Download PDF
This action was commenced on the 9th day of April 2014 by way complaint. By an amended Statement of Facts filed on the 1st day of July 2014 with leave of Court, the Claimant claimed against the Defendants jointly and severally as follows: 1. A DECLARATION that the appointment of the Claimant as Nursing Officer with the Hospitals Management Board, Owerri under the Ministry of Health, Imo State is valid and subsisting. 2. IN THE ALTERNATIVE, where the statutory appointment/employment is purportedly terminated or deemed terminated by the 2nd Defendant, a declaration that such termination or deemed termination is unlawful, null and void and of no effect whatsoever. 3. REINSTATEMENT OF THE CLAIMANT to her office/employment as a Nursing Officer employed in 1994 under the Imo State Hospitals management Board of the Ministry of Health, Imo State. 4. PAYMENT OF ALL ARREARS of the Claimant’s salaries, leave allowances and Promotions since August 1998 till 2014 totaling N15,197,600.27 (Fifteen million, One Hundred and Ninety-Seven Thousand and Six Hundred Naira, Twenty Seven Kobo), made up of N14,434,740.00 total salary and N762,859.37 of leave allowances as special damages and until judgment is given in this suit, and until the Defendants comply with the judgment of the Honourable Court in this suit, and payment of general damages to the Claimant in the sum of N25,000,000.00 (Twenty-Five Million Naira Only); plus an interest of 5% on the judgment sum until it is paid by the Defendants. 5. AN ORDER of injunction restraining the Defendants or any of them, their agents or privies from any further displacement of the Claimant from her office as Nursing Officer and/or denial of her salaries and/or allowances and/or promotions as an employee of the Imo State Ministry of Health working under the Hospitals Management Board. The Complaint was accompanied by the relevant originating processes. The Defendants on the 22nd day of September 2014, entered appearance vide a motion for extension of time. Upon the application of Counsel for the Claimant, by an Order of Court made on 26th November 2014, the court joined Imo State Hospital Management Board, Owerri as 4th Defendant in this suit. Attempts were made to settle out of court from November 2014 until 27th October 2016 when counsel for the Claimant informed the court that settlement had deadlocked, and the matter was fixed for hearing, by which time, the Defendants who had hitherto been represented by State Counsel, had not filed their Statement of Defence. Thereafter, Counsel stopped appearing for the Defence. Hearing commenced on 30th March 2017. The Claimant testified as CW1. After series of adjournments and hearing notices issued to the Defendants’ counsel, they were foreclosed from cross-examining the Claimant and the case was adjourned for defence. Hearing Notices were issued accordingly. Upon failure of the Defendants to file pleadings or call evidence, the court foreclosed them from defending the action. The court ordered parties to file their final written addresses. The Claimant’s final address was filed on 21st July 2017. This was duly served on the Defendants on the 25th day of July 2017 as shown in the proof of service contained in the case file. When the matter came up on the 27th day of September 2017 for adoption of addresses, the Defendants were still not represented. Counsel for the Claimant was therefore granted leave to adopt his Final Written Address, which he accordingly adopted. In the Claimant’s Final Written Address, counsel identified two issues for determination, to wit: 1. Whether the Claimant in this case has proved her case on the evidence of the lone witness that testified. 2. Whether the Claimant is entitled to her claims in this case and whether the court is bound to grant special damages specifically proved by the Claimant. In arguing Issue 1, the Claimant’s counsel submitted that civil cases are determined on preponderance of evidence. See the case of IBIYEYE vs. FOJULE (2006) 3 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 968) 640 @ 662 B-C. Claimant’s counsel pointed that the law is that a Claimant should prove his case through credible evidence and need not rely on the weakness of the Defendant's case even where the Defendant did not lead any evidence. To this effect, even the refusal of the Defendant to testify or prove his or their case does not lift the primary burden on the claimant to prove his case. See ATUNWA vs. LADENIKA (1998) 7 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 557) Pg. 221 @ 228·229 H-A. The primary question in this issue is whether the Claimant has proved her case as required by law, as he who asserts must prove. The Claimant has asserted through her claims/pleadings that she is a statutory employee of the Defendants as per Exh.'A' and that the defendants wrongfully put her out of her lawful employment since 1998 and that all her efforts to make the Defendants return her to her job have proved abortive, hence her resort to the law court. Similarly, counsel contended that by her Statement on Oath of 09/04/2014 and her additional Statement on Oath of 11/07/2014, the Claimant led copious evidence to prove her case. The Claimant also tendered Exhibits 'A', 'B', 'C', 'D', 'E' and 'F' in support of her case. It is counsel’s submission that in civil cases, as in the instant case, the onus of proving any particular facts is fixed by the pleadings but this burden does not remain static. It shifts from one side to the other. See GBAFE vs. GBAFE (1996) 6 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 455) Pg. 417 @ 432 D·F. The Claimant having led evidence in support of her pleadings to prove her case, the burden, by law, shifted to the Defendants to rebut the case of the Claimant. Despite the pleadings and the evidence led by the Claimant in proving her case, and despite that the Defendants were repeatedly put on notice, the Defendants did not consider it necessary to give any reply or answer to the Claimant's case; nor did they cross-examine the Claimant. According to counsel, the Defendants in law are deemed to have no defence to the Claimant's case, and accordingly, the case of the Claimant and the evidence led in proof thereof are therefore unchallenged. The legal implication of the Defendants' failure by refusal to put any defence or cross-examine the Claimant as CW1 is that the evidence of the Claimant is, and remains, unchallenged since the Defendants did not lead any evidence in rebuttal thereof. The court is therefore entitled to believe and act on the said evidence of the Claimant as CW1. Counsel the case of NACENN NIG. LTD. vs. BEWAC AUTOMATIVE PRODUCERS LTD (2001) 201 L.R.C.N. 28 @ 43 UZ (ratio 1), where the Supreme Court held that a Court ought to rely and accept as true, evidence that was neither challenged nor cross- examined by the other party. See also EBEINWE vs. THE STATE (2011) 201 L.R.C.N. 220 @ 231, where it was held that evidence that is neither challenged nor debunked remains good and credible evidence which should be relied upon by a trial judge, who would in turn ascribe probative value to it. The Court can rely on and found its decision on the evidence of the Claimant alone; more so where her evidence is not self-contradictory in nature. On this point counsel cited the case of KOPEK CONSTRUCTION LTD. vs. EKISOLA (2010) 183 L.R.C.N. 159 @ 195K (Ratio 6). On issue 2, Counsel submitted that it is trite law that once a Claimant succeeds in proving his case before the court, the court is bound to grant the Claimant's relief as required by law. To counsel, the Claimant has proved her case as per her evidence-in-chief before the court as adopted on 30/03/2017 with Exhibits 'A' 'B' 'C' 'D' 'E' and 'F' tendered and admitted. Counsel argued that the Claimant's evidence was not challenged in any way or manner, either by any statement of defence or by any cross-examination, and more so, the evidence of the Claimant was not and is not self-contradictory and as such it stands credible, reliable and probative. Counsel further argued that the Claimant is entitled to her claims in this case, having discharged the burden of proof placed on her by law. Counsel also contended that the reliefs claimed by the claimant in this case are pleaded under paragraph 15 of her Statement of Facts and the evidence in support thereof are contained in the Claimant's deposition on oath of 09/04/2014 and additional deposition on oath of 11/07/2014, both of which were adopted in evidence before the court on 30/03/2017. Counsel went on that the Claimant claimed a Declaration, Reinstatement, Payment of Arrears of Salaries and Leave Allowances and an Order of Injunction. On the issue of Claimant's reliefs for reinstatement and arrears of salaries, Claimant’s counsel argued that the law is very clear that an employee is entitled to a declaration and reinstatement where his statutory employment is wrongfully terminated. Counsel relied on the case of C.B.N. vs. IGWILO (2012) 1 N.I.L.R. 1 @ 21 C-D, (ratio3) where the Supreme Court held that: "Where an employee's service is protected by statute and his employment is wrongfully terminated, he would be entitled to reinstatement in his office and in addition, damages representing his salaries during the period of his purported dismissal" According to counsel, the arrears of salaries claimed by the Claimant in paragraphs 13 and 14 of her Statement of Facts and proved by her evidence on oath constitutes special damages as referred to in C.B.N. vs. IGWILO (Supra). In the instant case, the arrears of salaries and allowances of N15,197,600.27 pleaded and proved by the claimant was not challenged. Counsel cited the case of CAMEROON AIRLINES vs. OTUTUIZU (2011) 195 L.R.C.N.198 @ 231 Z (Ratio 11) where the Court held thus: "The position of the law is well settled that where a party testifies on a material point, in this case, the loss of $20,000, the appellant ought to cross-examine him or show that his testimony is untrue. Where, as in this case, neither was done, the court would readily conclude that the adverse party, in this case the appellant, does not dispute the fact." See also S.P.D.C. vs. TIEBO (2005) 127 L.R.C.N. 1274 @ 1301 (ratio 4). According to counsel, the Claimant in this case specifically averred and proved the special damages claimed by her against the Defendants, vide her statement of facts and her depositions on oath. The Claimant having proved her special damages, she is entitled to such damages. On the aspect of general damages claimed by the Claimant who has proved her case herein, counsel referred to the case of CAMEROON AIRLINES vs. OTUTUIZU (2011) 195 L.R.C.N. 198 @ 227 JJ (ratio 8) where it was held that Once breach of contract is established, damages follow. General damages are thus losses that follow naturally from the adversary and it is generally presumed by the law, as it need not be pleaded or proved. Counsel submitted that the award of general damages by law is left to the discretion of the court. On this point, counsel cited the case of U.B.N. PLC vs. CHIMAEZE (2014) All F.W.L.R (Pt. 734) 48 @ 72 F-G (ratio 6) where the Supreme Court held that “General damages need not to be specifically pleaded. It arises from inference of law and need not to be proved by evidence. It suffices once generally averred in the pleadings. They are presumed law to be the direct and probable consequences of the act of the defendant complained of. Unlike special damages, it is generally incapable of substantially exact calculation.” Counsel urged the Court to resolve Issue 2 in favour of the Claimant and hold that the court is bound to grant the Claimant’s special damages that have been proved without any challenge. Counsel further urged the court to grant the Claimant’s claim of general damages, considering the ordeal the Claimant has been subjected to by the Defendants all the while, and the defendants’ snub and blunt refusal to answer to the case of the claimant with impunity. According to counsel, the Claimant has proved her case before the court as required by law, and has made out a case that she is entitled to her claims. He urged the court to enter judgment for the Claimant and grant all her reliefs. COURT’s DECISION Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the Claimant in his final written address, I will now proceed to examine the case presented before the court by the Claimant. The Claimant’s case is that she was employed in 1994 by the Defendants as a Nursing Officer on HSS 08 Step 1. She was given an employment letter and her file number was 8789. She was posted to Divisional Hospital, Nkwerre, Imo State. She resumed work on 7th December 1994 and was performing her duties in the employment until 1996 when she was granted maternity leave by the Defendants. After delivery, the Claimant developed health complications and two of her children died in the period. The Claimant’s health condition deteriorated as a result and she was referred to the Nnamdi Azikiwe University Teaching Hospital where she was treated. The 1st Defendant was aware of this and also approved. While the Claimant was going through her travails, the 1st Defendant, on 1st August 1998, stopped paying the Claimant’s salaries, allowances and promotions. On resumption to her duty post upon full recovery, the Claimant was informed orally that her salaries and allowances have been stopped and she was advised to sort out her case with the 1st Defendant. The Claimant went to the 1st Defendant and the 4th Defendant several times to find out why her salary was stopped but her inquiries were frustrated. At a point, she was informed that her file could not be found. The Claimant also wrote several letters to the Defendant requesting to be reinstated to work but she did not receive any reply. Later, she was assured that the 1st Defendant was attending to her application but that too did not materialize. She has been displaced from her duties since August 1998 and has been denied her salaries, allowances and promotions. Her employment is still valid and subsisting since her employment has not been terminated. The Claimant went on to tabulate her salaries, allowances and promotions which she ought to earn from 1998. It was in view of these facts she sought the reliefs contained in the amended Statement of Facts. I have stated earlier that the Defendants did not defend the suit. The only pleading and evidence upon which this suit is to be determined is that of the Claimant. The failure of the Defendants to defend the suit does not remove the burden of proof placed on the Claimant. Since it is the Claimant who asserts and desires this court to give judgment in her favour, she is expected to prove her case satisfactorily. See Sections 131 and 132 Evidence Act 2011 (as amended). Furthermore, the reliefs sought by the Claimant include declaratory reliefs. It is trite that a party seeking a declaratory relief, must prove his or her entitlement to the declaration sought and must succeed on the strength of his or her case and not for the reason that the Defendant did not defend the claim. See FATOBA vs. OGUNDAHUNSI (2003) 11 WRN 56 at 84. Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that the evidence presented by the Claimant in proof of her case is not challenged by the Defendant, it is necessary to evaluate the evidence nonetheless and be satisfied that it sustains the claims sought by the Claimant. Thus, the issue which arises for determination in this suit is whether the Claimant has proved her case and entitled to the reliefs sought. The Claimant explained in her evidence that she was on maternity leave in 1996 but which became extended as a result of complications from child birth and other health conditions she suffered. While in that situation, two of her children died in succession while her health condition worsened. The Defendants were aware of her condition and approved of her treatment in the hospital. The Defendants however stopped payment of her salaries from 1st August 1998. When she resumed duty after her recovery, she was told that her salary has been stopped. She made efforts to have the Defendants rectify her case but was surprised to know in the process that her employment file was missing. Since then, her salaries and allowances have not been paid. The Claimant also told the court that she was unlawfully displaced and kept out of her office since August 1998 notwithstanding that her employment is valid and subsisting as it has not been terminated. These facts of the Claimant’s case do not show that the Claimant’s employment has been terminated. It only discloses non-payment of her salary and allowances. The fact that the Claimant’s salary was stopped does not translate to termination of the employment. The Claimant’s employment as a Nursing officer in the employment of the 4th Defendant is an employment in the Imo State Civil Service. It is an employment protected by Statute. Stoppage of salary, without more, cannot amount to termination of employment under the Civil Service Rules. Since the Defendants did not show otherwise, I find and hold that the Claimant’s employment has not been terminated. It is subsisting since August 1998. This finding presupposes that reliefs (b) and (c) of the amended statement facts are inappropriate in the circumstance of the Claimant’s case. The Claimant’s employment has not been terminated and she cannot seek to be reinstated to an employment that has not been terminated. In relief (d) of the amended statement of facts, the Claimant claims payment of her salaries and allowances from August 1998 and her promotions from August 1998 till 2014. The total amount claimed by the Claimant is the sum of N15,197,600.27. The Claimant arrived at this sum as per her computation in the table in paragraph 14 of her amended statement of facts. In the table, the Claimant set out the ranks she ought to have attained from 1998 to 2014, her salary per annum on the basis of the ranks for the said period and her leave allowances for the period. The Claimant’s averment in paragraph 14 indicates that she made the tabulation in line the Imo State Nursing Officers Promotions and Salary Progression Rules and Regulations. This document was not produced before the court. There is nothing to convince the court to agree with the Claimant that she ought to be promoted to the ranks and in the years she has indicated. Similarly, I am not also convinced about the corresponding salaries and allowances per annum the Claimant stated. The fact that the Defendant did not file a defence to dispute the averments in paragraph 14 of the amended statement of fact does not absolve the Claimant of the need to prove the claim. Since she relied on the Imo State Nursing Officers Promotions and Salary Progression Rules and Regulations as the basis for stating periods she ought to be promoted from 1998 to 2014 and salaries and allowances she ought to earn in the period, she ought to have produced it for the court’s examination. The Claimant’s failure to produce the said document before this court has the effect of putting a doubt on her assertions. The table in paragraph 13 of her amended statement of facts, in my view, is a mere speculation. The sum claimed by the Claimant as her salaries and allowances from 1998 based on her computation in the table in paragraph 14 of the amended statement of facts cannot be granted. However, since she has been in the employment all these years, she ought to be promoted as deserved and paid corresponding salaries and allowances. This relief is incidental to the finding of this court that she remains an employee. Although the court is constrained to refuse the sum she claimed as salary and allowance for the period, there is evidence that she has not been paid since August 1998. Section 19 of the NIC Act 2006 empowers the court to grant all such remedies which any of the parties may appear to be entitled to in respect of the claim before the Court so that all matters in dispute between the parties may be completely and finally determined. It is in exercise of my powers under the section that I will order the Defendants to effect the promotions of the Claimant from 1998, compute and pay to her all her due salaries and allowances from August 1998. The Claimant also sought to be paid the sum of N25,000,000.00 as general damages in relief (d) of the amended statement of facts. The Claimant has not put sufficient facts before this court for the grant of this claim. The Claimant also sought for an order of injunction restraining the Defendants from further displacement of the Claimant from her employment or denial of her salaries, allowances and promotions. This relief has the tendency of preventing the Defendants from subsequently taking any disciplinary or administrative action against the Claimant during the employment. Let me state that in employment contract, the relationship is governed by the terms on which the parties agree to be bound and the court does not interfere in employment contract unless the terms are violated. To restrain the Defendants, as sought by the Claimant, is to meddle in the parties’ employment contract. I cannot do that. In the result, I hold as follows: 1. Reliefs (b) and (c) cannot be granted for the reasons that they are not appropriate remedies for the Claimant. The claim for general damages and injunction are dismissed. 2. A declaration is hereby made to the effect that the appointment of the Claimant as a Nursing Officer in the employment of the defendants is valid and subsisting. 3. The Claimant’s claim for payment of the sum of N15,197,600.27 as arrears of salary and allowances is refused; but in its stead, the Defendants are hereby ordered to effect the appropriate promotions of the Claimant from 1998 to 2014 and to compute and pay to her all her due salaries and allowances from August 1998 to 2014. 4. The order made in 3 above must be complied with by the Defendants within 30 days from today. 5. Cost of N300,000.00 is awarded in favour of the Claimant. Judgment is entered accordingly. Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe Judge