertain whether a signature, writing, seal or finger impression is that of the person by whom it purports to have been written or made, any signature, writing, seal or finger impressions admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the court to have been written or made by that person may be compared with the one which is to be proved although that signature, writing, seal or finger impression has not been produced or proved for any other purpose. (2) The court may direct any person present in court to write word or figure or to make finger impressions for the purpose of enabling the court to compare the words, figures or finger impressions so written with any word, figure or finger impression alleged to have been written or made by such person. Also in the case of OKAMGBA V. EKE [2009] 16 NWLR (PT. 1166) 1 AT 17 – 18, the Court of Appeal considered proving forgery when there is a dispute as to signature and held thus – “Let me begin considering this issue by examining the provision of section 108(1) of the Evidence act which provides as follows: 108(1) In order to ascertain whether a signature, writing, seal or finger impression is that of the person by whom it purports to have been written or made, any signature, writing, seal or finger impression admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the court to have been written or made by that person may be compared with the one which is to be proved although that signature, writing, seal or finger impression has not been produced or proved for any other purpose. The provisions of the reproduced section of the Evidence Act are clear and unambiguous and need no aid for their interpretation. The learned Magistrate was perfectly right in examining the power of attorney the way he did and the lower court was also right in upholding the finding of the learned Magistrate. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that forgery being a serious crime the particulars must be pleaded and proved strictly is of no moment in the light of the clear provision of section 108(1) of the Evidence Act reproduced above.” See also ASUQUO V. ASUQUO [2009] 16 NWLR (PT. 1167) 225 AT 243 – 244 and IKEDIGWE V. FAI [2012] 10 NWLR (PT. 1308) 375 AT 413 – 414. In any event, that the law is clear that the burden of proof does not rest on the party denying the signature but on the party seeking to rely on the said signature to enforce the agreement, citing ODUDU V. ONYIBE [2001] 13 NWLR (PT. 729) 140 AT 159. That there was no forensic report or Police report establishing the alleged forgery and the claimant cannot, therefore, shift the burden of proof by raising an issue of forgery, which in any event is not an issue in this suit l. the argument of the defendants as to proof of date is just as foundless as the forgery claim as neither party have put before the court any convincing argument of their pleading, as the letter seeking re-instatement apparently comes after the letter of termination which in itself serves no useful purpose in determining whether the claimants termination was illegal and the question as to when the claimant was infact terminated has not been established with regard to paragraph 15 of the Statement of Defence which merely pleads that the claimant termination letter was dated 12TH August 2013 but no such letter was resented by the defendant neither did they supply any date, but turn around to ask the claimant to prove the date of Exhibit C17, proof against what? I ask. Now to the merits of the case, in order to determine issue;- Whether the employment of the claimant was properly and legally terminated, it is necessary to determine the nature of the claimants appointment. In other words, it is necessary to first determine whether the claimant’s employment is statutory or not. See the cases of OKOCHA Vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMSSION EDO STATE [2004] 3 NWLR (Pt. 861) 582 where it was held that “Public Servants are invested with a legal status that they cannot be properly or legally removed until the said rules are strictly complied with,. Also the case of ALHASSAN Vs. ABU ZARIA [2010] ALL FWLR (Pt. 583) 962 at 975 where it was held “that a Statutory Employment enjoys a presumption that the employment can only be brought to an end for the proven misconduct. The case of the claimant is that he enjoys statutory employment and so must equally enjoy security of tenure. The defence of the defendants is that they terminated the claimant in accordance with due process. Arguing that they evoked the power enshrined under Rule 03306 (iv) and properly terminated the claimants appointment. Both parties agree that the claimants appointment is regulated by Cross River State Public Service Rules, 2004Exhibit C4. This is about the only thing, or one of the few things the parties agree on. The claimant was issued a letter of appointment to the post of Personal Assistant IV Grade Level 03 step 1 vide Exhibit C3 with effect from 19th November 1992. The claimant was later confirmed vide Exhibit C4 with effect from 1st January 1995. I find that the claimant has tendered documents pertaining to his employment clearly showing that his employment is governed by the public service rules of cross river state. From the foregoing and on the authority of IDONIBOYE-OBU Vs. NNPC 2 NWLR(Pt. 805) at pp 646-647, where the court held “to satisfy the condition of a statutory appointment the employee must be able to show that there is a statute that protects his or her employment. In other words the employment is said to have statutory flavour if the employment is directly governed or regulated by statute, or where a section of the statute delegates power to an authority or body to make the regulations or conditions of service as the case may be.” Also see OKOCHA Vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION EDO STATE [2004] 3 NWLR (Pt.861) 582 and AL HASSAN Vs. ABU ZARIAH [2010] All FWLR (Pt.538) 966. The claimant’s appointment, therefore, has statutory flavour; and I so find and hold. The case of the defendant is that the claimant was properly terminated, having committed the infraction of absenteeism absence from duty without leave, based on Rule 03306 (iv) Exhibit C4. And the fact of evidentiary admission citing CONFIDENCE INSURANCE LTD. TRUSTEE OF OSCE [1999] 2 NWLR (Pt. 591) 373 Ratio 13. The rules governing Discipline under the Exhibit C4 are found in Sections 3 and 4 dealing with Misconduct and Serious Misconduct and the specifically applicable rules as follows;- 03401 which defines Serious Misconduct A Serious misconduct is defined as a specific act of very serious wrongdoing and improper behavior, which can be investigated and proved it includes aggravated conduct of the kind prohibited by Rule 03301 herein. It also includes but not limited to; (i) Conviction on a criminal charge (other than a traffic or sanitation offence or the like); (ii) absence from duty without leave; (iii) disobedience of lawful order, such as refusal to proceed on transfer to accept posting, etc.; And goes on to list 19 other types of serious misconduct, 03402 Disciplinary procedure for serious misconduct shall be carried out in accordance with Rules 03302 to 03306 Which stipulates/directs one to the procedure to be adopted in cases of serious misconduct. The procedure to be followed is found in Section 3, Rules 03301 03301 defines types of misconduct 03302 which starts with issuing a query. As soon as a superior offer becomes dissatisfied with the behavior of any officer subordinate to him, it shall be duty so to inform the officer in writing giving details of unsatisfactory behavior and to call upon him to submit within forty-eight hours written representation as he may wish to make to exculpate himself from disciplinary action. After considering such written representations as the officer may make within the specified time, the superior officer shall decide whether: (a) the officer has exculpated himself in which case, he shall be so informed in writing and no further action shall be necessary, or (b) the officer has not exculpated himself but it is considered that he should not be punished in which case an appropriate formal letter of advice shall be issued to him and he shall be required to acknowledge its receipt in writing , or (c) the officer has not exculpated himself and deserves some punishment, in which case Rule 03304 shall apply, with appropriate modification as the circumstances of each case may require. (i)The staff shall be notified in writing of the grounds on which it is proposed to discipline him. The query should be precise and to the point. It must relate the circumstances of the offence, the rule or regulation that the officer has broken and the likely penalty. In serious cases that are likely to result in dismissal, the officer should be given access to any such documents. The officer shall be called upon to state in writing, within the period specified in the query any ground upon which he relies to exculpate him. The rules goes on to set the format for the query and/or the preliminary letter and continues with 03302 (iii) (iii) The officer’s answer to the query shall immediately be submitted to the appropriate Committee or to a panel of inquiry instituted by the Commissioner of the Ministry for consideration and within a reasonable time thereafter, the Committee or panel shall submit its findings to the Commissioner who shall, within 28 days of receipt thereof, make recommendations on the matter to the Commission. (iv) If the Commission is not satisfied that he has exculpated himself and considers that the officer should be dismissed, it shall take action accordingly. Should the officer however fail to furnish any representations within the time fixed, the Commission may take such action against the officer, as it deems appropriate; (v) If upon considering the representations of the officer, the findings of the Panel and the recommendations of the Commissioner, the Commission is of the opinion that the officer does not deserve to be dismissed from the service but deserves some other punishment, it shall impose on the officer such punishment, as it considers appropriate; (vi) Where the findings of the panel and recommendations of the Commissioner do not meet the terms of reference of the inquiry, the Commission may set up a board of inquiry (“the board”) to reconsider and rehear the allegations against the officer. The board shall consist of not less than three persons, of the same rank or higher that the officer subject to discipline, one of whom shall be appointed Chairman by the Commission. The members of the board shall be selected with due regard to the status of the officer involved in the disciplinary case and to the nature of the complaint which is the subject of inquiry. The Permanent Secretary of the officer’s department shall not be a member of the board; (vii) The officer shall be informed that, on a specific day, the question of disciplinary action against him shall be brought before the board and he shall be required to appear before it to defend himself and shall be entitled to call witnesses. His failure to appear shall not invalidate the proceedings of the board; (viii) Where witnesses are called by the board to give evidence before it, the officer shall be entitled to put questions to the witnesses and no documentary evidence shall be used against the officer unless he has previously been supplied with a copy thereof or given access thereto; (ix) If during the course of the inquiry grounds for dismissal are disclosed, and the Commission thinks it fit to proceed against the officer upon such grounds, the officer shall, by the direction of the Commission, be furnished with a written statement thereof and the same steps shall be taken as prescribed above in respect of the original grounds; (x) The board having inquired into the matter shall make a report to the Commission. If the Commission considers that the report should be amplified in any respect or that further inquiry is desirable, it may refer any matter back to the board for further inquiry or report. The Commission shall not itself hear witnesses; (xi) If upon considering the report of the board together with the evidence and all material documents relating to the case, the Commission is of the opinion that the officer should be dismissed, such action shall immediately be taken; (xii) If the Commission does not approve the officer’s dismissal and does not consider that any penalty should be imposed, the officer shall be reinstated forthwith and be entitled to the full amount of salary denied him if he was interdicted or suspended; (xiv) If upon considering the report of the board the Commission is of the opinion that the officer does not deserve to be dismissed but that the proceedings disclosed grounds for requiring him to be terminated or retired, the Commission shall, without further proceedings, direct accordingly. 03303 Where a Commissioner, a commission or a Tribunal of Inquiry or an Administrative Panel of inquiry set up by the Government make recommendations of a disciplinary nature in regard to any officer, the Commission shall not act on such recommendations. Unless it is satisfied that the officer was given a reasonable opportunity to the allegations made against him at the Tribunal or Panel. Upon being so satisfied, the Commission shall consider the recommendations of the Commissioner, commission Tribunal or Panel and take such disciplinary action against the officer, as shall deem appropriate. 03304 (a)It shall be duty of every officer to report any case misconduct that comes to his notice to an officer superior to the office involved. (b) when and officer’s misconduct is brought to the notice of his superior officer, it shall be duty of that superior officer to report it to the Commissioner immediately. If he considers it necessary that the officer should be interdicted, such recommendations shall be made in report. (c) On receiving the report, the Commissioner shall direct that action to be taken by the Permanent Secretary in accordance with Rule 03304 as appropriate and shall, if necessary, direct that the officer interdicted. (d)At the appropriate point in the investigation, the officer may suspended in accordance with Rule 03405 03305 If it is represented to the Commission that an officer has been guilty of misconduct and the commission does not consider the alleged misconduct serious enough to warrant proceedings under Rule 03306 with view to dismissal, it may cause an investigation to be made into the matter such manner as it considers proper and the officer shall be entitled to be the whole case made against him, and shall have adequate opportunity making his defence. If as a result the Commission decides that the allegation proved, it may inflict any other punishment upon the officer, such as reduce in rank, withholding or deferment of increment or otherwise. 03306 Unless otherwise provided for in these Rules, disciplinary action may be taken against an officer by the State Civil Service Commission accordance with this Rule. The procedure for the discipline of the claimant is as stated above, the claimant must be issued a query, the defendants have presented Exhibit D2 dated 17th December 2012. 17th December, 2012 Our Ref: OB//LGA/P/1556/Vol. 1/62 Ovat, Prince Sampson …………………………………………… QUERY: ABSENTEEISM FROM DUTY WITHOUT PERMISSION The council has observed that you have formed the habit of absenting yourself from duty without permission or leave approval. This is indicated from the face that we do not see you physically on your duty post, especially in the months of October, November, and December 2012. Recall that prior to this time, the Head of Local Government Administration (HOLGA) had invited you and warned you as a mother to change your attitude to work, emphasizing that it was no longer business as usual. Your action is a serious misconduct in violation of the Cross River State Public Service Rules of 2004, section 4, subsection 03401 – 03402. Based on the above, you are requested to explain in writing, within 28hours on the receipt of this letter why sever disciplinary action, which includes summary dismissal, should not be instituted against you on account of your brazen misconduct. Your reply, if any should be in triplicate, addressed to the Chairman, Local Government Service Commission, Calabar, through the Head of Local Government Administration, Obubra Local Govt. Council Obubra. Sign Okoma, Esther Dan HOLGA For: Chairman The claimant maintain that this exhibit was never issued to him arguing proof and citing NLEWEDIM Vs. UDUMA [1995] 6 NWLR 309 at p394 para B. There is nothing on exhibit D2 to indicate it had ever been issued to the claimant. This court has held that a lack of evidence of acknowledgment on a document or notice, by way of endorsement, receipt or stamp is indication that the said document or notice was not presented/ delivered to the address or person intended or any person at all. See cases of unreported SUIT NO: NICN/CA/CA/104/2013 AKPAN LAWRENCE IDORENYIN Vs. SKYE BANK PLC delivered on the 18th February 2016 and unreported SUIT NO: NICN/CA/14/2014 ENIANG NDEM Vs MR. NDOMA AKPET & 3 Ors delivered on the 24th February 2016. Also in AGBAJE Vs. FASHOLA [2008] 6 NWLR (Pt. 1082) Where is was held that were there is an allegation that a document was sent to a person and that person denies receipt of such a document proof of receipt by that person can be established by (a) dispatch book indicating the receipt, or (b) evidence of dispatch by registered post or evidence of witnesses, credible enough that the person was served with the document, following NLEWEDIM Vs. UDUMA Supra. I find that exhibit D4 appears undelivered and as such cannot qualify as a query in the ilk of the requirement of Rule 03302. Furthermore (b) and (c) make provision as to what should happen where the officer does not reply to a query the Superior officer either give a letter of advice, where the officer has cleared himself (b) or if not exculpated, the rules requires that the 03304 are resorted to. Sub (i) of 03302 requires that the staff be notified in writing on the grounds for which he is to be disciplining and goes on to set out the condition the query letter, 03304 Rule E Rule requires every officer to report an erring staff to a superior officer to that staff who shall immediately report the staff to the Commissioner, the Commissioner is charged with directing that action to be taken by the Permanent Secretary in line with 03306and give direction to interdict if necessary or suspend under 03305. The defendants have presented Exhibit D3 29th April, 2013 Our Ref: OB/LGA/S/85/T. 1/Vol. III/7 The Chairman Local Government Service Commission Calabar ATTENTION: Commissioner vi PERPETUAL ABSENTEES FROM DUTY AND TRUANCY I wish to refer to the above subject matter and inform you that information gathered from our Attendance books and analysis shows that the under listed staff are perpetual absentees and truant staff from duty, in spite of repeated verbal warnings from Management. Their names are therefore forwarded for your information and further necessary action, please. Thank you. Okoma Esther Dan Head of Local Govt. Admin For: Chairman Whether this letter comes within the requirement of a report of a case of misconduct. The rule requires the Superior officer to make recommendation in the said report, if necessary, but does Exhibit qualify as a report for the purposes of this rule. D3 is a letter from the DW forwarding the names of 16 staff who “from their attendant books and analysis are perpetual absentees. The letter Exhibit D3 contains three minutes. The first to Commissioner IV “Please handle at your Comm, probably committee level and bring up recommendations to the Comm, Probably Commissioner at the next business meeting. Endorsed 5th June. The second minute to HOLGA (OBU) Head of Local Government Admin “Please forward the queries and replies from the sixteen officers to us for further action you have 7 days to handle “endorsed by Comm IV on 24th June 2013, and the third minute is to the D(D) “please see overleaf and bring up our report accordingly endorsed on the 12th July 2013. The Exhibit also contains another signature and a date as well as some notations as to the number to be warned, suspended, MBE and terminated. Over leaf is a list of 16 names with the claimant at No. 3. The rules require the officer reporting an erring staff to raise a report, the first mention of report on D3 is the minute to D(D) asking that their report be brought up, a report with the input of the Commissioner and Holga who had considered the queries and replies. The exhibit D3, although reports the claimant and 15 others to the Chairman Local Government it would be a long stretch of the word for any reasonable man to consider this 5 lined document a report for purposes of this rule. The rule envisages a situation where the staff respond or not to respond but there is not mention in the report D3 as to whether the claimant responded or not. I find that the exhibit D3 cannot approximate to a report on a staff who’s conduct is considered un satisfactory. 03306 Unless otherwise provided for in these Rules, disciplinary action may be taken against an officer by this State Civil Service Commission in accordance with the Rule. provides that the Commissioner can only deviate from the rules in disciplinary measure with express proved in the rules. The defendants have not shown the court where the Exhibit C4 had provided for the procedure they adopted. Rule 03303 Where a Commissioner, a commission or a Tribunal of inquiry or an Administrative Panel of Inquiry set up by the Government makes recommendations of a disciplinary nature in regard to any officer, the Commission shall not act on such recommendations, unless it is satisfied that the officer was given a reasonable opportunity to the allegations made against him at the Tribunal or Panel. Upon being so satisfied, the Commission shall consider the recommendations of the Commissioner, commission, guilty of misconduct and the Commission does not consider the alleged misconduct serious enough to warrant proceedings under Rule 03306 with a view to dismissal, it may cause an investigation to be made into the matter in such manner as it considers proper and the officer shall be entitled to know the whole case made against him, and shall have adequate opportunity of making his defence. If as a result the Commission decides that the allegation is proved, it may inflict any other punishment upon the officer, such as reduction in rank, withholding or deferment of increment or otherwise. This rule requires the commissioner, or commission or tribunal or Administrative Panel, not to act on the recommendation unless the staff had opportunity to respond to the allegation and if *satisfied the panel shall take the necessary disciplinary action. The defendant have tendered Exhibit D4 a letter of appeal for reinstatement, but by no extension can this exhibit be considered the claimants reaction to the allegation before the panel. In fact there is no evidence that this exhibit was ever presented to the panel for their consideration, the defendant have argued that the claimant had admitted the allegation and argue citing CONFIDENCE INSURANCE LTD. TRUSTEE OF OSCE which would lead the court to suprmise that D dispenses with the need to follow the rules but the defendants failed to show the court which rule empowers the defendants to upon admission of a staff to dispense with the laid down regulation and summarily terminate the staff. The issues with D4 and the denial of the claimant not withstanding this exhibit 4 from its contents was clearly a response the letter of termination so it cannot be present as the basis for the termination. In addition the claimant presented Exhibits C20 and C21 as a query he received in 2012 and his reply respectively. Now if the defendants were to found their action on these processes the rules of the C4 would still not have been complied with as03302 requires the reporting officer to 1, inform the claimant that his explanation was acceptable and no further action will be taken, 2 issue a formal letter of advice to the claimant that must be acknowledged by him, and no such letter has been presented to this court acknowledged or otherwise or 3. Forward a report to the claimants superior officer based on the Exhibit C2 and C21, on which the superior officer would either interdict or make recommendation, no such is before this court, or direct that the Commissioner interdicts or suspends, and nothing like this was done or if done it has not been brought to the court. Another surmising element of this case is Exhibit C12, the claimant letter of promotion dated 1st April 2013. The rule is that an employer who upon the knowledge of an infraction or failing by an employee chooses to condone same cannot thereafter complain. See EKUNDA V. UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN [200] 12 NWLR (PT. 681) 220 CA, ACB PLC V. NBISIKE [1995] 8 NWLR (PT. 416) 725 CA, NIGERIAN ARMY V. BRIG. GEN. MAUDE AMINU KANO [2010] 1 MJSC (PT. I) 151 and LAWRENCE IDEMUDIA OBORKHALE V. LASU [2013] 30 NLLR (PT. 85) 1 NIC. Having promoted the claimant after the infraction of Exhibit C20 and D2 has the defendant no be said to have condone the infraction. Does an organization [remote an officer who has been absent for 4 months in the year prior to the promotion? Applying the forgoing there is nothing before the court to show that the defendants complied with the provisions of C4, there was no evidence of any report, or evidence that the query was not served on the claimant nor was any recommendation by the claimants superior tendered in court., neither is there any evidence that he was ever asked to make representation on his “ perpetual absenteeism”, nor even given notice of any interval within which he was to make a representation, there was also no minute of the said panel showing they considered the claimants matter either with or without exhibit D4.I find that the provisions of Section 03301-03306 have not been strictly complied with. Furthermore I find that there is no evidence before the court that the Commissioner t or the Commission itself under took the appropriate proceeding or any proceedings in line with these rules. These provision also provides the principle of fair hearing and equity;-that when disciplinary proceedings are to be instituted the reporting officer must commence proceedings in line with the rules. A careful reading of the foregoing rules. Which I find contained the requirement of natural justice fairness and equity, indicate that it is not untoward that a defendant may terminate an employee before his due retirement age, in repose to the issue raised by the defendants but such termination must be in line with the laid down rules BAMGBOYE V. UNIVERSITY OF ILORIN (1999) 10 NWLR (PT. 622) 290 REFERRED TO.] (P. 145, PARAS. A-B) to justify any termination of employment to a court. In the instant case, the action taken by the defendants did not comply this these rules, there is no evidence that claimant was at any time made aware of the case against him or that any procedure has be initiated against him, as the claimant rightly observed the defendants failed to tender any document showing claimant was ever invited to the panel, no evidence was adduced that he was ever informed of being investigated, charged or presented with any misconduct. The claimant case is that his employment enjoins a presumption of statutory flavour in that his employment can only be brought to an end for proven misconduct or other specified reason. The reason adduced by the defendants for retiring the claimant in C19, is that the claimant’s absence from duty for 5 months. Yet now where in the defendants exhibit is there any document of the 5 months which the claimant was absent. The class of Public servant are a special breed who can only be relieved of their office by proven acts of misconduct and or strict compliance of the rules governing their appointment. The case of OKOCHA V. CSC, EDO STATE [2004] 3 NWLR (Pt. 861) 582 is explicit when it states that public servants are invested with a legal status and they cannot be properly or legally removed until the said Rules are strictly complied with. Also the Court of Appeal in ZAINAB TOLANI Vs. KWARA STATE JUDICIAL SERVICE COMMISSION (2009) LPELR-8375(CA) inter-alia that to remove a public officer in flagrant contravention of the rules governing him, whether under contract or under provisions of statute or regulations made there under is to act capriciously and to destabilize the security of tenure of public servant, frustrate his hopes and aspirations and thereby the government and the well being of society is tardy and affected. "Per DENTON-WEST, J.C.A.(Pp. 38-39, paras. F-D). The claimant tendered C15 endorsed by his superior officer that he resumed work in his new posting but the defendant brought no evidence in rebuttal, the claimant stated that the had not been paid his salary and tendered Exhibit C19 and yet again the defendants did not raised any evidence in support of their position that the claimant had been collection salaries up till he as termination. I had raised the subject of condonatation earlier. I find that the claimants removal was not in line with the Exhibit C4 it was neither proper not legal I so find. I resolve this issue in favour of the claimant. The 2nd issue Whether in the circumstance the claimant can be reinstated. Having found that the defendants failed to comply with the provisions of the Cross River State Public Service Rules 2004. In that the procedure adopted by the defendants culminating the in issuing the claimant with Exhibit C17 was flagrant disregard to the provisions of Rules 03301-03306 of the Cross River state Civil Service Regulations 2006, I so find and hold. It is pertinent at this point to note that although the defendants argued that the claimants employment was not terminated on 12 August 2013 as per Exhibit C17 No other date was supplied by the defendant see para 15 Statement of defence, and not he date on C17, but the defendant failed to tender this letter of termination to enable the court determine. All this therefore, means that the termination of the claimant is wrong, unlawful and hence null and void. By E. P. IDERIMA V. RIVERS STATE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION [2005] 7 SC (Pt. III) 135 employment with statutory backing must be terminated in the way and manner prescribed by that statute and any other manner of termination inconsistent with the relevant statute is null and void and of no effect. See also UNION BANK OF NIGERIA LTD V. CHUKWUELO CHARLES OGBOH [1995] 2 NWLR (PT. 380) 647 AND MR. IDOWU AYOOLA VS. GOVERNOR OF OYO STATE& 3 OORS NICN/IB/36/2012(UNREPORTED) DELIVERED ON 19TH JUNE 2013 See also this Court’s decisions in FRANCIS OLUYEMI OLAMIJU, ESQ. V. LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICE COMMISSION, EKITI STATE & ANOR UNREPORTED SUIT NO. NICN/LA/157/2011 the judgment of which was delivered on NOVEMBER 26, 2012 AND MR. A. A. OWOLABI V. LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICE COMMISSION, EKITI STATE & ANOR UNREPORTED SUIT NO. NICN/LA/160/2011 the judgment of which was delivered on November 26, 2012. Having declared the termination t wrong, unlawful, null and void, the law is that it is deemed not to have occurred in the first place. See E. P. IDERIMA V. RIVERS STATE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION (supra), where it was held that once the dismissal of a civil servant is declared null and void, the effect of such a pronouncement is that the civil servant was always and still is a civil servant. The instant case is one with a statutory flavor and so the claimant can only be retired in accordance with the Law. This the defendants did not do. The appropriate remedy, therefore, is that the claimant must be reinstated with full benefits and without any loss of salary, position or seniority. I resolve this issue for the claimants With regard to issue 3;- Whether the claimant is entitled to the #50,000,000.00 (fifty million Naira) general damages claimed. The law is well established that upon re-instatement which goes alongside the restoring the claimant to his position he was including all unpaid salaries, but to further pay compensation of damages is considered double payment see the case of to KABELMETAL NIG. LTD V. ATIVE [2002] 10 NWLR (PT. 775) 250 CA, which held that a person who is wrongfully dismissed or whose employment is wrongfully terminated cannot get both damages and reinstatement at one and the same time; it must be one or the other. CCB (NIG.) LTD V. OKONKWO [2001] 15 NWLR (PT. 735) 114 CA also held that the Court will not make an order of reinstatement after awarding damages to an employee for his unlawful dismissal as this would amount to double compensation. See further ONALAJA V. AFRICAN PETROLEUM LTD [1991] 7 NWLR (PT. 206) 691 CA, which held that an employee cannot claim for reinstatement after collecting damages awarded by the court for unlawful dismissal; for to do so will amount to double compensation which the Court frowns at. I find that the claimant is not entitled to N5 million Naira as damages or any damages a all considering the courts reinstating him. I resolve this issue for the defendant against the claimant For avoidance of doubt the claimants case succeeds but only thus far. 1. It is hereby declared that the termination of Appointment letter issued to the claimant on 15/11/2013 by the 1st defendant is wrongful, null and void and of no effect whatsoever in that the relevant disciplinary provisions of the operational Cross River State Public Service Rules, 2004 were not complied with. 2. It is hereby decelerated that the purported termination of the claimant’s appointment as staff of the Unified Local Government Service of Cross River State of Nigeria is unlawful, illegal, unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect whatsoever same having been done contrary to the rules of natural justice, in gross breach of the claimant’s right to fair hearing and in flagrant violation of the relevant provisions of the operational Cross River State Public Service Rules, 2004. 3. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the defendants shall reinstate the claimant to his office of employment as staff of the Unified Local Government Service of Cross River State of Nigeria. 4. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 1st defendant to shall pay the claimant all his outstanding monthly salaries, allowances and benefits/entitlements as staff of the Unified Local Government Service of Cross River State of Nigeria from the month of May, 2013 to the date of judgment. 5. Cost of this suit is N50, 000.00 payable to the claimant within 60 days thereafter 10% per anum interest will attract until liquidated. This is the judgement of the court and it is hereby entered, ……………………………………… Hon. Justice E. N. Agbakoba Presiding judge Calabar Division