Download PDF
COURT’S JUDGMENT On September 15, 2014 the claimant filed this Complaint and by his amended Complaint and Amended Statement of Facts, he is seeking for the following reliefs against the defendants: a. An Order of the Court reinstating me to the employment of the Defendants. b. An Order that I be reinstated and placed on the same salary income as my colleagues. c. An Order directing the defendants to pay his arrears of salaries as follows: Salaries from July to December 2010 - N336,000.00 Salaries from January to December 2011 - N576,000.00 Salaries from January to December 2012 - N576,000.00 Salaries from January to December 2013 - N600,000.00 Salaries from January to December 2014 - N600,000.00 Salaries from January to April 2015 - N200,000.00 Total Salary as at April 2015 - N2,888,000.00 d. An Order directing the defendants to pay my salary from May 2015 till judgment is given. Other initiating processes were filed along with the complaint in line with the Rules of this Court. In response, the defendants did not enter appearances either personally or through any counsel neither did they file any defence in compliance with the Rules of this Court. CLAIMANT’S PLEADED FACTS The case of the claimant is that he was a former police officer who used to work at ‘C’ Division Police Headquarters, Aganhun, Ile – Ife, Osun State. He went on that he was accused of unlawfully and unnecessarily exercising his authority by torturing and brutalizing one Roseline Benson with sticks or wire and was found guilty under paragraph Q(11) of 1st schedule of Police Reg Cap 359 of 1990. And also alleged of indecent assault on the said Roseline Benson by having carnal knowledge of her forcibly and thereby committed an offence under paragraph 'E'(iii) of 1st scheduled of Police Reg Cap 359 of 1999. He averred further that after the defendant conducted “orderly room trial” in respect of the said allegation, he was subsequently dismissed from the services of the defendants on the authority of the deputy commissioner of police who acted for commissioner of police. The claimant continued his averment that the defendants did not follow laid down procedure in dismissing him as the Deputy Commissioner of Police is not competent to dismiss him because that power, only conferred on the Commissioner of Police cannot be delegated. During hearing of the case, the claimant testified as CW1 and the defendants did not enter appearance neither did they cross-examine the claimant. They did not file any defence to this case. After repeated adjournment for the defendants but to no avail, the Court ordered the closure of defence and the matter was adjourned for address. CLAIMANT’S WRITTEN ARGUMENTS Counsel to the claimant filed his final written address for the claimant and raised issues for determination this way: 1. Whether an order of the court can be granted reinstating the claimant. 2. Whether if the claimant is reinstated, an order can be made that the claimant should be placed on the same salary income with his colleagues. 3. Whether an order can be given directing the defendants to pay arrears of salaries owed by the claimant from the time he was dismissed till the day he filed this action. 4. Whether the claimant is entitled to his salaries from May 2015 until judgment is given. Arguing the first issue on whether the claimant can be reinstated, counsel submitted that the claimant has proved his case and despite service on the defendants; the defendants did not challenge the facts before the court. The law is that, evidence not challenged is deemed admitted. Counsel went on that the statute that governs the employment of the claimant is Police Acts- Cap 359 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990 and in the said statute, the Deputy Commissioner of Police has no right to dismiss the claimant. Counsel argued further that the statute provides that it is only the Commissioner of Police that can validly dismiss the claimant and that the Deputy Commissioner of Police has no right to sign the claimant's letter of dismissal, citing CBN v. Igwilo [2007] II SCM 54 at 71-72 and Shitta- Bay v. Public Service Commission [1981] ISC 40. Arguing the second issue on whether the claimant when reinstated can be placed on the same salary income with his colleagues, counsel relied on the authority of CBN & Anor v. Igwilo supra. He contended that the claimant should be reinstated and placed on the same salary income with his colleagues. On issue three of whether the claimant can be paid his arrears of salaries owed him from July 2010 when he was dismissed till April 2015 when he amended his claim. Relying still on the CBN & Anor v. Igwilo Supra, counsel submitted that the claimant is entitled to his salaries during the period of dismissal and urged the Court to so hold. Arguing issue four of whether the claimant is entitled to his salaries from May 2015 till judgment is given. Counsel submitted that if the claimant can be entitled to his arrears of salaries from July 2010 till April 2015, then he should be entitled to his salaries from May 2015 till judgment is given. He; therefore, urged the Court to resolve this issue in favour of the claimant. COURT’S DECISION I have read through the facts of this case as pleaded by the claimant, I have also gone through the testimony of the claimant together with his frontloaded documents and from these I am of the considered view that the only issue for determination is: Whether or not the claimant is entitled to the reliefs claimed. However, before resolving this issue, it is worthy of note that the defendants did not enter appearance neither did they file any process in defence of this case and no counsel filed any final written address on their behalf in this case. In short, the defendants were absent throughout the prosecution of this case and no counsel appeared for them. Order 38 Rules 2 (1) of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017 provides that: Where a cause fixed for hearing is called and the Claimant appears in Court but the Defendant is absent in Court and has not filed any defence to the claim in accordance with these Rules, the Claimant shall be entitled to judgment as far as he can prove his case. By the reproduced Rule of this Court, the claimant still has the burden to prove his case in order to be entitled to judgment even though his case is not defended by the defendants. The question here is ‘has the claimant proved his case or claims against the defendants as required by Law so as to be entitled to judgment? It is trite that, where an employee complains that he was wrongly terminated or dismissed; he has the onus to place before the court, the terms and conditions of his contract of employment and to prove the way and manner those terms were breached by his employer. It is not the duty of the employer who is a defendant to that employee’s action to prove such breach; see African Examination Counsel v. Oshionebo [2015] 55 NLLA (Pt. 187) 165 at 189-190 paras D-A per Aderemi JCA at 189. See also a recent unreported decision of this Court in the case with Suit No: of NICN/IB/ 43/2013 between Sheaib Shafiu Isola v. Nigerian Prison Service, delivered on July 4, 2018. In order to prove his case against the defendants, the claimant tendered three documents, which were accepted as exhibits. They are: 1. Document C.1- Letter of Dismissal of the claimant at page 7 of the record 2. Document C.2 – 1st Letter of Appeal dated April 3, 2010 at pages 8-12 of the record. 3. Document C.3 – 2nd Letter of appeal dated May 16, 2011 at pages 13-17 of the record. In paragraph 13 of the Amended Statement of Facts, the claimant avers that the defendants did not follow laid down procedure in dismissing him. The claimant did not tender his letter of appointment or any other document from, which the terms and conditions of his employment can be seen in order to enable the Court to determine the rights and duties of both parties in this case. Counsel did not also prove the way and manner those terms were breached by the defendants, his employer in the instant case. In addition, the Court does not have access to the rules and regulations that govern the conduct of the ‘orderly room trial’ which the claimant complained about because the claimant did not tender it in evidence. As it is, the claimant did not give evidence on his alleged laid down procedure as averred in paragraph 13 of his Amended Statement of Facts. In paragraph 3.0.2 of his final written address, the claimant’s counsel argued inter alia that: --- The statute that governs the employment of the claimant is Police Acts- Cap 359 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990. In the said statute, the Deputy Commissioner of Police has no right to dismiss the Claimant. The statute provides that it is only the Commissioner of Police that can validly dismiss the claimant. In fact, the defendants are quite aware of this and that is why they have not come out to challenge the Claimant's case. --- Counsel did not specify the particular section of the Police Act he is referring to neither did he reproduce the relevant portion of the said statute that he is relying on to buttress his assertion or prove the way and manner the section of the Police Acts or the terms of his employment were breached by the defendants. The law is that, it is not the duty of Court to speculate or to embark on a voyage of discovery. The case of a plaintiff/the claimant in the instant case stands or falls upon his own evidence and not upon the weakness of the defence; because he is the one asserting and he must prove, see the cases of Kafaru v. Reliance Telecommunications Ltd [2015] 60 NLLR (Pt. 211) 627 at 641, paragraphs E-G; West African Examination Counsel v. Oshionebo [2015] 55 NLLA (Pt. 187) 165 at 189 - 199 paragraphs C-E and Federal Mortage Bank v. Ekpo [2005] All FWLR (Pt. 248) 1667 at 1681. Even though the claimant’s case is not defended by the defendants; since the terms and conditions of his employment are not before the Court and the Court does not know the laid down procedure for dismissing the employment of claimant, this Court cannot determine whether the appointment of the claimant was properly dismissed or not. Consequently, I find and hold that the claimant has not discharged the burden of proving his case as placed on him by the provisions of section 131 of the Evidence Act, 2011. I further hold that this case lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed. Judgment is entered accordingly. I make no order as to cost. Hon. Justice F. I. Kola-Olalere Presiding Judge