Download PDF
The Claimant commenced this action by way of Complaint dated and filed on the 5th August 2015 wherein he claimed against the Defendants as follows: A declaration that the Claimant is still in the employment of the Defendants and is therefore entitled to receive his salaries and benefits accruable to that employment. An order compelling the Defendants to pay the Claimant his arrears of salaries and benefits from October 2010, till when he is reinstated. An order setting aside the verdict or Orderly Room Trial conducted by the Abia State Police Command on behalf of the Defendants wherein the Claimant was left redundant by the Defendants on grounds of unconstitutionality, illegality, ultra vires and a violation of his constitutional right of fair hearing. Along with the Complaint, the Claimant filed a Statement of Facts, Claimant’s written statement on oath, list of witnesses, list of documents and copies of documents to be relied upon at the trial. These were duly served on the Defendants who neither entered appearance nor filed any defence despite several adjournments and hearing notices issued to them. Hearing commenced on the 8th day of November 2016 when the Claimant testified for himself as CW1. Failure of the Defendants to appear after subsequent adjournments resulted in the Defendants being foreclosed from cross-examining the Claimant. Upon failure of the Defendants to appear, they were on the 3rd day of March 2017, foreclosed from defending the action, on which day, the court ordered parties to file their final written addresses. The Claimant’s final address was filed on the 3rd day of May 2017. Same was served on the Defendants on 8th day of May 2017. The Defendants did not file any Address, despite being served with the Claimant’s written Address. On the 7th day of July 2017, Counsel for the Claimant moved his motion to regularize the Claimant’s Final Written address having been filed out of time. Counsel then proceeded to adopt his Final Address. In the Claimant’s Final Written Address, Counsel raised a sole issue for determination as follows: Whether the Claimant is entitled to judgment in the absence of a Statement of Defence. Counsel submitted that the Claimant is entitled to judgment as per his Statement of Claim in default of defence in this case and that it is trite law that where pleading is unchallenged, the facts therein are deemed admitted. Counsel further submitted that since the Defendants failed to cross examine the CW1, his evidence is also deemed to be correct, true and uncontradicted. Counsel urged the Court to hold that the Claimant has proved his case as pleaded and award all the reliefs in his claim because the facts pleaded and proved in the witness box were not controverted by the Defendants. Counsel urged the court to hold that the Defendants having failed to appear in Court despite being served with hearing notices to so appear, have no defence to the case of the Claimant and as such, admitted the case of the Claimant in its entirety. COURT’s DECISION Having examined the facts of this case, the issue to be determined in this judgment is whether the Claimant has proved his case to entitle him to judgment. The Claimant was the only witness who testified in this case. The facts pleaded in the Claimant’s statement of facts and the evidence given by the Claimant are to the effect that the Claimant was employed as a Constable by the Defendants in 2007 with force number 446220. On his employment, he was posted to Central Police Station Aba, Abia State. On 29/7/2008, he was transferred to C.I.B, Ogbor Hill Police Division Aba. On 13/8/2010 the Claimant received information that one Patience Iwuanyanwu was procuring illegal abortion at Ehere Market, Ogbor Hill. The Claimant and one Constable Emeka Nwankire investigated the information after informing his superiors about the information. During investigation, the said Patience Iwuanyanwu was interviewed as she was not caught in the act. Patience Iwuanyanwu turned round to report the Claimant and Constable Emeka Nwankire to the police authorities. The Claimant and Constable Emeka Nwankire were arrested and detained at Ogbor Hill Police Station on the allegations of conspiracy and stealing of the sum of N75,000.00 and jewelries from Patience Iwuanyanwu. At the instruction of the Commissioner of Police of Abia State at the time, Mr. Jonathan Johnson, the Claimant was transferred to C.P.S Umuahia where he was detained for 3 weeks. The Claimants and Emeka Nwankire were tried in police orderly room proceeding but they were not given fair trial. The Claimant was made to face trial without preparation and he was under constant harassment from the provost and police officers who conducted the trial. The Claimant was also not allowed to put questions to the complainant and her witnesses. The Chief Superintendent of Police who presided in the orderly room trial was constantly ordering the Claimant to confess to the allegation and he compelled the Claimant and Emeka Nwankire to sign the proceedings without allowing them to read the content. After the trial, the Claimant was found guilty of unlawful exercise of authority, discreditable conduct, and corrupt practices. These allegations constituted criminal offenses triable by a court of competent jurisdiction. After the orderly room trial, the Claimant was given 7 days to appeal but he was further detained by the police authorities until the 7 days period allowed for appeal lapsed. The Claimant was not allowed to enter an appeal against the verdict of the orderly room trial. The Claimant was later arraigned before a Magistrate Court in Umuahia but the Claimant was discharged for lack of diligent prosecution. After his discharge, the Claimant presented himself at the Abia State Police Command and Force Headquarters to resume his duties as a police officer but the Defendants refused to assign duty to him. The Claimant was not given any letter of termination of his employment by the Defendants but the Defendants stopped paying him his monthly salaries and benefits. The Claimant has evidence that his name is still on the payroll as he still receives transaction notifications in his pension account with AIICO Insurance signifying that monthly deductions from the Claimant’s salaries was going on. The Claimant’s solicitor, David Onyeike, wrote to the Inspector General of Police on 27/6/2014 to demand the Claimant’s reinstatement but the letter was ignored. From the facts, the Claimant’s complaint in this suit is about the orderly room trial to which he was subjected by the Defendants based on the allegations leveled against him by one Patience Iwuanyanwu and in which he was found guilty of unlawful exercise of authority, discreditable conduct and corrupt practices. As a result of the trial and verdict, the Defendants stopped paying him his monthly salaries and benefits even though he was not given any letter terminating his appointment. The Claimant alleged that he was not given fair hearing in the orderly room trial which was the result of the verdict against him. The instances of lack of fair hearing during the orderly room trial, as stated by the Claimant, are as follows: The Claimant was not given opportunity to prepare for his trial; he was not allowed to put questions to the complainant and her witnesses; the Chief Superintendent of Police who presided in the orderly room trial was harassing the Claimant to admit to the allegations and compelled the Claimant to sign the proceedings without allowing him to read the content; the Claimant was also denied the opportunity to exercise his right of appeal against the verdict of the orderly room trial. The proceeding of the Police Orderly Room trial is regulated by the Nigeria Police Regulation 1968. Regulation 384 of the Nigeria Police Regulation NPR is designed to afford the police officer undergoing the trial fair hearing. Under the regulation, the accused police officer is given opportunity to prepare for trial by allowing him to request attendance at the proceedings of any person likely to give material evidence on his behalf. The charge must be read to the police officer and his plea taken. If the accused officer does not admit the truth of the charge, the delegated officer shall proceed to hear the evidence in support of the charge and will also take evidence from the officer and his witnesses. The accused officer must be allowed to cross-examine any witness giving evidence in support of the charge and may address any question to a witness for his defence. He must also be allowed to give evidence in his defence or call any witness to give evidence on his behalf. The foregoing procedural steps in the orderly room proceedings is to ensure that a police officer standing trial is given fair hearing before a decision is taken against him. The Claimants case is that he was not allowed to cross examine the complainant and her witnesses and he was not given opportunity to defend himself. These facts show that the procedure for orderly room trial was breached in the trial of the Claimant. The facts further disclose that the Claimant was not given fair hearing. Fair hearing means a trial conducted fully in accordance with all the legal rules formulated to ensure that justice if done to all parties in the case. Once an administrative body acts judicially, the principle of fair hearing automatically binds such administrative body. Therefore, before an administrative decision is taken against an officer or staff, he or she is entitled to be given fair hearing. Affording an individual undergoing administrative trial fair hearing before a verdict is reached against him or her is a constitutional requirement and it is so fundamental such that where it is not observed or where it was breached, it renders the entire proceedings or trial and the decision predicted thereon null and void and of no effect. See ADIGUN vs. ATTORNEY-GENERAL, OYO STATE (1987) 1 NWLR (Pt. 53) 678 at 709; OKAFOR vs. UCHEBO (2002) FWLR (Pt.122) 188 at 197; HAASTRUP LINES (W.A) LTD vs. WICHE (2006) All FWLR (Pt. 304) 483 at 504; UNIVERSITY OF UYO vs. ESSEL (2006) All FWLR (Pt.315) 80. The Defendants did not file any defence to the suit and did not call evidence to dispute the Claimant’s case. The facts pleaded by the Claimant remained uncontroverted or unchallenged. The law is that where a Defendant is given opportunity to put up his defence and he fails to utilize same, the effect is that he admits the claims of the claimant. In IYERE vs. BENDEL FEEDS AND FLOUR MILL LTD (2009) All FWLR (Pt. 453) 1217 at 1247 it was held that where evidence given by a party is unchallenged or uncontroverted, a court of law must accept and act on it as the true position. See also OYENIYI vs. ADELEKE (2009) All FWLR (Pt. 476) 1902 at 1922. The Defendants’ failure to defend the suit means that they do not dispute the case of the Claimant. Besides the fact that the Claimant’s suit is not defended, I also found that the Claimant has proved his case. The orderly room trial was conducted in breach of the principle of fair hearing. The orderly room proceedings are hereby declared to be null and void. In the result, all the reliefs sought by the Claimant are granted. It is hereby ordered as follows: The orderly room proceedings are hereby set aside. The decisions or punishments taken against the Claimant as a result of the orderly room trial are also set aside. It is declared that the Claimant is still in the employment of the Defendants till date and he is entitled to receive his salaries and benefits from the date of the orderly room trial in October 2010. The Defendants are ordered to calculate and pay to the Claimant, his arrears of salaries and benefits accruing to him from October 2010 up till date and continuing. The Defendants are ordered to comply with the orders hereby made within 30 days from today. Cost of N100,000.00 is awarded in favour of the Claimant. Judgment is entered accordingly. Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe Judge