Download PDF
JUDGMENT 1. The claimant commenced this action vide a complaint filed on 12th January 2016 together with the accompanying originating processes. To this, the defendants filed their joint defence processes. Both sets of parties with leave of Court amended their respective processes. By the amended statement of facts, the claimant is claiming against the defendants the following reliefs: (a) A declaration that the detention of the claimant in the LASTMA cell from the 4th of December, 2014 till about 7pm on 5th December 2014 is an infringement on the fundamental human rights of the claimant. (b) A declaration that the proceedings of the Personnel Management Board held which led to the dismissal of the claimant is unconstitutional, wrongful, null and void. (c) A declaration that the dismissal of the claimant allegedly effective on the 2nd of July, 2015 from the defendants’ employment is unconstitutional wrongful, null, and void. (d) An order of the Honourable Court directing the defendants to reinstate the claimant to the position with her due promotional entitlements. (e) An order of the Honourable Court directing the defendants to pay the claimant her salary and other financial entitlements from 1st December, 2014 till her reinstatement. (f) General damages in the sum of N20,000,000.00 (Twenty Million Naira) as compensation for the trauma stress caused the claimant and degradation of her integrity and personality. (g) Interest at the prevailing commercial banks' rates on the sum arrived at in reliefs (e) and (f) above before judgment and thereafter at 10 percent until the judgment sum is liquidated. 2. At the trial, the claimant testified on her own behalf as CW. Her frontloaded documents were admitted and marked as Exhibits C1 to C8. The defendants on their part called three witnesses. Mr Oladiran Emmanuel Oladele, Chief Admin & HR Officer with the 3rd defendant, testified as DW1; Mr Arigbangba Joseph Aregbesola, Assistant Comptroller on GL 15 with the 4th defendant, testified as DW2; and Mrs Bunmi Oyinlade, and Internal Auditor with the 4th defendant, testified as DW3. The defendants’ frontloaded documents were admitted and marked as Exhibits D1 to D18. Parties were informed that they are at liberty to raise in their respective final written addresses any issue as to the evidential value of any of the frontloaded documents. At the close of trial, parties field and served their respective final written addresses. The defendants’ final written address was filed on 11th June 2018; while the claimant’s was filed on 2nd July 2018. The defendant’s reply on points of law was filed on 19th September 2018. THE CASE OF THE CLAIMANT 3. Upon her employment on 1st July 2001 by the Lagos State Government, the claimant was assigned by the 2nd defendant to work as an Executive Officer (Accounts) 08 in the 3rd defendant. On 4th December 2014, the claimant and some other Accountants, General Duty Officers, Zebra and the Commander in Charge of the 3rd defendant’s Zones 6, 16, 19 and 29 were invited by the 3rd defendant and questioned about certain alleged financial misappropriation. The 3rd defendant detained the claimant, issued her a query and invited her to the Personnel Management Board. That the entire process of the claimant’s invitation and eventual dismissal were not in compliance with the extant laws guiding her employment and devoid of fair hearing, hence this suit. THE CASE OF THE DEFENDANT 4. The defendants contend that having discovered that the claimant was involved in the recycling of automated receipt in her zone when she was the then Zonal Account Officer, which led to the loss of Government revenue, the claimant was given fair hearing and due process was duly complied with before dismissing her; as such her dismissal from the service of the Lagos State Government is lawful. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE DEFENDANTS 5. The defendants submitted three issues for determination, namely: (a) Whether due process was duly complied with during the proceedings of the Personnel Management Board meeting held which led to the dismissal of the claimant. (b) Whether the claimant was given fair hearing during the proceedings of the Personnel Management Board meeting. (c) Whether the dismissal of the claimant is lawful. 6. On issue (a), the defendants submitted that the employment of Lagos State public servants is governed by the provisions of the Public Service Rules and, therefore, deemed to have statutory flavour; and that an employment which is protected by statute must, therefore, be terminated in the way and manner prescribed by the relevant statute, referring to Obu v. NNPC [2003] FWLR (Pt. 146) 959 at 992. That Exhibits D1 and D2 confirmed the employment of the claimant in this suit as employment which has statutory flavour and same is protected by statute, that is, the Civil Service Rules (repealed) now the Lagos State Public Service Rules 2015. The effect of this is that the termination/dismissal of the claimant from the services of the defendants must be guided with the way and manner as prescribed in the Lagos State Public Service Rules 2015. Disciplinary proceeding on the other hand is the procedure initiated by or at the instance or with the approval of the State Civil Service Commission or any other such body against a civil/public servant in accordance with any disciplinary provisions in order to establish whether: his conduct in the matter has been in any respect blameworthy; or it is in the interest of the Ministry/Department/Agency where he is employed and generally in the interest of the Civil/Public Service as a whole that he should be sanctioned. While Disciplinary Authority means the authority in whom power to dismiss and exercise disciplinary control over a Public Servant is for the time being vested. 7. The defendants went on that the Lagos State Public Service Rules 2015 would only apply to all officers/public servants except where they conflict with specific terms approved by the State Government and written into the contract of employment or letters of appointment and also not inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria or the Laws of Lagos State in so far as the conditions of service and any other law applicable to these officers are concerned. That because of the grave consequences attached to acts of wrong doing which violate the provisions of Chapter 4 of the Public Service Rules 2015, the following steps must be noted and complied with before taking action against an officer for any wrong doing: issuing of query, reply to the query within the specified time, and invitation to the Personnel Management Board (Disciplinary) meeting. That applying these steps to the instant case, the claimant in this case was involved in the recycling of automated receipt in her zone when she was the then Zonal Account Officer which led to the loss of Government revenue. Query letter dated 5th December 2014 was issued to her (Exhibit D3) to explain her role in respect of the alleged offence. In response to the query, the claimant replied vide letter dated 8th December 2014 (Exhibit D4). 8. The defendants referred to Rule 040402 of the Lagos State Public Service Rules 2015, which provides that: Where a superior officer becomes dissatisfied with the behaviour of any officer subordinate to him, it shall be his duty to inform the officer in writing giving details of the unsatisfactory behaviour and directing him to submit within a specified period, such written representations as he may wish to make to exonerate himself from disciplinary action. That after considering the claimant’s reply to the query, there was need to further investigate the alleged offence committed by the claimant. She was interdicted vide letter dated 9th December 2014 (Exhibit D5), referring to Rule 040505(i) of the Lagos State Public Service Rules 2015, which provides that: When a serious case that may lead to dismissal has instituted against an officer, the Permanent Secretary/Head of Extra Ministerial Department/Agency may interdict him on not less than half of his monthly salary pending the determination of the case. That at the end of the investigation, it was discovered that the claimant has not satisfactorily exonerated herself from disciplinary proceedings and subsequently, she was served with a letter of invitation dated 24th December 2014 to appear before a disciplinary committee on 30th December 2014 in order to defend herself from the alleged offence as admitted by Exhibit D6A, referring to Rule 040406(vi) of the Lagos State Public Service Rules 2015, which provides that: The officer shall be informed that on a specified day, the subject of his dismissal shall be brought before the Board and he shall be required to appear before it to defend himself and shall be entitled to call witnesses. His failure to appear shall not invalidate the proceedings of the Board. 9. The defendants continued that on 30th December 2014, the claimant appeared before the Disciplinary Committee and was given the opportunity to defend herself in respect of the alleged offence. However, the proceeding of the disciplinary committee could not be concluded and was stepped down in order to await the outcome of the report of the investigation being conducted in respect of the alleged misconduct, referring to Exhibit D6B. Upon receipt of the outcome of the report of the investigation, as admitted by Exhibit D12, another disciplinary proceeding was held on 10th March 2015 of which the claimant appeared and was also given the opportunity to defend herself. At the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, recommendation of the disciplinary panel was subsequently forwarded to the Civil Service Commission for the ratification. The said Minutes of the Disciplinary Proceedings held on 10th March 2015 is admitted by Exhibit D7B. On 2nd July 2015, the Civil Service Commission Policy meeting was held of which the claimant appeared and was also given opportunity to further defend herself at the Commission Policy meeting in respect of the alleged offence and at the conclusion of the Commission Policy meeting, the Commission found the claimant culpable of committing the offence of recycling of automated receipt as the then Zonal Account officer of her zone. The claimant was thereafter served with a letter of dismissal dated 6th November 2015 from the services of Lagos State Government by the Civil Service Commission as admitted by Exhibit Dl0. The minutes of the Policy meeting of the Commission dated 2nd July 2015 was also admitted as Exhibit D8. The defendants also referred to Rule 040403 of the Lagos State Public Service Rules 2015, which provides that: Where a Tribunal of Inquiry/Personnel Management Board/Administrative Panel set up by the Government makes recommendations of a disciplinary nature on an officer, the State Civil Service Commission or any other such body shall not act on such recommendations until It has called upon the affected officer to reply to the allegations made against him by the Tribunal of Inquiry/Personnel Management Board/Administrative Panel. If the officer refuses or neglects to reply to the allegations within a reasonable time or not at all, the Commission or its Agent or any other such body shall proceed to accept and enforce the recommendations of the Tribunal of Inquiry/Personnel Management Board/Administrative Panel, and take such disciplinary action against the officer as it shall deem appropriate. 10. To the defendants, based on the evidence before the Court, the defendants duly complied with the ways and manner as prescribed under Chapter 4 of the Lagos State Public Service Rules 2015 before dismissing the claimant from the services of Lagos State Government; submitting that where the employer complies strictly with the procedure stipulated by the statute before terminating or dismissing the employment of a statutory employer, the Court shall affirm it. 11. For issue (b), the defendants contend that the claimant was given fair hearing. That the very essence of fair hearing under the Constitution is a hearing which is fair to both parties to the case, citing Ariori & ors v. Muraimo Elemo & ors [1983] 1 SC 13 at 24 and section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution. 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, citing Pam v. Mohammed [2008] 16 NWLR (Pt. 1112) 1 SC. That the claimant in this case was given enough fair hearing during the disciplinary proceedings held on 30th December 2014 and 10th March 2015. Furthermore, that based on the facts and evidence before the Court, it was after the discovery of the claimant’s involvement in the alleged recycling of automated receipt which led to loss of Government revenue that a query dated 5th December 2014 was issued to her to explain her role in respect of the alleged misconduct, referring to Exhibit D3. Paragraph 1 of the query stated: “The Agency received a report from the Accounts Department and Audit Unit on the routine Audit of Revenue generated from the traffic fines that particulars of automated receipts were being recycled/represented”. Paragraph 5 of the query stated: “In view of the above, I am directed to request you to explain why disciplinary action should not be taken against you for these deliberate acts of yours which had led to loss of Government revenue over a period of time”. In response to the query, the claimant replied vide letter dated 8th December 2014, referring to Exhibit D4 and B. A. Imonike v. Unity Bank Plc [2003] SC 68, where Bode Rhodes-Vivour, JSC stated that: “Accusing an employee of misconduct etc by way of a query and allowing the employee to answer the query and the employee answers it before a decision is taken satisfies the requirement of fair hearing or natural justice”. 12. To the defendants, fair hearing need not be oral; written forms are equally good and sufficient hearing. All that is required is for the Committee/Panel to write to the party and confront him with the allegation made against him, referring to Abubakar Tatari Alli Polytechnic v. Maina [2005] 10 NWLR (Pt. 934) 487 at 516. That after considering the claimant’s reply to the said query of which the claimant did not satisfactorily exonerate herself from disciplinary action, she was thereafter issued with a letter dated 24th December 2014 inviting her to the Personnel Management Board (Disciplinary) Meeting. The claimant appeared personally before the Disciplinary Committee and gave evidence before the Committee/panel, referring to Exhibits D6A and D6B. That the claimant was again given opportunity to further defend herself in respect of the alleged offence before another Disciplinary Committee held on 10th March 2015 and the Civil Service Commission Policy meeting held on 2nd July 2015 and further gave evidence, referring to Chami v. UBA Plc [2010] 6 NWLR (Pt. 1191) 474 at 497, which held that fair hearing is based on opportunity to meet the case of the other party, which if not taken or utilized bars the person from later complaining of lack of fair hearing. 13. The defendants then submitted that based on facts and evidence before the Court, the claimant was given enough fair hearing during the proceedings of the Personnel Management Board (Disciplinary) Meetings and also the Commission Policy meeting that led to her dismissal from the services of Lagos State Government. That it is equally trite that once a party has been afforded the opportunity to present his case and he failed to take advantage of it, he cannot be heard to complain that his right to fair hearing has been breached, citing Pam & anor v. Nasiru Mohammed [2008] 16 NWLR (Pt. 1112) 1 at 48. 14. Issue (c) is whether the dismissal of the claimant is lawful. To the defendants, an employee with statutory flavour can be said to be lawfully dismissed when the employer complies strictly with the way and manner prescribed by the relevant statute before terminating/dismissing his employment. That under Chapter 4 of the Lagos State Public Service Rules 2015, Rule 040406 provides: “Unless the method of dismissal is otherwise provided for in these Rules, an officer in the State Public Service may be dismissed by the State Civil Service Commission or any other such body only in accordance with these rules”. That the provisions are hereby highlighted: (a) The officer shall be notified in writing of the grounds on which he is proposed to be disciplined. The query should be precise and must relate to the circumstances of the offence. (b) The officer shall be called upon to state in writing within the period specified in the query, any grounds upon which he relies to exculpate himself. (c) If the officer submits his representations and the State Civil Service Commission or any other such body is not satisfied that he has exculpated himself, it shall take such action accordingly. Should the officer however fail to furnish any representations within the time fixed, the Commission or any other such body may take such action against the officer as it deems appropriate. (d) If upon considering the representations of the officer, the Commission or any other such body is of the opinion that the officer does not deserve to be dismissed from the service but deserves some other punishment, it shall impose on the officer such punishment as it considers appropriate. (e) Where a Tribunal of inquiry Personnel Management Board Administrative Panel is constituted, then the officer shall be informed that on a specified day, the subject of his dismissal before the Board and shall be required to appear before it to defend himself and be entitled to call witnesses. His failure to appear shall not invalidate the proceedings of the Board. (f) If upon considering the report of the Board together with the evidence and all material documents relating to the case, the Commission or any other such body is of the opinion that the officer should be dismissed, such an action shall immediately be taken. 15. The defendants then referred to Board of Management, Federal Medical centre & anor v. David Abakume [2016] 10 NWLR (Pt. 1521) 481 - 633 and paragraph 2(1)(a) and (b) of the Part II of the Third Schedule to the 1999 Constitution, which provides that: The Commission shall power without prejudice to the powers vested in the Governor and the State Judicial Service Commission to: (a) Appoint persons to the offices in the State Civil Service; and (b) Dismiss and exercise disciplinary control over persons holding such offices. To the defendants, by the provision of the Lagos State Public Service Rules 2015, due process was duly complied with during the proceedings of the Personnel Management Board Meetings and the Civil Service Commission Policy Meeting held in respect of the offence committed by the claimant in this suit. In addition, the principle of fair hearing was duly observed during these proceedings which led to the dismissal of the claimant from the service of Lagos State Government. The defendants concluded by urging the Court to dismiss the claim of the claimant in its entirety. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE CLAIMANT 16. The claimant submitted a sole issue for determination, namely: whether the dismissal of the claimant is lawful. Referring to Federal Medical Centre, Ido Ekiti v. Omidiora Kolawole [2102] All FWLR (Pt. 653) 1999 and Olaniyan v. Unilag [1985] 2 NWLR (Pt. 9) 599 as well as the claimant’s letter of employment dated 1st September 2003 (Exhibit D1) and letter of confirmation dated 1st April 2008 (Exhibit D2), the claimant submitted that her is governed by the Lagos State Civil Service Rules (Repealed) now Lagos State Public Service Rules 2015, which was in itself made by the Governor of Lagos State in exercise of the power conferred upon him by section 11 of the Lagos State Civil Service Commission Law No. 7 1979. In view of this, that her employment is governed by statute and has clear procedure for termination. 17. The claimant went on that the allegation leveled against her by the 3rd defendant as contained in the query dated 5th December 2014 (Exhibits C1 and D3) may be summarized as follows: (1) The 3rd defendant received a report from the Accounts Department and Audit Unit on the routine audit of revenue generated from traffic fines that particulars of automated receipts were being recycled/represented. (2) The alleged recycling were being perpetrated by Zonal Accounts Officers, including the claimant. That in her reply dated 8th December 2014 to the query, the claimant explained the process of issuing ticket and automated receipts and stated that there has been no indictment on her regarding the discharge of her duties. Dissatisfied with the claimant’s response and/or in furtherance of its purported disciplinary actions, the 3rd defendant by its letter of invitation dated 24th December 2014 (Exhibit D6A) invited the claimant to its Personnel Management Board Meeting scheduled to hold on 30th December 2014. The minutes of the meeting of the Personnel Management Board Meeting was admitted as Exhibit D6B. Subsequently, the claimant was again invited by the 3rd defendant to its Personnel Management Board Meeting by its letter dated 6th March 2015 (Exhibit D7A). The minutes of meeting of the Personnel Management Board Meeting which was held on the 10th March, 2015 was admitted as Exhibit D7B. 18. The case of the claimant is that the proceedings of the Personnel Management Board Meetings were unconstitutional, wrongful, null and void. The basis upon which the claimant makes this claim is that there was non-compliance with the Public Service Rules and lack of fair hearing in the entire proceeding of the Personnel Management Board Meetings. Accordingly, the claimant presented her case in terms of the consideration of the soil issue she framed in terms of three sub-heads, namely: (1) Non-compliance with public service rules; (2) Lack of fair hearing of the Personnel Management Board meetings of 30th December 2014 and 6th March 2015; and (3) Unreliability of defendants’ witnesses and exhibits. 19. Non-Compliance with Public Service Rules. To the claimant, Rule 040406 of the Lagos State Public Service Rules 2015 (hereinafter “Public Service Rules”) provides for steps which are mandatorily expected to be complied with for the purpose of dismissing an officer from the employment of the Lagos State Government. Rule 040406 of the Public Service Rules provides thus: Unless the method of dismissal is otherwise provided for in these Rules, an officer in the state Public Service may be dismissed by the State Civil Service Commission or any such body only in accordance with these Rules: (i) The officer shall be notified in writing of the grounds on which he is proposed to be disciplined. The query should be precise and to the point and must relate the circumstances of the offence, the rule(s) and regulation(s) which the officer has broken and the likely penalty. In serious cases which are likely to result in dismissal, the officer should be given access to any such document(s) or report(s) likely to be used against him and he should be asked to sate in his defence that he has been given access to such document(s). The officer shall be called upon to sate in writing, within the period specified in the query, any grounds upon which he relies to exculpate himself. (ii) The query, or preliminary letter, shall be in the format shown below: ……… (iii) If the officer submits his representations and the State Civil Service Commission or any other such body is not satisfied that he has exculpated himself, and considers that the officer should be dismissed, it shall take action accordingly. Should the officer however fail to furnish any representations within the time fixed, the Commission or any other such body may take such action against the officer as it deems appropriate. (iv) If, upon considering the representations of the officer, the Commission or any other such body is of the opinion that the officer does not deserve to be dismissed from the Service but deserves some other punishment, it shall impose on the officer such punishment as it considers appropriate. (v) Where necessary, the Commission or any other such body may set up a board of inquiry which shall consist of not less than three persons, one of whom shall be appointed Chairman by the Commission or any other such body with due regard to the status of the officer involved in the disciplinary case and to the nature of the complaint which is the subject of inquiry. The Head of the officer’s department shall not be a member of the Board. (vi) The officer shall be informed that, on a specified day, the subject of his dismissal shall be brought before the Board and he shall be required to appear before it to defend himself and shall be entitled to call witnesses. His failure to appear shall not invalidate the proceedings of the Board. (vii) Where witnesses are called by the board to give evidence before it, the officer shall be entitled to put questions to the witnesses and no documentary evidence shall be used against the officer unless he has previously been supplied with a copy or given access to it. (viii) If, during the course of the inquiry, further grounds of dismissal are disclosed and the State Civil Service Commission or any other such body thinks it fit to proceed against the officer upon such grounds, the officer shall, at the direction of the Commission or any other such body, be furnished with a written statement of it and the same steps shall be taken as prescribed above in respect of the original grounds. (ix) The Board, having inquired into the matter, shall make a report to the Commission or other such body. If the Commission or any other such body considers that the report should be amplified in any respect or that further inquiry is desirable, it may refer the matter back to the Board for further inquiry or report. However, the Commission or any other such body shall not itself hear witnesses. (x) If, upon considering the report of the Board together with the evidence and all material documents relating to the case, the Commission or any other body is of the opinion that the officer should be dismissed, such an action shall immediately be taken. (xi) If the Commission or any other such body does not approve the officer’s dismissal and does not consider that any penalty should be imposed, the officer shall be reinstated immediately and be entitled to the full amount of salary denied him if interdicted. (xii) If, upon considering the report of the Board, the Commission or any other such body is of the opinion that the officer does not deserve to be dismissed but that the proceedings disclosed grounds necessitating his retirement, the Commission or any other such body shall, without further proceedings direct accordingly. (xiii) All disciplinary procedures must commence and be completed with a period of 60 days except where criminal cases are involved or in exceptional circumstances. (Emphasis is the claimant’s.) 20. The claimant then submitted that where there are guiding rules for dismissal of an officer in an employment with statutory flavour, such rules must be strictly complied with and the omission of any of the steps or conditions would nullify such dismissal, citing PHCN Plc v. Mr I. C. Offoelo [2013] All FWLR (Pt. 664) 1 at 24, Eperokun v. University of Lagos [1986] 4 NWLR (Pt. 34) 160, Olaniyan v. University of Lagos [1985] 2 NWLR (Pt. 9) 599 and Comptroller-General of Customs & 3 ors v. Comptroller Abdullahi B. Gusau [2017] All FWLR (Pt. 911) 422 at 455. To the claimant, the defendants did not comply with the guideline stipulated in Rule 040406 of the Public Services Rules in purporting to terminate the claimant’s employment. That the infractions committed by the defendants as relate to the provision of the Rule 040406 of the Public Services Rules are as follows: (i) Rule 040406(i) of the Public Services Rules stipulates that “In serious cases which are likely to result in dismissal, the officer should be given access to any such document(s) or report(s) likely to be used against him and he should be asked to state in his defence that he has been given access to the documents”. In total deviation from this step, the defendants did not give the claimant the alleged recycled receipts which were stated in the query dated 5th December 2014 (Exhibit D3). In fact, while the claimant attended the two separate Personnel Management Board Meetings of 30th December 2014 and 10th March 2015, the alleged recycled tickets were never shown to her. (ii) Rule 040406(v) of the Public Services Rules further stipulates that where a Board (in this case, the 3rd defendant’s Personnel Management Board) is set up to further look into the allegation leveled against the affected employee, “the Head of the employee’s department shall not be a member of the Board”. The composition of the Personnel Management Board of the defendants runs foul of the clear provision of Rule 040406(v) of the Public Services Rules. The Head of the 3rd defendant, Lagos State Traffic Management Authority (LASTMA), and other senior officers of the 3rd defendant were members of the Personnel Management Board which sat on both the 30th December 2014 and 10th March 2015, referring to Exhibits D6B and D7B. The intendment of the provision of Rule 040406(v) of the Public Services Rules was to ensure that the provision of “nemo judex in causa sua (you can’t be a judge in your own case)” applies. Where that core principle of natural justice is violated in proceedings, such proceedings and findings made pursuant to them must fail, citing NJC & ors v. Hon. Mr Justice C. P. N. Senlong & ors [2010] LPELR-4582(CA). (iii) Rule 040406(vi) of the Public Services Rules provides that the officer must be informed of the specific subject of his dismissal which he is expect to address before the Board. This was violated in the instant case. As argued by the defendants in paragraphs 4.12 and 4.13 of their final written address, the minutes of the meeting of the Personnel Management Board held on 10th March 2015 were what was forwarded to the 2nd defendant, the Lagos State Civil Service Commission, which formed the basis upon which the claimant was dismissed. We submit with respect that the letter informing the claimant to attend the meeting of the Personnel Management Board Meeting of 10th March 2015 did not comply with Rule 040406(vi) of the Public Services Rules. The letter of invitation dated 6th March 2015 (Exhibit D7A) stated that the reason why the claimant was being invited to appear before the Personnel Management Board was for absenting herself from duty without permission. However, when the claimant got to the meeting, she was confronted with the issue of recycling of receipts. 21. That from the analysis provided above, it is clear that the defendants did not comply with the guidelines set out in Rule 040406 of the Public Services Rules. Consequent upon such violation, the alleged dismissal of the claimant is void, urging the Court to so hold. 22. Lack of Fair Hearing of the Personnel Management Board Meetings of 30th December 2014 and 6th March 2015. Here, the claimant submitted that contrary to the arguments canvassed by the defendants under their issue (b), the claimant was not afforded fair hearing during the Personnel Management Board meetings. That the authorities relied upon by the defendants in their arguments are not applicable in the instant suit. Those authorities relate to employment relating to master/servant relationship. The instant suit bothers on an employment which enjoys statutory guideline and any deviation from the set guidelines would breach the officer’s (claimant herein) right to be fairly heard in the proceedings leading to his dismissal. 23. The claimant proceeded to consider the unconstitutionality of the proceedings of the Personnel Management Board meeting. (i) That at the first Personnel Management Board meeting held on 30th December 2014, the claimant was called upon to explain her side of the story in the allegation leveled against her by the 3rd defendant. In her explanation, she reiterated that she always validated the receipts she collected. Members of the Personnel Management Board had before them the receipts which were never shown to the claimant for clarification. In spite of the unfairness of not confronting the claimant with the alleged recycled receipts, at the end of Personnel Management Board meeting of 30th December 2014, the Board recommended at page 7 of its minutes (Exhibit D6B) that “the matter be stepped down until investigation is concluded”. The implication of this resolution was that the meeting of 30th December 2014 was inconclusive and did not indict the claimant howsoever. (ii) The next invitation which the claimant received from the 3rd defendant is dated 6th March 2015 (Exhibit D7A). The referred invitation reads: “I am directed to invite you to appear before the Personnel Management Board (Disciplinary) Senior Staff Committee Meeting for absenting yourself from duty without permission…” To the claimant, form the content of Exhibit D7A, the claimant’s invitation to the Personnel Management Board was for absenting herself from duty without permission. On getting to the meeting, she was confronted with the issues relating to recycling of tickets. That the act of inviting the claimant for a particular purpose and changing same at the venue of the meeting deprived the claimant fair hearing as she wasn’t afforded the opportunity to prepare herself for the things raised at the meeting. That the claimant made testimonies to this effect in her examination-in-chief. Furthermore, that at the Personnel Management Board meeting of 10th March 2015 the claimant was again not shown the alleged recycled tickets or afforded the opportunity to verify the allegations of the defendants on any ticket or receipt allegedly recycled. That in employments with statutory flavour, where the employee faces a panel, the conduct of the panel must be fair and any act or omission which takes away the very ingredient of fair hearing (nemo judex in causa sua and audi altarem partem) will nullify the entire proceedings of the panel. Where there is unfairness or unfair practices (such as changing the purpose for which the claimant was said to have allegedly recycled) in the process of the panel, the Court would nullify any dismissal arising therefrom, citing: Federal University of Technology, Yola v. Danjuma Maiwuya & 2 ors [2013] All FWLR (Pt. 677) 753, Mrs Akinyosoye Yemisi v. Federal Inland Revenue Services (2013) All FWLR (Pt. 693) 1992 at 2012-2013, Iderima v. RSCSC [2005] All FWLR (Pt. 285) 431 SC at 450, Union Bank of Nig. Ltd v. Charles Ogboh [1995] 2 NWLR (Pt. 380) 647 at 669 and Bamgboye v. University of Ilorin [1990] 10 NWLR (Pt. 622) 290 at 320. 24. The defendants had cited B. A. Imonike v. Unity Bank Plc [2003] SC 68 and Abubakar Tatari Polytechnic v. Maina [2005] 10 NWLR (Pt. 934) 487 as authority to postulate that the mere issuance of a query letter to the claimant and a subsequent reply given satisfies the requirement of fair hearing. To the claimant, this argument does not represent the position of law particularly as it relates to employment which enjoy statutory protection, citing Mrs Akinyosoye Yemisi v. Federal Inland Revenue Services (supra). That based on the conduct of the Personnel Management Board highlighted above and the decisions in Federal University of Technology, Yola v. Danjuma (supra) and Mrs Akinyosoye Yemisi v. Federal Inland Revenue Services (supra), the claimant was not granted fair hearing by the Personnel Management Board and the dismissal of the claimant’s employment based thereon ought to be nullified, urging the Court to so hold. 25. Unreliability of the Defendants’ Witnesses and Exhibits. To the claimant, where an officer whose employment is clothed with statutory protection seeks redress in Court on an allegation that the process of his dismissal is null and void, there is an evidential burden on the employer (the defendants herein) to prove with cogent oral and documentary evidence that the statutory disciplinary procedure were complied with. In the instant case, that the defendants failed in that regard woefully. The claimant advanced three grounds for this: (i) The crux of the claimant’s claim is that the proceedings of the Personnel Management Board which led to her dismissal were unconstitutional, wrongful, null and void. In her examination in chief, the claimant chronicled how she was denied fair hearing by the Personnel Management Board, particularly the fact of not making available to her the alleged recycled receipts. That with this piece of evidence, the burden then shifts on the defendants to prove that the proceedings of the Personnel Management Board was constitutional and due process was followed. That all the three witnesses of the defendants confessed under cross-examination that they are not members of the Personnel Management Board or the Lagos State Civil Service Commission. Consequently, they cannot give credible testimony of the meetings of both 30th December 2014 and 19th March 2015. In fact, their testimonies in respect of the meetings including the content of Exhibits D6B and D7B would amount to hearsay and the Court ought to disregard them, urging the Court to so hold. That the law is settled that a person who is not a member of a committee or a panel or a Board cannot give testimony on the proceeding of such committee or panel or board. Furthermore, that in their respective testimonies under cross-examination, the three witnesses of the defendants confirmed that they are not aware of the operations of the Lagos State Traffic Management Authority, 3rd defendant. (ii) The minutes of the Personnel Management Board Meeting held on the 3rd December 2014 (Exhibit D6B) and 10th March 2015 (Exhibit D7B) and the minutes of the State Civil Service Commission Policy Meeting held on 2nd July 2015 (Exhibit D9) are public documents and only properly Certified True Copies of those documents would be admissible in evidence. Section 104(2) of the Evidence Act 2011 stipulates the modalities for such certification. It provides: “The certificate mentioned in subsection (1) of this section shall be dated and subscribed by such officer with his name and his official title, and shall be sealed, whenever such officer is authorized by law to make use of a seal, and such copies so certified shall be called certified copies”. That Exhibits D6B, D7B and D9 do not satisfy the mandatory requirement of section 104 of the Evidence Act. The name of the officer who certified the documents is not contained thereon, the date it was certified is also omitted, the designation and signature of the officer who certified the documents are also not contained in the document. In the absence of such mandatory compliance, the Court ought to discountenance Exhibits D6B, D7B and D9, urging the Court to so hold. (iii) The document tendered by the defendants as the report which indicted the claimant as being part of the officers who engage in recycling of receipts is Exhibit D11 (report dated 17th December 2014). Exhibit D11 stated that tickets numbers 0236465 and 0237219 were allegedly recycled by the claimant. During cross-examination, when asked if the tickets were before the Court, DW3 confirmed that the alleged recycled tickets are not before the Court. My Lord, if the basis upon which the claimant was taken through the dismissal process and eventually dismissed was on the alleged recycled receipts stated in Exhibit D11 and at trial the alleged recycled receipts are not brought before the Court for consideration/evaluation and adjudication, then the deductible analogy would be that those tickets indeed do not exist, urging the Court to so hold. What is more, that those allegedly recycled tickets were never shown to the claimant throughout the dismissal process. 26. The claimant then submitted that where the Court finds that the employment of an officer whose employment is clothed with statutory flavor is wrongfully dismissed, the natural order for the Court to make is an order of reinstatement, citing Federal Medical Centre, Ido Ekiti v. Kolawole (supra) and urging this Court to so order with her entitled salaries and promotions. In conclusion, the claimant prayed the Court to rant all her reliefs. THE DEFENDANTS’ REPLY ON POINTS OF LAW 27. In their reply on points of law, the defendants submitted that the claimant failed to address the fact that the applicable rules when the cause of action arose on 5th December 2014 were the Civil Service Rules particularly Rule 04508 and not the Public Service Rules, which commenced on 1st January 2015, citing PHCN Plc v. Mr I. C. Offoelo [2013] All FWLR (Pt. 664) 1 at 24, Olutola v. University of Ilorin [2004] 18 NWLR (Pt. 905) 416 at 469-471 and Pan Africa Bank Ltd v. Ede [1998] 7 NWLR (Pt. 558) 422 at 435. Accordingly, that the Personnel Management Board (PMB) Meeting held on 30th to 31st December 2014, Exhibit D6(b), complied with the appropriate Rule (Civil Service Rules) before dismissing the claimant. 28. On the argument of the defendant that he was not given the alleged recycled receipts which were stated in the query of 5th December 2014 (Exhibit D3), the defendants submitted that even if Rule 040406 of the Public Service Rules 2015 were applicable, the existence of the recycled receipts is not disputed by the claimant. That all the claimant said about the documents was that she was never a party to the alleged recycled receipts but admitted that she noticed the multiple pay ID which was abnormal but willfully failed/refused to report to the appropriate authority. That the law is that a document speaks for itself, referring to Exhibits D4 and D6(b). 29. Regarding the claimant’s argument on Rule 040406(v) in terms of the membership of the PMB, the defendants submitted that even if the Rule applies, the claimant’s submission is a misinterpretation of the Rule, which to the defendants simply prohibits the Head of the Directorate of the officers to be disciplined not generally the officers of the establishment with which the officer to be disciplined functions. That LASTMA is an organization of Lagos State Government created by law and saddled with the responsibility of traffic management and same operates through different departments/directorate which includes Internal Audit Department, the department the claimant was attached to as at the time of the instant case whose Head then was Bunmi Oyinlade. That the said Bunmi Oyinlade was not part of the PMB set up to discipline the claimant, referring to Exhibit D6(b) and paragraph 4 of DW3’s deposition. Besides, that the fact contested by the claimant was not pleaded; as such, same goes to no issue, citing Vanderpuye v. Gbadero [1998] 3 NWLR (Pt. 541) 271 SC at 279. 30. The defendants then proceeded to rehash the arguments they already put forward in their final written address pointing out in the process that the argument of the claimant that the evidence of DW1, DW2 and DW3 is hearsay is misleading. That DW1 is a staff of the Lagos State Government whose evidence was derived from public records made available to him thus exempting his testimony from the rule against hearsay, relying on section 52 of the Evidence Act 2011. As for DW2 and DW3 that their evidence is one that came from facts within their personal knowledge. As for Exhibits D6(b) and Exhibit D7(b), the defendant submitted that they are public documents within the meaning of public documents, citing section 102 of the Evidence Act 2011, Governor of Ekiti State v. Ojo [2006] 17 NWMR (Pt. 1007) 95 at 127, Dana Impel Ltd v. Awukam [2006] 3 NWLR (Pt. 968) 544 at 562 and Goodwill and Trust Investment Ltd v. Umeh [2011] NWLR (Pt. 1250) 500 at 542. The defendants concluded by urging the Court to dismiss the claims of the claimant in their entirety. COURT’S DECISION 31. I have carefully considered the processes and submissions of the parties. I need to clarify a thing or two. First, when the claimant filed this suit vide a complaint on 12th January 2016, the claimant sued four defendants: Lagos State Government; the Attorney General of Lagos State; Lagos State Civil Service Commission; and Lagos State Traffic Management Authority (LASTMA). By this fact, LASTMA is the 4th defendant on record. This can be seen on the face of the complaint. However, commencing with the accompanying statement of facts filed on same 12th January 2016, the names of the defendants fell to three with Lagos State Government, the 1st defendant, no longer listed as a defendant; thus making LASTMA the 3rd defendant. This is reflected as such in all the processes of the claimant including her final written address. The defendants, however, retained the list of four defendants all through their processes. This error of the claimant made her to refer to LASTMA as the 3rd defendant all through her final written address. By Heritage Bank Limited v. Bentworth Finance (Nigeria) Limited unreported Suit No: SC/175/2005, the judgment of which was delivered on February 23, 2018, the originating process of a suit is the writ of summons, the complaint in the instant suit. This means that it is the list of defendants as can be found on the complaint that remain so throughout this case given that no order of this Court was sought and received to strike out the name of any of the defendants. I so hold. 32. The second clarification relates to the claimant’s objection as to the admissibility of the minutes of the Personnel Management Board Meeting held on the 3rd December 2014 (Exhibit D6B) and 10th March 2015 (Exhibit D7B) and the minutes of the State Civil Service Commission Policy Meeting held on 2nd July 2015 (Exhibit D9), which to her are public documents that were not properly Certified True Copies in accordance with section 104(2) of the Evidence Act 2011. In raising this objection, the claimant got the number-citation of two of the exhibits wrong. The first is that the minutes of the meeting of the Personnel Management Board (Discipline) Senior Staff Committee of Lagos State Traffic Management Authority held on 10th March 2015 is Exhibit D8, not Exhibit D7B as the claimant puts it. The complete copy of Exhibit D8 was later tendered in Court after the Court complained that what was initially tendered as Exhibit D8 was an incomplete copy. The second is that there is no record in the case file of the minutes of the Personnel Management Board Meeting held on the 3rd December 2014, which the claimant labels as Exhibit D6B. What we have on record is the minutes of the Personnel Management Board (Disciplinary) Meeting Senior Staff Committee of Lagos State Traffic Management Authority held on Tuesday 30th and Wednesday 31st December 2014, which on record is Exhibit D13. 33. The objection of the clamant is that these exhibits including Exhibit D9, the complete copy of which was also later tendered, are public documents but were not appropriately certified in accordance with section 104(2) of the Evidence Act 2011. The very essence of this Court was explained in Dorothy Adaeze Awogu v. TFG Real Estate Limited unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/262/2013, the judgment of which was delivered on 4th June 2018; and the need to side-step even the requirement of certification of public documents in virtue of section 12 of the National Industrial Court (NIC) Act 2006 was equally explained in Honourable Justice Bassey Tambu Ebuta v. National Judicial Council & 3 ors unreported Suit No. NICN/ABJ/301/2016, the judgment of which was delivered on 13th July 2017. See also Mr Dawodu Azeez v. 3 Peat Investment Limited unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/628/2014, the judgment of which was delivered on 16th July 2018. The claimant is not complaining about the authenticity of these exhibits; only that they are not properly certified - even here, not that they are not certified, but that they are not properly certified. This is not good enough to do away with these exhibits as the claimant wants this Court to do. Accordingly, I discountenance the argument of the claimant and hold that Exhibits D8, D9 and D13 are admissible and would be used as such in this judgment. 34. Both parties are agreed that the employment of the claimant is one that has statutory flavour. The claimant is not denying that she was queried and she answered the query. Her case (an argument I agree with) is that contrary to the position of the defendants when they cited B. A. Imonike v. Unity Bank Plc [2003] SC 68, because her employment is statutory, much more than a query and answer is needed if her dismissal is to be valid and lawful i.e. a strict adherence to the statutory procedure for dismissal must be observed, which the defendants did not, in dismissing her. She then itemized what went wrong in the procedure adopted by the defendants in dismissing her, relying as it were on Rule 040406 of the Lagos State Public Service Rules 2015. The argument of the defendants in their reply on points of law that the claimant’s reliance on this 2015 Rules is wrong as it was not the Rules applicable as at 2014 seems to gloss over the fact that it was the defendants in their written address that cited the 2015 Rules. Thus to the claimant, contrary to Rule 040406 of the Lagos State Public Service Rules: 1. She was not given access to the offending documents she was said to have tampered with. 2. Her head of department was a member of the Board when she was tried. 3. The second letter (Exhibit D7) inviting her to the disciplinary hearing invited her for hearing in terms of her absenting herself from duty, only for to show up and be tried for recycling receipts. 4. The document tendered by the defendants as the report which indicted the claimant as being part of the officers who engage in recycling of receipts is Exhibit D11 (report dated 17th December 2014). Exhibit D11 stated that tickets numbers 0236465 and 0237219 were allegedly recycled by the claimant. During cross-examination, when asked if the tickets were before the Court, DW3 confirmed that the alleged recycled tickets are not before the Court. I must correct the claimant here in terms of the number-citation of this exhibit, which the claimant labels as Exhibit D11. It is actually Exhibit D12 on the record; and it is dated 9th February 2015, not 17th December 2014. Exhibit D11 on record is a letter dated 2nd February 2015 from the Lagos State Traffic Management Authority (LASTMA) to the Permanent Secretary Ministry of Finance in respect of investigation into the discrepancies observed in the automated receipts on traffic fine of LASTMA. The defendants had no reaction to any of these beyond the general statement that they queried the claimant, which she answered, and they tried her in a disciplinary hearing before dismissing her. 35. The law is that the procedure for discipline in an employment with statutory flavour must be complied with; otherwise, the dismissal ensuing thereof will be null and void. Longe v. FBN Plc [2010] LPELR-1793(SC); [2010] 6 NWLR (Pt. 1189) 1 SC, for instance, held that in the event of termination of employment with statutory flavour, strict adherence must be had to the statute creating the employment for statutory provisions cannot be waived. And by Oloruntoba-Oju & ors v. Abdul-Raheem & ors [2009] LPELR-2596(SC); [2009] 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 83 SC, in the matter of discipline of an employee whose employment has statutory flavour, the procedure laid down by such statute must be fully complied with; if not, any decision affecting the right or reputation or tenure of office of that employee will be declared null and void. 36. The question that presently arises is whether the defendants complied with the procedure under Rule 040406 of the Lagos State Public Service Rules 2015. The answer is certainly in the negative as the claimant showed. I carefully read through the evidence before the Court, what I found is that contrary to Rule 040406 of the Lagos State Public Service Rules 2015, Exhibit D7 invited the claimant to appear before the Personnel management Board (Disciplinary) Senior Staff Committee meeting for absenting herself from duty without permission, but she was tried for recycling receipts; the claimant was not given access to offending receipts said to be recycled when she was tried; the offending Ticket numbers 0236465 and 0237219 were not even tendered before the Court as DW3 testified; and the claimant worked in Accounts, as such her Head of Department (Mrs O. Owoyemi, Assistant Director/Head, Finnace & Admin and Mr I. O. Akinnusi, Assistant Director, Finance & Admin, both of LASTMA) should not have been part of the meeting of the Personnel Management Board as Exhibit D13, for instance, showed. However, I do not agree with the wide and enlarged definition the claimant gave to the term Head of Department when she argued that the Head and other senior staff of LASTMA who sat when the Personnel Management Board met qualify as such. 37. I am accordingly satisfied that the defendants did not strictly adhere to Rule 040406 of the Lagos State Public Service Rules 2015 before dismissing her from their service. Her dismissal is accordingly unlawful, and as such null and void. In making this finding, by BCC Plc v. Ager [2010] 9 NWLR (Pt. 1199) 292 SC, there is no dismissal of the claimant as what the defendants did is a nullity before the law. Accordingly, reliefs (b) to (e) as claimed succeed and so are hereby granted. 38. Reliefs (a), (f) and (g) cannot be granted. Relief (a) relates to false imprisonment, something that this Court has no jurisdiction over. See Geoffery v. Setraco Nigeria Ltd & ors unreported Suit No. NIC/ABJ/296/2012, the ruling of which was delivered on 4th March 2013, Francis v. Bedebede & ors [2012] 26 NLLR 38 and Mr Chukwuemeka Ohaukwu v. Guaranty Trust Bank Plc unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/40/2015, the judgment of which was delivered on 16th February 2018 and Bamidele Aturu’s Law and Practice of the National Industrial Court (Hebron Publishing Co. Ltd: Lagos), 2013 at page 25. Beyond merely praying for reliefs (f) and (g), the claimant made no attempt to prove same. They accordingly fail and so are dismissed. 39. For the avoidance of doubt, and for the reasons given, only reliefs (b), (c), (d) and (e) as claimed succeed and are hereby granted. I so order. 40. Judgment is entered accordingly. I make no order as to cost. …………………………………… Hon. Justice B. B. Kanyip, PhD