Download PDF
REPRESENTATION JAMES IBE for the claimant JUDE OTAKPOR for the defendant JUDGEMENT The Claimant instituted this action via a Complaint with the accompanying frontloaded documents filed on 5th September, 2013 against the defendants for the following reliefs: 1. A DECLARATION that the claimant’s appointment was wrongly terminated. Having not complied with Sections 22 and 23 of the Cross River University of Technology Law, Cap. C19, Laws of Cross River State, 2004 and Sections 4.10.1 and 4.10.2 of the Cross River University of Technology, Calabar Staff Handbook and Condition of Service for Senior Staff. 2. A DECLARATION that all the allegations leveled against the claimant are false as there were no material evidence laid before the Investigation Panel to substantiate same. 3. A DECLARATION that the proceedings of the Investigation Panel were unlawful and unconstitutional as the claimant was denied an ample time and facility to defend himself. 4. AN ORDER directing the defendant to reinstate the claimant and pay all the emoluments due him before and after the purported termination of his appointment. 5. AN ORDER mandating the defendant to promote the claimant to whatever level he would have attained but for the wrongful termination of his appointment. 6. Four Hundred Thousand Naira (#400,000.00) only being cost of filing this suit. 7. Two Million Naira (#2,000,000.00) only as general damages for the hardship, ignominy and psychological trauma the defendant subjected the claimant The case of the claimant is that until the termination of his appointment via a letter dated 28th June, 2013, claimant was a senior lecturer and Head of the Department of Mathematics /Statistics of the defendant and he pleaded that he conscientiously discharged all his official duties as a lecturer. Claimant further pleaded that prior to the termination of his appointment, the Vice Chancellor of the defendant set up a panel of inquiry which was mandated to investigate allegations of corrupt practices against him; which was contrary to Sections 22 & 23 of the Cross River State University of Technology Law Cap. C19 Laws of Cross River State, 2004 and Sections 4.10.1 and 4.10.2 of the Cross River University of Technology, Calabar: Staff Handbook and Condition of Service for Senior Staff. The Claimant stated that upon appearing before the said Panel, he protested against the competence of the Panel to inquire into the allegations against him and that he also made a written protest in June, 2013. Furthermore, that following the unfair manner in which the Panel conducted its inquiry, he wrote to the Pro-chancellor and Chairman of the Governing Council praying them to intervene on his behalf. Surprisingly, days after claimant wrote his last letter to addressed to the Pro-Chancellor and Chairman of the Governing Council, he received a letter under the hand of the Registrar of the defendant institution dated June 28, 2013 terminating his appointment. The Claimant pleaded that the allegations against him, which form the basis of the defendant’s letter terminating his appointment, are trumped up, unfounded, speculative and malicious. The defendant in reaction filed an AMENDED STATEMENT OF DEFENCE which was dated 23rd January, 2014 and filed on 11th February, 2014. The case of the Defendant is that the dismissal date of the claimant was 29/6/2013 whereas on the letter terminating the claimant’s appointment bore 28/6/2013. Hence, the defendant withdrew the letter of 28/6/2013 replacing it with the one dated 29/6/2013. The defendant pleaded that the claimant was issued a Query Letter dated 12th November, 2012, containing the allegation against him wherein he was asked to explain within 48 hours why severe disciplinary action should not be taken against him. That it was not until 14th June, 2013 that the claimant was invited by the Disciplinary Committee. Furthermore, that the claimant was invited to face the Panel because of allegations of internal extortion, sexual harassment made against him by students and refusal to forward a letter written by Prof. G. A. Olayi through him to the Vice Chancellor. The Defendant stated that the claimant was given ample opportunity to represent his case up to the governing council disciplinary committee on 24/6/2013 and 5/7/2013 and that the claimant, on 10/7/2013 wrote to the governing council’s chairman, Dr. Peter Ogban pleading for a review of his termination. The claimant in response filed a REPLY TO DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT OF DEFENCE which was dated 5th December, 2013 and filed on 6th December, 2013. The Claimant pleaded the defendant’s paragraphs 3,4,,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15 and 16 of the Statement of Defence were after-thoughts, coated with half-truths and are denied. The Claimant further stated that he was not given any opportunity to cross-examine his accusers. He urged the Court to dismiss the defendant’s defence for lacking in merit and substance. At the trial which commenced on the 24th November 2014 the claimant testified as CW adopted his written statement on oath of 5th September 2013 which was marked Exhibit C1 and proceeded to tender twelve (12) other exhibits. S/N TENDER BY NICN/CA/137/2013 DOCUMENT’S DATED DATE TENDER MARK 1. Claimant Counsel Witness on oath 24/11/2014 CW 2. Statement on oath “ C1 3. Led investigation panel 20/6/2013 “ C2 4. Request for intervention 27/6/2013 “ C3 5. An appeal for an intervention 29/6/2013 “ C4 6. Termination of appointment 28/6/2013 “ C5 7. Re: termination of appointment 10/7/2013 “ C6 8. Re: termination of appointment 18/7/2013 “ C7 9. Commendation of Mr. M. Udo 25/11/2014 24/11/2014 C8 10. Official receipt 19/8/2013 “ C9 11. CRUTECH staff Hand book 17/02/2015 C10 12. Query letter 12/11/2012 29/4/2015 C11 13. Appointment to seven invest 9/6/2011 C12-C121 14. An appeal to intervene 8/8/2012 C13- C131 Under cross examination the claimant testified that he, had himself, served on the institution disciplinary committee in the past and that he had appeared before the Elder Mathias Okon led investigative Committee twice. He further testified that he appeared once before the committee led by Chief Wilfred Ina. He further testified that he was aware of the petition written by some students but that he had never sighted himself. The defendants called one witness their Legal Officer in their Legal unit Barrister Gift Asien, who testified as DW adopted her written statement on oath of 11th February 2014 which was marked Exhibit D1, she proceeded to tender 7 other exhibits. 1. Defendant counsel Witness on oath 8/10/15 8/10/2015 DW 2. Statement on oath 11/11/2014 8/10/2015 D1 3. Termination of appointment 29/7/13 27/10/15 D2 4. An appeal to intervene 8/8/12 “ D2 5. Report of the council 24/7/13 “ D3 6. Query 12/11/12 “ D4 7. Invitation letter 24/6/13 “ D5 8. Letter of abuse of office 24/7/13 “ D6 9. Letter of appointment to service 9/6/11 “ D7 10. Letter of appointment to service 22/10/12 “ D8 Under cross examination DW further testified that the claimant she was a member of the defendants Disciplinary Committee by virtue of her office and that the Governing Council were empowered to appoint and nominate non-members to serve on their committee. At the close of trial on the 8th December 2015 the parties were directed to file their final written addresses in line with the provisions of the rules of this court. The CLAIMANT’S FINAL ADDRESS was dated and filed on 10th February, 2016. Wherein the claimant raised the following two (2) ISSUES for determination;- 1. Whether having regards to the facts and circumstances of this case vis-à-vis the evidence adduced, the employment of the claimant was lawfully terminated. 2. Whether the claimant is entitled to reinstatement, arrears of salaries and allowances and other damages should the Court find that his employment was indeed wrongfully terminated. ON ISSUE 1 Whether having regards to the facts and circumstances of this case vis-à-vis the evidence adduced, the employment of the claimant was lawfully terminated. Learned claimant’s Counsel James Igbor Esq. contended that the purported investigation/trial of the claimant was not carried out by “The Council” being the body authorized to investigate and discipline the claimant. This is even as the claimant was neither afforded the required 72 hours to enter a defence nor the opportunity to contradict his accusers. JUDICIAL SERVICE COMMISSION OF CROSS RIVER STATE & ANOR. v. YOUNG (2013) LPELR-20592 (SC), per Peter-Odili, JSC; SEC. 36 (1) of the CONSTITUTION; ADENIRAN v. NEPA (2002) 14 NWLR (PT. 786) 330; ATANO v. A.G. BENDEL STATE ((1988) 2 NWLR (PT. 75) 132; ALSTHOM v. SARAKI (2005) 3 M.J.S.C. 125; SALU v. EGEIBON (1994) 6 NWLR (PT. 348) 23. The Learned Counsel to the claimant submitted that it is in the Court’s record that the claimant contrary to the law was denied the opportunity to controvert/contradict his accusers for the elusive reason that they were protecting their witnesses. He urged the Court to apply Sec. 167 (d) of the Evidence Act, 2011. More so, as it is the defendant’s duty to prove that the termination of the claimant’s employment was lawful. UNION BANK OF NIGERIA PLC v. HARUNA AYUBA MUSA (2012) LPELR (CA), per Ogunbiyi, JCA (P. 24, PARAS. A-E) Arguing that the 1st and 2nd reasons adduced for the termination of the claimant’s employment were not substantiated as they are heavy criminal indictments that needed the examination of a Court of competent jurisdiction after an investigation by the police. UNION BANK OF NIGERIA PLC v. HARUNA AYUBA MUSA (supra). Learned Claimant’s Counsel submitted that the 3rd and last reason given by the defendant to wit: 3. Sabotage against the University by your refusal to paste students’ results as directed by the Senate. Your willful disobedience of the lawful directive of the University Senate caused the students of Mathematics/Statistics Department to demonstrate, could not also be substantiated by the production of a copy of the University/Senate Circular as it is the practice in the defendant and other institutions. That the defendant also withheld this piece of information. EGWU v. EGWU (2007) 1 NWLR (PT. 1014) 71 @ 92, PARAS. A-B, per Rhodes-Vivour, JCA (as he then was) ON ISSUE 2 Whether the claimant is entitled to reinstatement, arrears of salaries and allowances and other damages should the Court find that his employment was indeed wrongfully terminated. Claimant’s Counsel relied on the authorities of OLANIYAN & ORS. v. UNILAG & ANOR. (1985) LPELR (2565) (SC); OLANIYAN v. UNIVERSITY OF LAGOS (1985) NWLR (PT. 9) 599, per C.A. OPUTA, JSC; THE GOVERNOR OF KWARA STATE & ANOR. v. ALH. ISSA OJIBARA & ORS. (2006) LPELR-3178 (SC), per Oguntade, JSC for the definition of reinstatement. And submitted that the claimant’s appointment was without legal justification, terminated by exhibit C5 which was replaced by exhibit D2 and that the claimant ceased to earn his salary and other benefits. He maintained that within this period, the claimant had passed through excruciating economic hardship and his health has not been the same and those dependent on him are in a pitiable condition. To the claimant, justice will be served if claimant is not only restored but granted all his arrears of salary, allowances/emoluments due him since the over two years he was out of pay. ‘EX’-CAPT CHARLES C. EKEAGWU v. THE NIGERIAN ARMY & ANOR. (2010) LPELR-1076 (SC), per Onnoghen, JSC. The DEFENDANT’S FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESS was filed on 22nd February, 2016. Wherein the defendants raised the under-listed three (3) ISSUES as the issues for determination in this suit. 1. Whether or not the Panel of investigation set up by the defendant to investigate the allegations proffered against the claimant wasn’t properly constituted and whether the claimant wasn’t accorded fair hearing or an ample time to defend himself? 2. Whether or not the claimant was given ample opportunity to present his case before his dismissal? 3. Whether or not it would be proper for the claimant to continue as a lecturer in the University considering the nature of allegations against him? ON ISSUE 1 Whether or not the Panel of investigation set up by the defendant to investigate the allegations proffered against the claimant wasn’t properly constituted and whether the claimant wasn’t accorded fair hearing or an ample time to defend himself? Learned counsel to the Defendants Jude Otakpo Esq. submitted that the defendant being a public institution established by law No. Cap. C19 Laws of Cross River State, 2004 is regulated by the law and staff handbook on condition of service for senior staff and that steps to be taken to discipline an academic/administrative staff or professional is as provided by Sec. 22 (1). Furthermore, that the claimant cannot be heard to be complaining that the panel that investigated his alleged misconduct was not properly constituted as it was headed by Matthias Okon, a senior staff of the defendant and that the composition of same is strictly on the discretion of the Vice Chancellor. ON ISSUE 2 Whether or not the claimant was given ample opportunity to present his case before his dismissal? Defence Counsel submitted that a contract of employment is said to have statutory flavour where it is governed by provision of a statute, regulations. POWER HOLDING CO. v. OFFOW (2012) 12 MJSC (PH); OLANIYAN v. UNIVERSITY OF LAGOS (1985) 2 NWLR (W.9) 509. Furthermore, that there was no breach of regulations to render the termination null and void. Sec. 4 (41) 1 and that the procedures as provided were duly followed and observed. ON ISSUE 3 Whether or not it would be proper for the claimant to continue as a lecturer in the University considering the nature of allegations against him? Learned Defence Counsel submitted that the term “misconduct” and gross misconduct was defined in CADBURY (NIG.) PLC v. ONI as a dereliction of duty, unlawful or improper behaviour; serious misconduct denotes serious dereliction of duty, unlawful or improper behaviour (P.P 267-268, PARAS. H-A). Again that misconduct was defined in STOCCO v. MAJA (1968) NMLR as a blameworthy act or omission such as a breach of the duties of fidelity. Defence Counsel Otakpo submitted that in the case of misconduct as claimant was indicted of, the defendant has the right to terminate or dismiss a worker summarily and the question of “Notice” or “Damages” can also not arise. Rather, that the only important condition is that in the process, the employer must comply with the rules of natural justice. ADEDEJI v. POLICE SERVICE COMMISSION (1967) 1 ALL NLR 67; KATAGUN & ORS. v. M.E.K. ROBERTS (1967) 1 ALL NLR 127; HEAD OF THE FEDERAL MILITARY GOVERNMENT v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION & ANOR. (1974) ALL NLR 269. He further submitted that the allegations proffered against the claimant are so grievous in nature “misconduct” as to continue to allow him remain in the defendant’s service as he would be lowering the standard of the University. INOELLER v. MONIER CONSTRUCTION CO. (NIGERIA) LTD. (1961) 2 ALL NLR 167. Learned Counsel for the defendant further submitted that the concept of fair hearing postulates a hearing in which the authority is fairly exercised, that is consistent with the fundamental principles of justice embraced within the conception of due process of law. Thus, it implies that both sides be given an opportunity to present their respective cases and that each side is entitled to know that case is being made out against it and given an opportunity to reply thereto. CHUKWUMA v. FRN (2011) 5 (PT. 11) MJSC. On the 28th January 2015 the parties adopted their final written addresses and adumbrated their respective positions. As the claimants were first in time to file their final address they with leave of grant proceeded before the defendants and were granted the right of reply on point of law. 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 and their written submission are herewith incorporated in this judgement and specific mention would be made to them where the need arises. The issues as presented by the parties are;- 1) Whether having regards to the facts and circumstances of this case vis-à-vis the evidence adduced, the employment of the claimant was lawfully terminated. 2) Whether the claimant is entitled to reinstatement, arrears of salaries and allowances and other damages should the Court find that his employment was indeed wrongfully terminated. 3) Whether or not the Panel of investigation set up by the defendant to investigate the allegations proffered against the claimant wasn’t properly constituted and whether the claimant wasn’t accorded fair hearing or an ample time to defend himself? 4) Whether or not the claimant was given ample opportunity to present his case before his dismissal? 5) Whether or not it would be proper for the claimant to continue as a lecturer in the University considering the nature of allegations against him? The claimant’s issues (the first two) reproach the action of the defendants in terminating him and seek an order as to his due entitlement whilst the defendant’s Issues (the last three) seek to justify the defendant’s procedure taken in terminating the claimant as well as obtain the court’s validation of their action. The issue to my mind is simply whether the claimant is entitled to the relief he sought, and in addressing this issue all the questions raised above will be considered accordingly. By law in order to determine the claimant’s entitlement to reliefs in the circumstance, it is necessary to determine the nature of the claimant’s appointment that is the relationship between the parties. In the case of CHUKWUDINMA v. ACCESS BANK PLC (2015) 52 NLLR (PT. 176) 513 @ 519 NIC This court held that in determining the rights and duties of parties to an employment contract, the Court will consider the terms of contract of service between an employer and an employee. These terms of agreement are binding on both parties. FMC IDO-EKITI v. OLAJIDE (2011) 11 (PT. 1258) 256 referred to.] Furthermore it is the position of the law “that an employment is said to have statutory flavour if the employment is directly governed or regulated by statute or a section(s) of a statute delegates power to an authority or body to make regulations or conditions of service as the case may be”, UJAM V. IMT [2007] 2 NWLR (Pt. 1019) 470 at 492 B – C. Or where a set of prescribed “Rules govern the service” see Uwa JCA in FEDERAL MEDICAL CENTRE IDO EKITI & ANOR Vs. ISAAC OLUKAYIDE OLAJIDE [2011] LPELR 4150 CA para C In SULIEMAN ADAMU Vs. MOLAMMMAD SANI TAKORI & ORS [2009] LPELR 3593 CA Jega JCA held that it is clear that the sole determining factor in determining a public servant is the mode of appointment referring to DADA Vs. ADEYEYE [2006] 6 NWLR (Pt. 920) 1 at p 19-20. In determining whether the respondent’s appointment is statutorily flavoured or not …..the courts have held that recourse should be had to the contends of the letter of appointment FEDERAL MEDICAL CENTRE IDO EKITI & ORS. Vs. OMIDIORA KOLAWOLE O. [2011] LPELR 4149 CA page 15 para B. The claimant in presenting his case tendered neither his letter of appointment nor his letter of confirmation nor any other document relation to his employment, the claimant pleaded in averment 1 of Exhibit C1 that he, the claimant;- “..was a full time lecturer and the Acting Head of Department of Mathematic/ Statistics Department of the Defendants Institute until my appointment was terminated”. And in paragraph 1 the claimant’s Statement of Fact stated that he; “The claimant was a public Servant under the service of the Cross River State Government. His appointment was until the termination of his appointment as lecturer in Cross River State University of Technology Calabar and therefore within the jurisdiction of this Honourable court” While the question of the claimant’s case falling within this court’s jurisdiction is not in dispute being a complaint arising from the termination of his appointment and considering that Section 254C (1) of the 1999 CFRN confers exclusive jurisdiction to this court in respect of Labour , employment (a) and the payment entitlement (k). But the nature of the employment is the first thing the court is required to determine in order to enable to court properly situate the claimants case within the law and thereby posit the applicable law and practice and procedure as well as determine the due entitlements if any as well as consider the conduct of the defendant in the light of the relevant law. Now in the Supreme Court in the case of LONGE Vs. FBN LTS [2010] LPELR 1793 SC held that “….there are three categories of employment (a) Purely Master and Servant relationship (b) Servants who hold their office at the pleasure of the employer (c) Employment with statutory flavour….” The fact that the claimant’s employer is a creation of statute does not, without more mean that the claimant’s appointment is statutory. The claimant must by fact prove statutory appointment. And having stated above that in order the determine whether the claimants employment is statutory or not this court is required to see the Letter of appointment which would indicate the nature of the employment created but the claimants have not furnished this nor any other document such as salary slip, gazette of the appointment, promotion letter so as to enable the court make a determination, In fact the law is that an employee who complains of wrongful termination of his employment must place before the Court the terms of the contract of employment and then prove how the terms were breached by the employer. See KATTO V. CBN [1999] 6 NWLR (PT. 607) 390 SC. And in LADIPO Vs. CHEVRON (NIG.) LTD [2005] 1 NWLR (PT. 907) 277 CA held that what document contains the terms of employment or service is a question of fact; and where more than a single document provide for the terms, such documents must be construed jointly in order to have the correct and total account of what the terms of the contract are The Supreme Court in EKEAGWU Vs. THE NIGERIAN ARMY [2010] LPELR-1076(SC); [2010] 16 NWLR 419 per His Lordship Onnoghen, JSC reminded us that in an action for wrongful termination/dismissal/retirement only two primary issues call for determination. These are: whether the termination/dismissal/retirement of the plaintiff is wrongful; and the measure of damages recoverable where the termination/dismissal/retirement is found to be wrongful. Even at this, the rule is that he who asserts must prove; and in employment law, the onus is on the claimant who asserts that his termination is wrongful to show how wrongful it actually is. And to do this, the claimant must place before the Court the terms of the contract of employment and then prove in what manner the said terms were breached; it is not for the defendant employer to prove any of this. See AKINFE V. UBA PLC [2007] 10 NWLR (PT. 1041) 185 CA and UTC NIGERIA LTD V. PETERS [2009] LPELR-8426(CA). In the case of GEORGE v. FIRST BANK OF NIGERIA PLC (2014) 41 NLLR (PT. 126) 264 NIC @ 271. This court held that “he who asserts must prove. It is the claimant who is asserting the existence of the contract of employment, that has the burden to prove same and not the defendant. See the case of U.B.A. PLC v. ORANUBA (2014) 2 NWLR (PT. 1390) 1 @ 5 C.A. where it was held that in an action for wrongful dismissal from employment, the burden is always on the claimant to prove the terms and conditions of his contract of employment and in what manner the said terms were breached by the employer. [ANGEL SPINNING & DYEING LTD. v. AJAH (2003) 13 NWLR (PT. 685) referred to.] (P. 21, PARA. C) Furthermore “the effect of failure to produce the contract of employment would be detrimental to the party praying for reliefs on it before the court. Employee rights can only be determined under the terms and condition of employment” See NIG. GAS. CO. LTD. Vs. DUDUSOLA 18NWLR (Pt. 957) 292 The legal position is that “a servant who complains that his employment has been wrongfully brought to an end must found his claim on the contract of service and show in what manner the wrong was done. He must plead and prove the contract of service which is the bedrock of his case. It is not the duty of the employer as Defendant to prove that the termination was not wrongful”. OKUMU OIL PALM CO. LTD VS. ISERBIENRHIEN (2001) 6 NWLR PT. 710 PG 660. IDONIBOYE-OBU VS NNPC (2003) 2 NWLR PT. 805 PG 589.In the case of OKOEBOR VS. POLICE COUNCIL [2003] 5 SCNJ 52 It was held that “When an employee complains that his employment has been unlawfully terminated, or that he was lawfully dismissed, he has the burden not only to place before the Court the terms and conditions of the employment but the manner in which the said terms or conditions were breached by the employer” Now the reliefs the claimants is seeking to wit a pronouncement on the legality of the termination, and the propriety of the conduct of the defendant and the procedure they adopted all require that this court determines whether the claimant’s appointment is statutory or not. Bearing in mind that in NDLEA v. ZAKARI (2014) 45 NLLR (PT. 146) 600 NIC @ 606, this court held that “an employee cannot seek for refuge or protection of a statute regulating his contract of employment where there is no valid contract of service governed by a letter of employment, with terms and conditions therein. One cannot put something on nothing and expect to stay there, it will surely collapse…. I am aware of the pronouncement of this court in DURUGBOR v. ZENITH BANK PLC (2014) 40 NLLR (PT. 122) 225. Letters of appointment generally in this nation are very short, often one or two-page documents which by their nature do not and cannot contain all the conditions of service. The terms and conditions of employment set out in a company’s handbook; form the basis of the contract of employment between the company and its employees. SPECOMILLS TEXTILES, IKEJA v. NATIONAL UNION OF TEXTILES, GARMENT & TAILORING WORKERS OF NIGERIA (DIGEST OF THE NATONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT (1978 – 2006 – DJNIC) 334 @ 335, RATIO 1, referred to.] The case went on to state that “the effect of the absence of letter of employment of a claimant in an action for wrongful termination/dismissal will depend on the nature of evidence adduced before the court. Failure of a claimant to tender his letter of appointment will not be fatal to his case if he is able to show by evidence that his/her clams are based on the Employer’s Handbook and not the Letter of Employment… The claimant has not presented the court any evidence of the nature of his employment and the tendering of exhibit C10 cannot cure this defect in this case as Exhibit C10 provides in Article 2.3.1 that, The following are the categories of appointment which may be made by the University: (i) Permanent Appointment (ii) Principal Officers (iii) Contract appointment (iv) Temporary appointment (v) Visiting appointment (vi) Adjunct appointment (vii) Part time appointment (viii) Secondment (ix) Sabbatical Article 2.5.0 on Tenured Appointment goes on to state in 2.5.1. that “A tenured appointment shall be on full time basis and shall be subject to confirmation after two years.” And the next article goes on to provide that after confirmation a tenure appointment shall continue until the mandatory retirement age is attained… From the foregoing it is not in dispute that the claimant worked for the defendants but the claimant has not put before the court sufficient material evidence to enable the court determine his status and then to further evaluate the evidence and circumstances of this case against the prescribed procedure (if any) for the termination of such a determined status. . At this stage the court is faced with the proper order to make in the circumstances. The claimant having failed to put before the court the necessary material to prove his case should the court dismiss the claimants case, strike it out this suit or non-suit the claimant. Having listened to the claimants counsel and Counsel for the defendant I find that the interest of justice is that the case of the claimant be non-suited. That the proper order to be made in this case is an order of non-suit. By ANYADUBA Vs NIGERIA REKNOWN TRADING COMPANY LTD (1992) LPELR 505 SC. Before a court can conclude the suit of non-suit the court is required to hear from the parties. OTAKPO We submit that the proper order be made is that this suit be dismissed. The claimant having failed to show evidence of entitlement. GBOR We apply that the case be non-suited as the claimant presumed that the letter of termination was indication of the employment status. COURT I have heard parties, both parties and have duly considered their submission. The court finds itself unable to proceed due to in sufficient evidence and as the claimant employment is not doubt with the nature and status of the claimant’s employment require proof pivotal for the reliefs he seeks. In the circumstance, I find that the proper order to be made is one of non-suit of the claimant CA/59/2014 NSE OBONG OKON IKPANG Vs. GOVERNMENT OF AKWA IBOM STATE delivered 24/6/15. The claimant matter is hereby non suited. This is the judgement of the court and hereby entered accordingly. ………………………………………….. Hon. Justice E. N. Agbakoba Presiding JudgeCalabar Division