Download PDF
<p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">REPRESENTATION</span></u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">I. A. Osimiri, with H. N. Umah, E. K. Igboanugo and Miss J. C. Onyenedu, for the claimant.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">Mrs A. O. Rufai, Senior State Counsel, Federal Ministry of Justice, Mrs Prisca Anane and Chimaobi Onuigbo, for the 1st and 3rd defendants.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">No legal representation for the 2nd defendant.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" align="center" style="text-align:center"><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">JUDGMENT</span></u><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></u></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">1. This is a transferred suit form the Federal High Court. The suit was filed at the Federal High Court on 20th May 2010. By the order of this Court made on 8th May 2013, parties were asked to file and serve fresh processes in accordance with Rules of this Court. This the claimant did on 20th June 2013. By the order of this Court granted on 24th February 2016, the claimant was allowed to amend his statement of facts and file additional documents. By the amended statement of facts, the claimant is praying for the following reliefs:</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:19.65pt;text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph; text-indent:-19.65pt;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="PT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:PT">(1)<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="PT" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:PT">A </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">declaration that the suspension/continued suspension of the claimant indefinitely from the Nigeria Police Force pursuant to the “police wireless message” dated 16/04/2003 is an infringement on the claimant’s right to fair hearing as enshrined in section 36 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the rules of natural justice in that the claimant was not heard as to the reason why the suspension which had been lifted against him was annulled subsequently after he had undergone orderly room trial and found not guilty.</span><span lang="PT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:PT"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:19.65pt;text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph; text-indent:-19.65pt;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="PT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:PT">(2)<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="PT" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:PT">A </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">declaration that the suspension/continued suspension of the claimant indefinitely from the Nigeria Police Force pursuant to the “police wireless message” dated 16/04/2003 is contrary to the provisions of Regulations 371, 380 and 396 of the Police Act Cap 19 LFN 2004 and therefore unconstitutional, void and of no effect whatsoever.</span><span lang="PT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:PT"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:19.65pt;text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph; text-indent:-19.65pt;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">(3)<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">An order setting aside the suspension/continued suspension of the claimant from the Force based on “police wireless message” dated 16/04/2003 as same is null and void and of no effect.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:19.65pt;text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph; text-indent:-19.65pt;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="PT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:PT">(4)<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="PT" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:PT">A </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">mandatory order directing the defendants jointly and severally to reinstate and reabsorb the claimant into the Nigeria Police Force and pay him all his entitlements including his salaries, allowances, emoluments and every other benefit including, but not limited to, promotion accruable to the claimant from the time he was suspended to such a time as he shall be duly reinstated and reabsorbed into the Force.</span><span lang="PT" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:PT"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:19.65pt;text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph; text-indent:-19.65pt;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="PT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:PT">(5)<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="PT" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:PT">A </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">perpetual order of injunction restraining the 1st and 2nd defendants either by themselves, agents, privies or anybody howsoever from dismissing or continuing to suspend the claimant except in accordance with the law.</span><span lang="PT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:PT"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">2. The defendants did not file any defense process. Effectively, therefore, this suit is undefended. The claimant testified on his own behalf as CW and was cross-examined by counsel for the 1st and 3rd defendants. Thereafter, the claimant filed his final written address, which is dated and filed on 25th October 2016. The defendants did not file any written address.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" align="center" style="text-align:center"><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">THE CASE OF THE CLAIMANT</span></u><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></u></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">3. The case of the claimant is that he is an officer of the Nigeria Police Force (NPF) of the rank of Sergeant with Force No. 107889 residing at Flat 3C Block S, Okota Police Barracks, Isolo, Lagos and was at all times material to this suit attached to the Police Pensions Office at Ikeja, Lagos. That sometime in October 1980, the claimant applied for recruitment, and sat for entrance examination, into the NPF and was successful in the entrance examination and was accordingly sent a letter of recruitment into the Force dated 24th October 1980 with Ref. No. AH.3260/AS/RCS/T officially requiring him (claimant) to report to commence training at the NPF Training School, Enugu. The letter of recruitment into the Force dated 24th October 1980 was tendered in evidence by the claimant admitted and marked as Exhibit C19. That he was enlisted into the NPF formally on 1st February 1981 but commenced training on 10th February 1981 and was promoted to the rank of Sergeant on 1st September 1991. That upon his enlistment into the NPF, he was issued with a Police identity card and on 3rd October 1997 while he was on his duty post at the Nigeria Police Pensions Office at Ikeja, he was arrested with 3 others by policemen from Adeniji Adele on a case of conspiracy and stealing of the sum of N394,371.32k (Three Hundred and Ninety-F</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR">our </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">Thousand, Three Hundred and S</span><span lang="DA" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:DA">eventy</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">-One N</span><span lang="PT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:PT">aira, </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">Thirty-Two Kobo) belonging to the Police Pensions Office and his Police identity card was seized from him by the Police and same has remained with the Police to date.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">4. The claimant went on that he and the three (3) others namely, Samuel Nwabueze, Michael Ugbaja and Matthew Ebojie were all charged before the Chief Magistrate Grade 1 sitting at Court No. 1 Yaba in Charge No. A/302/97 and whilst the matter against claimant and the others was pending in court, the claimant was suspended from the Police Force vide a letter of suspension dated 30th October 1998 with Ref. No. CR.300/LSX/D5/VOL.8/366. The letter of suspension dated 30/10/1998 was tendered in evidence by the claimant admitted and marked as Exhibit C1. That at no time was he (claimant) given orderly room trial or in any way offered the opportunity of fair hearing by the Police Force before his suspension from the Force. That the case against him and the three others in Charge No. A/302/97 was struck out on 17th January 2000 for want of diligent prosecution. The certified true copy (CTC) of the record of proceedings in respect of the charge against the claimant was tendered in evidence at the trial, admitted and marked as Exhibit C2. That after the case against the claimant was struck out, the claimant wrote to the Commissioner of Police, Force Provost Marshal, Force Headquarters Annex Obalende, Lagos vide a letter dated 20th November 2000 appealing against his suspension from the Force. The claimant’s letter of appeal dated 20th November 2000 was tendered in evidence, admitted and marked as Exhibit C3. In response to the claimant’s letter of appeal dated 20th November 2000, the 1st defendant wrote the claimant vide a letter dated 27th November 2000 with Reference No. AHL7370/PC.107889/FPM/3 informing the claimant that his appeal was receiving attention and that the outcome of the case would be communicated to him. The 1st d</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:FR">efendant</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">’s letter to the claimant dated 27th November 2000 was tendered in evidence, admitted and marked as Exhibit C4.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">5. The claimant continued that he went through orderly room trial between the 9th of September and 18th of December 2002 and same was concluded and he was found not guilty of any misconduct. Consequently, he was reinstated into the Police Force vide a signal with Ref.</span><span lang="PT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:PT"> No. PC/</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">107889/FPM/SOD/VOL.l/l dated 1st April 2003. The signal with Ref No. PC/107889/FPM/SOD/VOL.l/l dated 1st April 2003 recalling the claimant back from suspension to duty was tendered in evidence, admitted and marked as Exhibit C5. That he accordingly reported to duty and duly filled his Police Officers’ Personal Emolument Forms for the payment of his outstanding benefits. That whilst he was performing his lawful duties, he received a fresh signal from the Force Provost Marshal, Lagos with Ref. </span><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:IT">No.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> CH/6350/FPM/VOL.T/165 titled “Discipline Rank and File” and dated 16/4/2003 directing that the previous signal reinstating the claimant into the Police Force be ignored and be made to the status quo; thus maintaining the claimant’s suspension from the Police. The said signal with Ref. No.CH/6350/FPM/VOL.T/165 dated 16/4/2003 was tendered in evidence, admitted and marked as Exhibit C6. That he wrote letters of appeal to 1st and 2nd defendants entreating them to reinstate him into the Police Force to avail. The claimant tendered letters of appeal to 1st and 2nd defendants dated 28/4/03, 13/9/04, 10/3/05, 14/9/07, 22/9/08 and 30/6/09 at the trial of this suit, which were respectively admitted and marked as Exhibits C7, C8, C9, C10, C11 and C12. That the 2nd defendant wrote to the claimant vide a letter dated 27th October 2004 with Ref. No. PSC/POL/C/1213/1/15 acknowledging receipt of his (claimant’s) letter dated 13th September 2004 and solicited the claimant’s continued patience and promised to communicate to the claimant further developments in respect of his letter in due course. The 2nd d</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR">efendant</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">’s said letter dated 27th October 2004 was tendered in evidence, admitted and marked as Exhibit C13.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">6. To the claimant, when it became obvious that the 1st and 2nd defendants were not prepared to respond to his (claimant’s) various letters requesting for his reinstatement into the NPF, the claimant consequently instructed his s</span><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:IT">olicitors</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">, Iheoma Osimiri & Co to write the 1st and 2nd respondents entreating them to reinstate the claimant into the Force. The letters written are dated 25/8/2009 and the reminders are dated 29/01/2010; each requesting the 1st and 2nd defendants to reinstate the claimant but to no avail. The said letters dated 25/8/2009 and reminders dated 29/01/2010 were tendered evidence, admitted and marked as Exhibits C14 and C15 respectively. The claimant also relied on letters from the Police Pensions Office dated 16/01/2001 and 8/4/2003 and marked as Exhibits C16 and C17 respectively. According to the claimant, he has made every effort humanly possible to see that his suspension from the Force is vacated without necessarily litigating on the matter but every effort has proved futile as the 1st and 2nd defendants have failed, refused and/or neglected to reinstate him into the Police Force despite repeated demands; hence this suit.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" align="center" style="text-align:center"><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE CLAIMANT</span></u><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></u></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">7. The claimant framed two issues for the determination of the Court, namely:</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:19.65pt;text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph; text-indent:-19.65pt;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo3"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">(i)<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">Whether the suspension/continued suspension of the claimant by the 1st and 2nd defendants from the Nigeria Police Force was unlawful, wrongful and, therefore, null and void in the circumstances of the case. In other words, was the claimant properly and legally suspended by the 1st and 2nd defendants from the Nigeria Police Force?</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:19.65pt;text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph; text-indent:-19.65pt;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo3"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">(ii)<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">If the claimant’s suspension/continued suspension by the 1st and 2nd defendants from their employment, the</span><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:IT"> Nigeria Police Force</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">, was unlawful and wrongful, what are the remedies available to the claimant? </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">8. Regarding issue (i), the claimant first considered the various classes of employer-employee relationship in the country; and in the processes considered </span><i><span lang="NL" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:NL">Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) & </span></i><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">anor. v. Mr. Emmanuel Omotunde Ojo & ors</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS""> [2005] 22 WRN 97 at 111, <i>Dr. Taiwo Oloruntoba-Oju & ors v. Professor Shuaib O. Abdul Raheem & ors</i> [2009] 2 WRN 1 at 29 and <i>Olaniyan v. University of Lagos</i> [2004] 15 WRN 44. The claimant then submitted that an employment is said to have a statutory flavor when the appointment has been protected by statute, and this is where statutory provisions govern the appointment and termination. That except in employment governed by statute wherein the procedure for employment and discipline of an employee are clearly spelt out, any other employment outside the statute is governed by the terms under which the parties agreed to be master and servant. That in the claimant’s case herein, being a Police Officer, his employment is governed by statute and any argument canvassed herein shall be in line with the law regulating the employment, discipline and dismissal of a police officer as a public servant. The claimant then reminded the Court that his case is that he was suspended and not dismissed from the Police Force.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">9. The claimant contained by looking at the meaning of suspension. The <i>Black’s Law Dictionary</i> (Eight Edition) defined “</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR">Suspension</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">” as the act of temporarily delaying, interrupting, or terminating something; the state of such delay, interruption, or termination; the temporary deprivation of a person’s powers or privileges, esp. of office or profession; and the temporary withdrawal from employment, as distinguished from permanent severance. And in <i>Bernard Ojeifo Longe v. First Bank of Nigeria Plc</i> [2010] 36 WRN 1 at 66, the Supreme court, per Olofunlola Oyelola Adekeye, JSC while deciding on the meaning/effects of suspension had this to say:</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">Suspension is usually a prelude to dismissal from an employment. It is a state of affairs which exists where there is a contract in force between the employer and the employee, but while there is neither work being done in pursuance of it nor remuneration being paid, suspension is neither a termination of the contract of employment nor a dismissal of the employee. It operates to suspend the contract rather than terminate the contractual obligations of the parties.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">Also referred to, is <i>Mr. Nicholas Friday Reuben & ors v. Arik Air Ltd</i> [2013] 34 NLLR 854 at 877, where <i>Longe v. First Bank of Nigeria Plc</i> (<i>supra</i>) was applied.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">10. The claimant the asked whether he was suspended in accordance with the law. He referred to </span><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:DE">Regulation 371 under Part xvi</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">, which is in respect of Discipline in the Police Act and Regulations Cap P19 LFN and provides for punishment for a junior officer who is found guilty of an offence against discipline. The said Regulation 371 provides that a junior officer who is guilty of an offence against discipline shall be liable to any of the following punishments, that is to say, d</span><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:IT">ismissal;</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> reduction in rank; withholding or deferment of increment; r</span><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:IT">eprimand;</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> fine not exceeding N10; confinement to barracks to any number of days not exceeding fourteen days; and fatigues or other duties or punishment drill not exceeding a total of ten separate hours. Here, that there is no provision for suspension and more so, suspension for a burdensome period of 18 years which runs from 1998 - 2016. Regulation 370 Part B provides that any inspector, non-commissioned officer or constable (hereinafter in this part called a junior officer) who, by reason of any act or omission is guilty of any of the offences set out in the First Schedule, or is guilty of any violation of the provisions of the code of conduct, shall be deemed to be guilty of an offence of discipline.That the punishment for the offence of discipline is as outlined in Regulation 370 above. That it is pertinent to note that in all the punishments that may be imposed on a junior officer like the claimant herein who is found guilty of the offence of discipline, there is no such punishment as suspension. Talk more of suspension for a period of 18 years. Such length of suspension, we submit is tantamount to constructive dismissal of the claimant from the Police Force.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">11. However, that the punishment of suspension is mentioned in Regulation 380 of the Police Act. Regulation 380 provides that whenever it comes to the knowledge of the competent authority from any source whatsoever that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that any junior officer has committed any offence against discipline, the competent authority may do one or more of the following, that is to say: suspend the alleged offender from duty pending determination of the matter; authorize or direct a charge to be made under these Regulations against the alleged offender; and if the offender has admitted any offence against discipline reported, punish the offender with any of the punishment set out in regulation 371 without making any formal charge against him. To the claimant, it is under the provisions of Regulation 380 herein that he was suspended from the Police Force and charged to court and which said charge was struck out since the 17th of January, 2000. That Regulation 381 of the Police Act and Regulations makes provision for summary investigation of any offence against discipline by a junior officer. Regulation 383(8) provides for a mandatory period of 3 months to complete any summary investigation of police officer charged with the offence of discipline. Sub-paragraph (9) of Regulation 383 states that a summary investigation not completed within the period prescribed in sub-paragraph (8) above shall be void and the police officer charged shall be deemed to be acquitted of the charge or charges made. </span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR">Regulation 396(1)</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> and (2) provides that a junior officer interdicted from duty shall not be entitled to receive more than half pay in respect of any period during which he is interdicted from duty. And if the proceedings taken against an interdicted junior officer do not result in conviction, he shall be entitled to the full amount of the pay which he would have received if he had not been interdicted from duty. But if the proceedings result in his dismissal from the Force, he shall not be entitled to any compensation for any deprivation of any pay incurred during the period of his interdiction.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">12. Given all of this, the claimant asked whether his suspension from the Police Force is proper; and answered in the negative reiterating the facts of the case highlighted earlier in this judgment. To the claimant, the point that the Court has to consider is this: between Exhibit C3 which is claimant’s letter of appeal dated 20/11/2000 and Exhibit C5 which is the signal with Ref No. PC/107889/FPM/SOD/VOL.l/1 dated 1/4/03 recalling the claimant back from suspension, what happened to warrant Exhibit C6 which is the signal with Ref. No.CH/6350/FPM/VOL.T/165 dated 16/4/2003 directing that the previous signal (Exhibit C5) reinstating the claimant into the Police Force be ignored and be made to the status quo? That this question is pertinent because the claimant had led evidence in paragraph 13 of his written statement on oath that he was not given orderly room trial before his suspension from the Force. In paragraph 14 of his written statement on oath that he wrote the Commissioner of Police through the Provost Marshall vide a letter dated 20/11/2000, Exhibit C3. And that the 1st defendant replied the claimant’s letter vide a letter dated 27/11/2000, Exhibit C4. The claimant stated in paragraph 17 of his written statement on oath that he underwent orderly room trial between the 9th of September 2002 and 18th of December 2002 and same was concluded and he was found not guilty of any misconduct and was consequently reinstated into the Police Force vide Exhibit C5. Then in paragraph 19 of his written statement on oath that while performing his lawful duties, he received a fresh signal from the Force Provost Marshal, Lagos with Ref. No.CH/6350/FPM/VOL.T/165 titled “Discipline Rank and File” and dated 16/4/2003, Exhibit C6, directing that the previous signal reinstating him into the Police Force be ignored and be made to the status quo. It is the claimant’s submission that the moment he underwent orderly room trial and was found not guilty and consequently reinstated into the Force vide Exhibit C5, any other correspondence like Exhibit C6 which reversed Exhibit C5 was done without giving the claimant any right of fair hearing as the 1st and 2nd defendants did not explain to the claimant the rationale behind Exhibit C6 and no reason was given for reversing the earlier directive that the claimant should be recalled back to work after the orderly room trial. That issuing a counter directive after the earlier directive recalling the claimant back to duty runs afoul of the known principles of fair hearing. Again, that the defendants did not lead any evidence to challenge the testimony of the claimant in this suit.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">13. The claimant went on that from the circumstances, he was suspended and in view of the provisions of the Police Act and Regulations, his suspension from the Police Force was unlawful and illegal. The claimant referred to <i>Mr. Ogheneovo Kingsley v. Daewoo Nigeria Ltd & anor</i> [2013] 33 NLLR (Pt. 97) 548 at 675 - 677, where the Enugu Division of the National Industrial Court per Hon. Justice A. Ibrahim held that suspension of an employee will amount to constructive dismissal when the suspension is irregularly done, there being no reason given to show that it was a step in disciplinary proceedings and the plaintiff was not given fair hearing. Also, in the case of <i>Mr. Patrick Temunah v. Owelle Global Services Ltd & ors</i> [2013] 34 NLLR (Pt. 98) 29 at 189, the Enugu Division of the National Industrial Court per Hon. Justice A. Ibrahim referred to the case of <i>Ilodibia v. NCC Ltd</i> [1997] 7 NWLR (Pt. 512) 174, where the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the trial court and the Court of Appeal that a suspension which was irregularly done without a reason given to show that it was a step in disciplinary proceedings, amounted to a constructive dismissal. In further contending that the suspension of the claimant by the 1st and 2nd defendants was irregular, unlawful and therefore ultra vires the d</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:FR">efendants, </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">the claimant </span><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:IT">refer</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">red the Court to <i>Mrs Dayo Buluro v. Nigerian Institute of Public Relations</i> [2013] 30 NLLR (Pt. 85) 121 at 132 where the National Industrial Court, Lagos Division held as follows:</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">The question is whether the prolonged suspension of the applicant/judgment creditor from the 1st of May, 2009 is justified. We believe it is not. An employee cannot be kept under suspension </span><i><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:IT">ad infinitum</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> without the employer commencing and concluding disciplinary proceedings within a reasonable time…It is not in the interest of justice to allow her to continue to be placed on suspension for any further period particularly after the respondent/judgment debtor has shown by its conduct and actions that the suspension is </span><i><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:IT">mala fide</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS""> and is only used as a means of punishment; and not for purposes of investigating or inquiring into her conduct with a view to coming up with its findings and decisions.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">That the Court consequently set aside the indefinite suspension in the above case.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">14. To the claimant, his case is worse than the case of <i>Mrs. Buluro</i> above. This is because the claimant was suspended from the d</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language: FR">efendant</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">’s employment vide a letter dated 1st May 2009 and the judgment of the Court was delivered on 14th April 2011, all within a period of about 2 years. Yet the Court frowned at the period of suspension. In the instant case, the claimant was first suspended on 30th October 1998 vide Exhibit C1 and on 27th October (6 years running) the 1st defendant was writing the claimant vide Exhibit C13 soliciting the claimant’s patience. This was after the claimant had written several letters of appeal to the 1st and 2nd defendants for his recall/reinstatement into the Force to no avail. That in <i>Babatunde Ogunsowo v. Dana Motors Ltd</i> [2013] 35 NLLR (Pt. 104) 229 at 277, this Court while determining the question as to whether the length of time, from 16th December 2009 to date (12/08/2013) when the judgment was delivered, that the suspension lasted is an extenuating factor in determining the nature of the rights of the claimant regarding the question of his suspension by the defendant, referring to the case of <i>Lasisi Gbadegesin v. Wema Bank Plc</i> Suit No. NIC/57/2008 the judgment of which was delivered on February, 23, 2012 (now reported in [2012] 28 NLLR (Pt. 80) 274) where the court held at page 11 as follows: “...we must state that an employee must not be kept under suspension indefinitely without initiating and concluding disciplinary proceedings against him as this puts him under undue hardship and makes it impossible for him to seek other employment”. That in <i>Babatunde Ogunsowo v. Dana Motors Ltd</i> (<i>supra</i>) at page 281, the Court held that the suspension of the claimant by the defendant for the length of time (which was above three and half years) amounted to a repudiation of the contract of employment and the claimant was thus entitled to be paid the backlog of his salary and allowances together with all other entitlements that go with repudiation of employment, less whatever indebtedness the claimant may owe to the d</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR">efendant.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">15. The claimant continued that, as earlier canvassed, he was not given any fair hearing in respect of the “police wireless message” dated 16/04/2003, Exhibit C6 in that the claimant was not heard as to the reason the suspension which had been lifted against him after he had undergone orderly room trial and recalled vide the “police wireless message” dated 1/04/2003, Exhibit C5. That in <i>Dr Taiwo Oloruntoba-Oju & o</i></span><i><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:IT">rs v. Processor Shuaib O. Abdul Raheem & </span></i><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">ors</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> (<i>supra</i>) the Supreme Court at 54 - 55 held that the nature of fair hearing to be observed in this context is as entrenched in section 36(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria namely, <i>a</i></span><i><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:IT">udi </span></i><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">alteram partem</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> (hear the other party) and <i>n</i></span><i><span lang="PT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:PT">emo judex in causa sua</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> (no one should be a judge in his own cause). That the </span><i><span lang="PT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language: PT">audi alteram partem</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> principle imposes a duty upon an employer to act fairly by giving the employee an opportunity to explain himself before taking any decision which affects the employee’s proprietary right, citing <i>University of Calabar v. Essien</i> [1996] 10 NWLR (Pt. 447) 225 at 262, <i>Olatubosun v. Nigerian Institute for Social and Economic Research</i> [1988] 3 NWLR (Pt. 80) 25 at 52 and <i>Akumechiel v. Benue Cement Co. Ltd</i> [1997] 1 NWLR (Pt. 454) 695 at 703. The claimant then urged the Court to hold that the claimant was not given fair hearing by the 1st and 2nd defendants before he was suspended from the Police Force. That the case of the 1st and 2nd defendants was further worsened by the fact that assuming, but without conceding, that the claimant was given fair hearing before his suspension, the period for which he has remained suspended makes the said suspension unjustifiable and, therefore, unlawful. That where an employer removes an employee for misconduct, his removal cannot be justified in the absence of an adequate opportunity being offered to him to explain, justify or else defend the alleged misconduct.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">16. On issue (ii) i.e. if the claimant’s suspension/continued suspension by the 1st and 2nd defendants from their employment was unlawful and wrongful, what remedies are available to him, the claimant asserted that it is quite necessary to be mindful of the fact that the claimant’s employment as a Police Officer has statutory flavor in that his employment, discipline and termination are all governed by the Police Act and Regulations Cap P19 LFN. That the traditional common law rule which has been adopted and applied in many decisions of the courts in Nigeria is that the courts will not grant specific performance in respect of breach of contract of service. Thus, as a general rule, specific performance or reinstatement is not ordinarily the remedy for breach of contract of service. That special circumstances will be required before such a declaration is made and its making will usually be in the discretion of the Court. Such special circumstances have been held to arise where the contract of employment has a legal or statutory flavor (like the claimant’s herein) thus putting it over and above the ordinary master and servant relationship. Equally so where a special legal status such as a tenure of public office is attached to the contract of employment as in this case, the Court can, and should order a recall of the claimant from the suspension and consequential reinstatement into the Police. That the situation would have been different if the claimant’s employment was that of ordinary master and servant, citing <i>Olaniyan v. University of Lagos</i> (<i>supra</i>). That where an employment protected by statute is terminated (and suspended) unlawfully, the remedy is to declare such termination or suspension null and void and to recall/reinstate the employee to his former position, citing <i>Iderima v. RSCSC</i> [2005] 16 NWLR (Pt. 951) 378 SC and <i>Imoloame v. WAEC</i> [1992] 3 NSCC 374 at 383. That in <i>University of Calabar v. Iyang</i> [1993] 5 NWLR (Pt. 291) 100, the appointment of a junior administrative staff (Store Assistant) was held to be of statutory flavor, hence the staff was ordered to be reinstated. That the courts have in extraordinary cases like that of the claimant herein ordered reinstatement, citing <i>Chukwu & anor v. </i></span><i><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR">Nigeran Telecommunications Ltd</span></i><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">[1996] 2 NWLR (Pt. 430) 290. Also, that this Court has ordered reinstatement of the unlawfully dismissed workers in <i>Hotel and Personal Services Senior Staff Association v. Owena Hotels Akure</i> [2005] NLLR 163 and <i>NNPC v. Petroleum and Natural Gas Senior Staff Association of Nigeria</i></span><span lang="NL" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:NL"> (Suit No. NIC/8/90). </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">Further referred is </span><i><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:IT">Bakare v. Lagos State Civil Service Commission</span></i><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">[1982] 8 NWLR (Pt. 262) 641.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">17. To the claimant, his suspension being not contemplated in the Police Act and Regulations guiding his employment and discipline, his suspension for such a period of 18 years is tantamount to constructive dismissal and as such all the legal principle applicable in cases of unlawful dismissal are applicable to the claimant. At this point, the claimant </span><span lang="SV" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:SV">stress</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">ed that the 1st and 3rd defendants having filed their statements of defence in this suit, led no evidence at all in prove of same. The 2nd defendant, on the other hand, did not file any defence neither did they appear throughout the proceedings in this case. That the evidence of the claimant in this case, therefore, remains unchallenged. On burden of proof in civil cases, the claimant referred to section 133(1) of the Evidence Act 2011. That in civil cases, the general rule is that the burden of proof rests upon the party, whether plaintiff or defendant, who substantially asserts the affirmative before evidence is gone into, citing <i>Tewogbode v. Akande</i> [1968]</span><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:DE"> NMLR 404 at 408</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> and </span><i><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:IT">Ejemruvwo Oyovbiare & </span></i><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">ors v. Ted Omamurhomu</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> [1999] 7 SC 21. The claimant went on that he has discharged the burden of proof on him. In any event, that the law is trite that unchallenged evidence ought to be accepted by the Court as such, referring to <i>Nathaniel Onwuka Ajero v. Bernard Ugoji</i> [1999] SC 58 at 71 and <i>Provost of Lagos State College of Education & 7 o</i></span><i><span lang="NL" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:NL">rs v</span></i><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">. Dr. Kolawole Edun & ors</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> [2004] 19 WRN 11 at 29. That the evidence of the claimant remains unchallenged,</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR"> urg</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">ing the Court to act upon same as proof of the claimant’</span><span lang="PT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:PT">s case.</span><span lang="PT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">That the wordings of the Police Act and Regulations are clear as to the method of disciplining a Police Officer who has committed any offence against discipline. By the combined effects of the provisions of Regulations 371, 380 and 396 of the Police Act and Regulations Cap P19 LFN, the suspension/continued suspension of the claimant by the 1st and 2nd defendants from the Police Force without pay from 30th October 1998 is unlawful, illegal and ultra vires the d</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language: FR">efendants.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> In c</span><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:IT">onclusion</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">, the c</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:FR">laimant urge</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">d the Court to enter judgment in his favour as per his Compliant and statement of facts with cost of this action accordingly.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" align="center" style="text-align:center"><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">COURT’S DECISION</span></u><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></u></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">18. The issue before the Court is the validity of the suspension meted out on the claimant by the defendants; and the remedy available to the claimant should the Court find the suspension to be wrongful or invalid. The suit is essentially undefended. I indicated earlier that only the 1st and 3rd defendants have made appearance in this matter; the 2nd defendant made none. Even in appearing, the 1st and 2nd defendants filed only a statement of defence, without the accompanying list of witness(es), witness deposition(s), list of documents and copies of the documents. Though the counsel for the 1st and 3rd defendants cross-examined CW, no written address was filed by any of the defendants. As it is, therefore, the defence rests its case on the claimants, subject of course to the claimant proving his case on the minimal evidence rule especially as he seeks for declaratory reliefs, amongst other reliefs.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">19. By the amended statement of facts and claimant’s deposition of 3rd February 2016, the claimant and three others were arrested on a case of conspiracy and stealing of the sum of N394,271.32. They were then charge to a Magistrate Court. While the matter was pending, the claimant was suspended from the Police Force. Exhibit C1 is the letter of suspension. The claimant was not given an orderly room trial before his suspension (see Exhibit C16). The case at the Magistrate Court was struck out for want of diligent prosecution. See Exhibit C2. The claimant then wrote to come back to work. See Exhibit C3. The claimant was written to that his appeal is receiving attention. See Exhibits C4 and C13. He subsequently went through the orderly room trial but was not found guilty. He was thus reinstated (see Exhibit C5), only to be later told that the signal reinstating him should be ignored and the claimant should return to the <i>status quo</i> i.e. his position of suspension (see Exhibit C6). He then wrote more letters of appeal (see Exhibits C7, C8, C9, C10, C11, C12), which were not heeded to by the defendants. His lawyer then subsequently wrote. See Exhibits C14 and C15. Till date, the claimant remained suspended. Is this suspension valid? This remains the question.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">20. In terms of relief (1), the argument of the claimant is that he was not given fair hearing before he was suspended indefinitely. Regulation 380 of the Police Act Cap P19 LFN provides that whenever it comes to the knowledge of the competent authority from any source whatsoever that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that any junior officer has committed any offense against discipline, the competent authority may <i>inter alia</i> suspend the alleged offender from duty pending determination of the matter. The claimant had argued that his </span><span lang="PT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:PT">suspension</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> was not contemplated in the Police Act and Regulations guiding his employment and discipline, and that because his suspension had lasted for a period of 18 years, it is tantamount to constructive dismissal and as such all the legal principles applicable in cases of unlawful dismissal are applicable to him. To start with I do not think that the claimant understands the concept of constructive dismissal. He must be using the concept here very loosely. In its strict meaning, it denotes those circumstances in which an employer by words or conduct gets or compels an employee to resign his appointment. Despite that it is the employee who resigned, the law holds the employer to have constructively dismissed the employee, hence the term constructive dismissal. In <i>Miss Ebere Ukoji v. Standard Alliance Life Assurance Co. Ltd</i> [2014] 47 NLLR (Pt. 154) 531 NIC and <i>Mr. Patrick Obiora Modilim v. United Bank for Africa Plc</i> unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/353/2012, the judgment of which was given on 19th June 2014, for instance, this Court held that to attempt to have the employee resign, rather than outright firing the employee means that the employer is trying to create a constructive discharge. This is not the case in the instant suit as the claimant did not resign his employment with the defendants. So, the talk of constructive dismissal has not yet arisen.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">21. In the second place, the argument of the claimant that his suspension is not contemplated in the Police Act is wrong if Regulation 380 just quoted is anything to go by. The claimant and three others on 3rd October 1997 were accused of conspiracy and stealing of the sum of N394,371.32k belonging to the Police Pensions Office. This is valid enough ground to suspend the claimant under Regulation 380. Lastly, the claimant argued that he was not given fair hearing before he was suspended; as such, his right to fair hearing under section 36 of the 1999 Constitution and the rules of natural justice were infringed. By A<i>yewa v.University of Jos</i> [2000] 6 NWLR (Pt. 659) 142, a master can suspend his servant when necessary and this cannot amount to a breach of the servant’s fundamental rights as it has no bearing with issues of fundamental right under the Constitution. The argument of the claimant in that regard accordingly goes to no issue. What all of this means is that relief (1), and relief (2) in terms of the suspension being contrary to Regulations 371 and 380, as couched are not grantable. I so hold.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">22. However, is a suspension since 30th October 1998 vide Exhibit C1 i.e. for over 18 years in itself fair and just especially as the claimant was not found guilty of any offence, was recalled but asked to continue in suspension afterwards? This Court has frowned on prolonged suspensions; and indeed struck against them. In <i>Mrs. Dayo Buluro v. Nigerian Institute of Public Relations</i> unreported Suit No. NIC/LA/23/2009, the judgment of which was delivered on 14th April 2011, this Court held thus:</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">…the claimant was suspended because disciplinary proceeding against her was pending. An employee should not be kept under suspension indefinitely without initiating and concluding disciplinary proceedings. The claimant has been on suspension for a total of 24 months, which is two years. The evidence by the defence witness is that the disciplinary committee did not sit because the claimant did not handover Institute property in her possession. This is not tenable for an employer cannot tie the holding of disciplinary proceedings to the handing over of its property by the employee more so when the employee is merely on suspension. The suspension of the claimant is a disciplinary matter and disciplinary proceedings must be commenced as soon as investigations are completed. The claimant’s contract of service is subsisting and unbroken until it is lawfully brought to an end by either party.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">This position was reinforced in <i>Mrs Dayo Buluro v. Nigerian Institute of Public Relations</i> [2013] 30 NLLR (Pt. 85) 121 at 132 when the claimant as judgment creditor filed for enforcement of the judgment earlier given in her favour. This Court then held as follows:</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">Consequently, the indefinite suspension of the applicant/judgement creditor conveyed to her in the letter dated May 1, 2009 and signed by the President & Chairman, Governing Council of the NIPR is hereby set aside as disciplinary proceedings did not commence and was not concluded within the 30 days stipulated in the judgement of this court. There shall be no further disciplinary action against her by the Council and Management of the NIPR. She is reinstated to her previous substantive position with effect from 1st May 2009 immediately and is to be paid the arrears of her full salary and allowances from that date within 14 days from today. She is also to enjoy all the benefits associated with that office and should be granted access to the premises of the NIPR and into her office without any let and hindrance by the Council and Management.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">23. In the instant case, the argument of the claimant is that he is even a statutory employee and so is entitled to be reinstated, hence the claim for reliefs (3), (4) and (5). The claimant relied on <i>University of Calabar v. Iyang</i> [1993] 5 NWLR (Pt. 291) 100, where according to him the appointment of a junior administrative staff (Store Assistant) was held to be of statutory flavour, hence the staff was ordered to be reinstated. A number of case law authorities have laid down the criteria for determining whether an employment is of a statutory flavour or not. By <i>Idoniboye-Obu v. NNPC</i> [2003] NWLR (Pt. 805) 589, conditions of service which will give statutory flavour to a contract of service cannot be a matter of inference. They must be conditions which are expressly set out by statute. That the rules and regulations, which are claimed by an employee to be part of the terms of his employment capable of giving it statutory flavour and be of protection to the employee, must:</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:19.65pt;text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph; text-indent:-19.65pt;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo4"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">a)<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">have statutory reinforcement or at any rate be regarded as mandatory;</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:19.65pt;text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph; text-indent:-19.65pt;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo4"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">b)<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">be directly applicable to the employee or persons of his cadre;</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:19.65pt;text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph; text-indent:-19.65pt;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo4"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">c)<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">be seen to be intended for the protection of that employment; and</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:19.65pt;text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph; text-indent:-19.65pt;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo4"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">d)<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">have been breached in the course of determining the employment before they can be relied on to challenge the validity of that determination.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">See also </span><i><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:IT">Ogieva v. Igbinedion</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> [2004] 14 NWLR (Pt. 894) 467 CA. </span><i><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:IT">Azenabor v. Bayero University, Kano</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> [2009] 17 NWLR (Pt. 1169) 96 CA additionally held that all the above factors must be in existence before they can be relied on to challenge the validity of the determination. See further <i>Ujam v. IMT</i> [2007] 2 NWLR (Pt. 1089) 470 CA. The more recent Supreme Court decision in <i>PHCN v. Offoelo</i> [2013] 16 WRN 28 is quite emphatic that for an employment to be said to have statutory flavour, there must be a nexus between its employee’s appointment with the statute creating the employer or corporation. See also this Court’s decision in <i>Mahmud Bayo Alabidun v. President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria & anor</i> unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/74/2014, the judgment of which was delivered on 30th January 2015.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">24. The question then is whether the employment of the claimant in the instant suit is one with statutory flavour. The Regulations of the Police Act, though subsidiary legislation, have the character and acquire their force from a statute, the Police Act itself. The regulations basically provide the conditions of service of Police Officers including the claimant. Part XVI of the Regulations under which Regulations 371, 380 and 396, relied upon by the claimant, come deal with Discipline of especially officers other than superior police officers. The claimant is one such officers and so is covered by the provisions of Part XVI of the Regulations. In this sense, the claimant is a statutory employee, meeting the requirements enunciated by the case law authorities already cited; and I so find and hold.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">25. The claimant was suspended and charged to a Magistrate Court. He was discharged. A mere discharge in law is favorable termination of criminal proceedings. The claimant was even subjected subsequently to an orderly room trial; and was not found culpable. He was recalled. He resumed his work but was subsequently asked to revert to <i>status quo</i> i.e. go back to being on suspension. This is unfair and unjust. Regulation 396(1) and (2)(a) provides that a junior officer interdicted (the claimant was charged to court) from duty shall not be entitled to receive more than half pay in respect of any period during which he is interdicted from duty; and if the proceedings taken against an interdicted junior officer do not result in a conviction, he shall be entitled to the full amount of the pay which he would have received if he had not been interdicted from duty. The case of the claimant meets all of this. He was charged to court and was not convicted. The claimant is accordingly entitled to the full amount of the pay which he would have received if he had not been suspended and interdicted from duty; I so find and hold. In this sense, the suspension/continued suspension of the claimant offends Regulation 396(2)(a) of the Police Act. I so hold.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">26. On the whole, and on the authority of <i>Mrs Dayo Buluro v. Nigerian Institute of Public Relations</i>, the indefinite suspension of the claimant is hereby set aside. The claimant is reinstated without any loss of benefit including the arrears of his salaries and all his other entitlements. Accordingly, the claimant’s case succeeds in the following terms:</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:19.65pt;text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph; text-indent:-19.65pt;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo5"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">1)<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">It is hereby declared that the suspension/continued suspension of the claimant indefinitely from the Nigeria Police Force pursuant to the </span><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:DE">“</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">police wireless message” dated 16/04/2003 is contrary to the provisions of Regulation 396(2)(a) of the Police Act Cap P</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR">19 LFN and</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">, therefore, void and of no effect whatsoever.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:19.65pt;text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph; text-indent:-19.65pt;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo5"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:DE">2)<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:DE">An order </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">is hereby granted setting aside the suspension/continued suspension of the claimant from the Nigeria Police Force based on </span><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:DE">“</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">police wireless message” dated 16/04/2003 as same is null and void and of no effect.</span><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:DE"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:19.65pt;text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph; text-indent:-19.65pt;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo5"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">3)<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">A mandatory order is hereby granted directing the defendants jointly and severally to reinstate and reabsorb the claimant forthwith into the Nigeria Police Force and pay him all his entitlements including his salaries, allowances, emoluments and every other benefit accruable to him from the time he was suspended.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">Judgment is entered accordingly. I make no order as to cost.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" align="center" style="text-align:center"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">……………………………………</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" align="center" style="text-align:center"><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:IT">Hon. Justice B. B. Kanyip, PhD</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>