Download PDF
COURT’S JUDGMENT The Claimant originally commenced this suit at the Federal High Court of Nigeria, Ibadan Division vide a Writ of Summons filed on November 9, 2011 before same was transferred to this Court. The claimant then regularized his processes in line with the Rules of this Court. By his regularized complaint, the claimant is seeking for the following reliefs against the defendant: 1. Declaration that in so far as the offence(s) with which the claimant was charged with before the defendant’s panel of investigation was one in which the claimant had been statutorily exculpated, by Section 8 of Cap. P29 Prisons Act, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 the defendant acted in breach of the claimant’s statutorily protected right and in clear excess of jurisdiction in purporting to try the claimant in August 2011 and purportedly dismissing him vide letter Ref. No: NPS.948/S.3/VOL. IV/467 of 19th August 2011. 2. Declaration that the Investigative Panel of Enquiry set up by the defendant in August 2011 having been irregularly constituted in a manner that did not guarantee independence, impartiality and natural justice, contrary to Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution cannot come up with a recommendation which can be made the basis for any valid dismissal of the claimant and that the reference to the proceedings of the panel vitiate the defendant’s letter Ref. No: NPS.948/S.3/VOL.IV/467 of 19th August 2011 having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case. 3. Assuming that the defendant was right in proceeding with the setting up of the Investigative Panel of Enquiry, a Declaration that the defendant erred in going outside the recommendations of the Investigative Panel of Enquiry set up by her in purportedly dismissing the claimant from her employ when such recommendation was never made by the Panel (nor read out to the claimant as part of the recommendations so made). 4. Declaration that the defendant brazenly violated the fundamental right of the claimant to personal liberty as provided for in Section 35(1) of the 1999 Constitution in detaining him for fourteen days at Agodi Prisons, Agodi, Ibadan (from 4th of August 2011 till 17th August 2011) and also arranging for the claimant’s further detention at the State C.I.D. Iyaganku, Ibadan for another eighteen days (17th August, 2011 till 5th September, 2011) before producing him in Court and charging him with an offence under Section 138 of the Criminal Code Cap 38 Laws of Oyo State. 5. An Order of the Honourable Court setting aside the proceedings, findings and recommendations of the defendant’s investigative panel of enquiry dated 11th August 2011 and the defendant’s letter Ref. No: NPS.948/S.3/VOL.IV/467 of 19th August 2011 in so far as they touch and concern the claimant. 6. An Order of the Honourable Court re-instating the claimant to his position as Senior Prisons Assistant I on salary Grade Level 06/10 in the employ of the defendant. 7. An Order directing the defendant to pay to the claimant the monthly salary of N61,004.92 irregularly stopped since the month of August 2011 up to the date of re-instatement. IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO RELIEF NOS. 6 AND 7 8. An Order directing the defendant to pay to the claimant the sum of N16,105,298.88 being the claimant’s total salary for the twenty two years period (i.e. up to 16th May 2033) which the claimant had to work with the defendant as Senior Prisons Assistant I on salary grade level 06/10 and a further order directing the defendant to ensure the payment of the claimant’s gratuity and other retirement benefits as enjoyed by every other public service employee whose employment enjoyed statutory flavour. 9. General damages in the sum of N5,000,000.00 (Five Million Naira only) to assuage for the shock, severe emotional and psychological torment suffered by the claimant on account of the several unlawful violation of the fundamental right to personal liberty suffered by the claimant when the Defendant arranged for the locking up of the claimant for several days in breach of the claimant’s constitutional right to personal liberty. 10. An Order of Perpetual Injunction restraining the defendant either by itself, officials or agents or anybody claiming by or in trust for her from harassing, intimidating or in any way preventing the claimant from the lawful exercise of his duties as an officer in the cadre of SPA I in the Prisons Service of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. 11. 10% interest on all judgment sum from date of judgment till final liquidation. Other initiating processes were filed along with the complaint in line with the Rules of this Court. In response, the defendant entered appearances through its counsel and filed its statement of defence together with other processes in compliance with the Rules of this Court. CLAIMANT’S CASE AS PLEADED The case of the claimant is that he was appointed as a Prison Assistant I (P.A. I) on 1st June 2006 and upon resumption, he was posted to the Nigerian Prisons Service, Ile-Ife wherein he served for three years. That during his short stint with the defendant, he served diligently and because of his devotion to his duties, he was promptly promoted, from Prison Assistant I (P.A. I) to Senior Prisons Assistant on 1st January 2010. However, due to the escape of an inmate when he was on duty, he was arrested and locked up at Agodi Prisons yard premises for about two weeks and was later made to face an investigating panel, which recommended the reduction of his rank, his transfer out of that station or warning. The claimant averred that in furtherance to the recommendations, he was transferred out of the station but then, he was surprised by the defendant’s letter; dismissing him from its service. CASE OF THE DEFENDANT AS PLEADED The case of the defendant on the other hand, is that the claimant was not diligent and devoted to his duties and that his gross negligence led to the escape of an inmate by name Shuaib Aro. That the panel officers who adjudicated over the case were as prescribed by the rules governing disciplinary cases of officers of the Nigerian Prisons Service and their recommendation was forwarded to the Controller General of Prisons Service. The defendant averred that the report of the panel was subject to the approval of the Controller-General of Prisons who overturned the panel’s recommendation when he read all the reports in relation to this case. That the claimant has caused substantial damage to the service and Nigeria as a whole and as such is not entitled to any claim/damages. During hearing of the case, the claimant testified as CW1 while the defendant called two witnesses; ACP Sebiotimo and Eniola Oluyemi A, who testified as DW1 and DW2 respectively. In line with the Rules of this Court, counsel were directed to file their final written addresses by the Court and they complied with the direction. WRITTEN ARGUMENTS OF THE DEFENDANT Counsel to the defendant filed his final written address and raised these issues for determination of the Court: 1. Whether the defendant has done anything wrong by his present action 2. Whether the claimant had complied with or followed the administrative policy lay down by the law. 3. Whether the Plaintiff has proved or showed substantial material facts to move the Court to succeed in his claim. Arguing the first issue, counsel submitted that the defendant has done nothing wrong and that it is trite that the punishment for misconduct is dismissal. He went on that the claimant admitted committing the offence before the administrative panel of the defendant and so, he has not been victimized by anybody. To him, the fact that the claimant did not show any medical report of his health (having stomach upset) or written documents authoring him not to use the security tools make him responsible for the escape of the inmate. Arguing issue two of whether the claimant complied or followed the administrative policy at the material time, counsel submitted that there is a rule and laid down procedures in the administrative system that needs to be followed before resulting to litigations; which is that the claimant ought to have appealed to the Controller-General of Prisons before coming to this Court. He maintained that the claimant who accepts the decision of the Adjudication panel cannot turn around to reject the outcome of the review panel without appealing or writing to the Controller-General or the Minister before seeking litigation. (However, counsel did not refer the Court to any law or regulation of the defendant on this and the Court cannot speculate on this). Arguing issue three of whether the claimant has succeeded in proving his case to the satisfaction of the Court, counsel submitted that the claimant has failed to prove his case before the Court as he has not produced any medical report on his health at the material time neither has he shown any written document authoring him not to use the security tools given to him on the inmate. To counsel, all materials facts in this suit point to the fact that the claimant left his inmate out of sight without handing him over to any anybody neither was the claimant given permission to do so. WRITTEN ARGUMENTS OF THE CLAIMANT In the claimant’s final written address, his counsel formulated the following issues for determination of the Court: 1. Whether the panel constituted by the defendant, which conducted a “preliminary investigation adjudication proceeding on the escape of awaiting trial; Alhaji Shuaib Aro” was properly constituted in such a way that it is not prejudicial to the claimant. 2. Whether the procedure adopted by the panel constituted by the defendant, which conducted a “preliminary investigation adjudication proceeding on escape of awaiting trial Alhaji Shuaib Aro” does not infringe on the claimant’s constitutional right to fair hearing. 3. Whether the premise upon which the Deputy Controller of Prisons (Agodi Prison) disagreed on the award of the Adjudicating Officer is not wrong in law. 4. Whether the claimant is entitled to his claims as contained in the Complaint and Statement of Facts dated 30th October 2013 but filed 1st November, 2013. Arguing the first issue, counsel submitted that jurisdiction is the threshold of judicial power. It is the lifeline of all trials and the basis upon which any Court tries a case. Therefore, a trial or proceeding conducted without jurisdiction, no matter how beautifully conducted, is a nullity; citing Madukolu v. Nkemdilim [1961] NSCC Vol. II 374 @ 379; (2001) 46 WRN 1 @ 13; Uzoho v. N.C.P [2007] 10 NWLR (Pt. 1042) 320 and Action Congress v. INEC [2007] 18 NWLR (Pt. 1064) 50. He went on that the rules of natural justice are not limited to judicial bodies alone but it is also applicable to administrative bodies, citing In Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee v. Chief Gani Fawehinmi (what is the citation?). Counsel continued that in the circumstances of this instant case, the defendant constituted a panel to investigate what led to the escape of an Awaiting-Trial Inmate (ATM) and to further make appropriate recommendations and or decisions. The members of this panel were the claimant’s superiors at the Agodi Division of the Nigerian Prisons Service who witnessed or are privy to the incidents that led to the constitution of the panel. In other words, the claimant’s accusers and those who are privy to the offence allegedly committed by the claimant were the ones who sat as judges in his case; as such, the claimant was not afforded fair hearing by the panel constituted and tele-guided by the defendant’s Senior Officers who doubled as the claimant’s accusers, citing Judicial Service Commission of Cross River State & Anor v. Dr. (Mrs.) Asari Young [2013] 4-5 SC (Pt. II) 132 @ 156-157; Akande v. Nigerian Army [2001] 8 NWLR (Pt. 714) 1 CA; Oyeyemi v. Commissioner for Local Government [1992] 2 NWLR (Pt. 226) 661 @ 67 and Adigun v. The Attorney General of Oyo State & 18 Ors [1987] 3 SC (Reprint) 164. Counsel submitted that a person cannot be a judge in his own cause, citing Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee v. Chief Gani Fawehinmi [1985] 7 SC (Reprint) 108 and Mr. Yesufu Amuda Garba & 8 Ors v. The University of Maiduguri [1986] 2 SC (Reprint) 90. He went on that where an employee alleges breach of rules of natural justice by a domestic panel constituted by the employer to investigate his alleged misconduct, the risk of prejudice is enough for the court to draw an inference of such breach, and that it is immaterial that no actual prejudice was established by the employee. Counsel went on that posting of two persons would have prevented the unfortunate situation that led to the escape of the Awaiting-Trial Inmate as the law cannot envisage that the claimant should have control over nature as it is natural for a person to answer the call of nature where same “violently” or “urgently” calls as in the claimant’s situation. To counsel, it becomes unavoidable for the claimant to leave the escaped inmate, more so that the said inmate was seriously sick and suffering from stroke which would naturally mean that he would be unable to move freely and effectively. Counsel contended that where the proceedings of a tribunal are vitiated by unfairness, the first duty of a Court reviewing the decision of such tribunal is to set aside that decision, citing Abu Idakwo v. Leo Ejiga & Anor [2002] 7 SC (Pt. II) 168 @ 173. Arguing issue two of whether the procedure adopted by the Panel does not infringe the claimant’s right to fair hearing, counsel submitted that the claimant was tried by a panel that was hurriedly set up by the defendant and Part of the case of the claimant is that despite requesting for a copy of the charge against him at the panel, he was not availed a copy of same, thereby denying the opportunity of knowing beforehand the case against him in other for him to prepare his defence. This fact was not disputed by the defendant but was rather confirmed and corroborated by the defendant in paragraph 12 (b) of her Statement of Defence. That it is before the Court that the claimant was detained in prisons from 4th August 2017 to 17th August 2011 and subsequently transferred from the Agodi Prisons yard premises of the defendant where he had been locked up for fourteen days and tried by the defendant’s panel. Hence, the claimant came from Prison custody to attend the proceedings of the panel set up by the defendant, referring to Paragraph 30 of the Statement of facts, Paragraph 36 of the claimant’s Witness Statement on oath and Page 462 of Document “D1”. Counsel maintained that where an employee alleges breach of rules of natural justice by a domestic panel constituted by the employer to investigate his alleged misconduct, the risk of prejudice is enough for the court to draw an inference of such breach, and it is immaterial that no actual prejudice was established by the employee; citing Shell Petroleum Development Company Limited v. Chief Victor Sunday Olanrewaju [2008] 12 SC (Pt. III) 27 @ 48-49. Arguing issue three of whether the premise upon which the Deputy Controller of Prisons (Agodi Prison) disagreed on the awards of the Adjudicating Officer is not wrong in law, counsel submitted that at the conclusion of hearing by the panel set up by the defendant to conduct a preliminary investigation and adjudication proceedings on the allegations made against the claimant, the said panel made the following awards/Recommendation: Plain warning; Reduction in rank; and Transfer out of the station. That these recommendations were passed on to the “Deputy Controller of Prisons (Agodi Prison)” who agreed with the findings of the panel but disagreed with the panel’s award/recommendation and subsequently recommended the dismissal of the claimant from the defendant’s service. It is important to point out that the “findings” of the said Deputy Controller of Prisons (Agodi Prisons) was the basis for the decision of the ‘DCG (Admin) (see Pages 336 of the record). That while the claimant is not challenging the authority or power of the Deputy Controller of Prisons (Agodi) to review the recommendations of the panel, counsel submitted that the said Deputy Controller of Prisons (Agodi) cannot change, modify, alter or substitute the findings of the panel. That Indeed, the Deputy Controller of Prisons (Agodi) unilaterally made a finding that --- “Investigation revealed that the ATM was packing his belongings in the presence of the Warder on duty, yet he did not deem it fit to inform his Chief Warder so as to avert the escape” without hearing from the claimant and it is not on record that he conducted another proceeding which would have made him arrive at that conclusion. Counsel went on that it is trite that in a situation like this, the Deputy Controller of Prisons (being merely a reviewing authority) is bound to restrict himself to the facts found by the Administrative Panel, whose decision he is reviewing. He is; therefore, not allowed in law, to hear evidence or receive representation from one side behind the back of the other, citing Judicial Service Commission of Cross River State & Anor v. Dr. (Mrs.) Asari Young (Supra). Counsel went on that the defendant’s counsel did not cite any provision of any regulation or “administrative policy” to show that the claimant need to appeal against the decision of the panel. Arguing issue four of whether the claimant is entitled to his claims, counsel submitted that the claimant was employed by the defendant vide Document “C1” which appointment was subsequently confirmed vide Document “C2”. Thus, the claimant having been employed by the defendant as an RM II officer on salary Grade Level RSS13/1 and being a member of the Corps, his employment is governed and or regulated by the statute, citing Section 1 of the Prisons Act, Vol. 14, Cap P29, LFN 2004. To counsel, the claimant has led cogent and compelling evidence towards proving and substantiating the reliefs sought in the statement of claim. He went on that the claimant has given evidence of his salary with the defendant, and also gave unchallenged evidence in his Statement on oath which he adopted in Court. The defendant did not cross examine him at all on this issue. This means that the claimant’s evidence on the issue; haven’t not been discredited should be believed by the Court, citing Mosheshe General Merchant Limited v. Nigeria Steel Products Limited [1987] 2 NWLR (Pt. 55) 110; Attorney General Of Oyo State v. Fairlake Hotels Limited [1988] 5 NWLR (Pt. 92) 1; Amadi v. Nwosu [1992] 5 NWLR (Pt. 241) 273; Documents “C1”, “C2” and “C3”. In addition counsel submitted that it is the position of the law that when the adversary fails to adduce evidence to put on the other side of the imaginary scale of justice, minimum evidence adduced by the other side would suffice to prove his case. Where evidence called by the claimant is neither challenged nor contradicted, the onus of proof on him is discharged on a minimum proof, citing Kosile v. Folarin [1961] 2 SCNLR 233; Afrotech Services Limited v. M.I.A & Sons Limited [2001] FWLR (Pt. 35) 643 @ 695 and Standard Nigeria Engineering Limited & Anor v. Nigerian Bank For Commerce & Industry [2006] 2-3 SC 74 or [2006] All FWLR (Pt. 316) 255 @ 266-267. Counsel urged the Court to hold that the claimant is entitled to his claims as contained in the Complaint and Statement of facts dated and filed 1st November, 2013. The defendant filed reply on point of law wherein he submitted that the defendant complied with the rules as put down in the ‘Standing Order, 2011’ as amended, citing sections 624-626 of the Standing Order 2011. His position is that, sections 613-638 made provision for staff Discipline (Adjudication and Procedures). That claimant cannot be heard to be raising issues of jurisdiction and fair hearing having submitted to, participate in and accept the outcome of the trial; even though he knew the outcome of the trial was subjected to review and further approval. Counsel then went on to re-argue his case in the said reply COURT’S DECISION I have carefully read through the facts of this case as pleaded by the parties, their written testimonies and the written arguments of their counsel together with their cited authorities. From all of this, I am of the considered view that the only issue to determine is: Whether or not the claimant has proved his case before the Court so as to entitle him to the reliefs he is claiming. However, before resolving this issue, I need to make some preliminary points. Order 45 of the NICN (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017 is on filing of written addresses by counsel to the parties. Order 45 Rule 2 is on the content and format of the address while Order 45 Rule 3 requires that the address shall contain summary and conclusion of the address; see pages B. 178 & B. 179 of the Rules. For ease of reference, I reproduce Order 45 Rules 1 to 3 thus: ORDER 45 – RULES 1 – 3; 1. This Order shall apply to all applications and Final Addresses. 2. (1) A Written Address shall be type-written with 14 font size of legible and readable font type or character (not cursive or italicized) with double spacing format and printed with black ink on white opaque A4 size paper of good quality. (2) A written Address shall not be more than thirty-five (35) pages, set out in paragraphs and numbered serially. It shall contain: (a) The claim on which the address is based; (b) A brief summary statement of the facts with reference to the exhibit tendered at the trial; (c) The issue arising from the evidence; (d) A succinct statement of argument on each issue incorporating the authorities referred to together with full citation of the authorities: (e) A list of statutes or laws to be relied upon; (f) Relevant facts and facts relevant to the facts in issue; (g) Not contain extraneous matters. Provided that where a Written Address contains extraneous matters, the Court may discountenance the portion of the final address containing the extraneous matters. 3. (1) All Written Addresses shall be concluded with a numbered summary of the points raised and the party’s prayer. A list of all authorities referred to shall be submitted with the Written Address. Where any unreported judgment is relied upon, the Certified True Copy shall be submitted along with the Written Address. (2) Failure to comply with rules 2 and 3(1) of this Order may render the written Address incompetent. The defendant’s counsel re-filed his final written address together with his reply on points of law on April 24, 2018; see pages 520 to 535 of the record. The counsel seems very confused in the address and apparently, he did not read through the provisions of Order 45 of the NICN (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017 before writing and filing the address. For instance, under what the counsel sub-titled ‘FACTS’; which to my understanding is to state the summary of the facts pleaded by the parties, counsel presented some arguments and referring to judicial authorities, some with incomplete citation and without stating the issues he argued. Then, another sub-title at his paragraph 4 of the address is ‘EVALUATION OF THE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COURT’. Under this, counsel itemized five points. The fifth point is e. and it states thus: “the claimant act of interacting with the inmate and taking orders from third party leading to the none use of the working tools given by the defendant”. This is an incomplete statement and I do not really understand what counsel is passing across to the Court by it. Eventually, counsel framed 3 issues in paragraph 5 of his address and argued them in paragraph 6 without referring to any single authority, be it case law or statute law; even though he inter alia alleged that this suit is premature in paragraph 6.2.0 of his address. The Court does not know the requirement/term or condition of the parties’ agreement that makes this action premature; and so, the court cannot decide whether or not the action is premature without seeing the statute or the parties’ agreement that make the case premature. In his conclusion of the address in paragraph 7.1, counsel states: “having pleaded all these Substantial Materials facts before this Court, the claims of the claimant should fail and the defendant’s position be upheld in his favour. The claimant has not shown any act of loyalty to his country, service or self by colluding with an inmate put under his control and guard as an officer of the Federal Republic to avoid justice and escape into the society without being punished or rebuked for his offence”. The numbers of points raised in the address were not stated and no list of authorities referred to in the address was submitted with the address by counsel. Counsel did not also refer to; neither did he apply the defendant’s exhibits before the Court to this case in his arguments. Clearly, counsel to the defendant has not complied with the provisions of Order 45 Rules 2 & 3 (1) of the NICN (C.P.) Rules, 2017 in filing his final written address; either substantially or otherwise. Order 45 Rule 3 (2) of the NICN (C.P.) Rules provides that: ‘Failure to comply with Rules 2 & 3 (1) of the NICN (C. P.) of this Order may render the written address in competent’. Since I cannot make head or tail out of the address of the defendant’s counsel, I hereby hold with the authority of the provision of Order 45 Rule 3 (2) of the NICN (C.P.) Rules, 2017 that the defendant’s address filed on April 24, 2018 at pages 520 to 528 of the record is incompetent and it is accordingly discountenanced in this judgment. Furthermore, in the 1st endorsement of the claimant to his complaint, he is seeking for: Declaration that in so far as the offence(s) with which the claimant was charged with before the defendant’s panel of investigation was one in which the claimant had been statutorily exculpated, by Section 8 of Cap. P29 Prisons Act, Laws of the Federation 2004, the defendant acted in breach of the claimant’s statutorily protected right and in clear excess of jurisdiction in purporting to try the claimant in August 2011 and purportedly dismissing him vide letter Ref. No: NPS.948/S.3/VOL. IV/467 of 19th August 2011. The claimant frontloaded and relied inter alia on Certified true copies of: a. The charge sheet of charge No: MI/1092C/2011 for C. O. P. v. Shuaib Shaafiu Ishola (Document C.4) at page 389 of the record. b. Record of proceedings on charge No: MI/1092C/2011 for C. O. P. v. Shuaib Shaafiu Ishola (Document C.5) at pages 390 to 430 of the record. I sincerely do not understand what the claimant’s counsel wants the Court to do with these two documents. The Magistrate Court did not conclude its proceedings on the claimant’s case referred to in Documents C.4 & C. 5 as the last record in Document C.5 was taken on 18/11/2013 and the case was adjourned to 6/1/14 for defence. See page 430 of the record. The documents were not even made use of in the written arguments of the claimant. So how does the claimant wants the Court to decide that he has been statutorily exculpated from the offence(s) with which he was charged before the defendant’s panel of investigation when there is no judicial pronouncement to that effect. Also, section 8 of Cap P.29 of the Prisons Act mentioned in the endorsed relief was not even referred to in the claimant’s final written argument. In Kafaru v. Reliance Telecommunications Ltd [2015] 60 NLLR (Pt. 211) 627 at 641, para E-G the Court held that ‘facts not proved by evidence go to no issue’. As it is; therefore, the facts on the 1st relief as endorsed on the claimant’s complaint was not proved by evidence, and so, they go to no issue and these facts are deemed abandoned; this 1st relief is accordingly dismissed. MERIT OF THE CASE WHETHER THE CLAIMANT HAS SUCCEDED IN PROVING HIS CASE The crux of the claimant’s case is that he is challenging his dismissal from his employment with the defendant. His position is that due to the escape of an inmate when he was on duty at UCH, he was arrested and locked up at Agodi Prisons yard unconstitutionally and later made to face an investigating panel which recommended against him; reduction of rank, transfer out of the station or warning. He went on that the Panel’s report was submitted to the “Deputy Controller of Prisons (Agodi Prison)”, who agreed with the findings of the Panel but disagreed with the Panel’s award/recommendation, and he subsequently recommended the dismissal of the claimant, which the defendant did. The law is that in any employment relationship, an employee who complains that he was wrongly terminated or dismissed has the onus of placing before the court; the terms and conditions of the contract of employment and to prove the way and manner those terms were breached by the employer. It is not the duty of the employer who is a defendant to the employee’s action to prove or to justify any such breach, see the case of West African Examination Council v. Oshionebo [2015] 55 NLLA (Pt. 187) 165 at 189-190 paras D-A. In proving this instant case, the claimant listed and frontloaded five documents, which the Court marked as Documents C.1 to C.5 respectively; see pages 384 to 430 of the Court’s record. Document C.1 is the claimant’s letter of offer of appointment with Ref. No. NPS.005/S.139/VOL.II and dated June 1, 2006; see page 386, paragraph two thereof states: Your Appointment is at the pleasure of the President and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces and subject to the terms and conditions laid down for the Federal Public Service of Nigeria, and the Civil Defence, Immigration and Prison Services Board’s Rules and Regulations on appointment, promotion and discipline. However, the terms and conditions laid down for the Public Service of Nigeria, and the Civil Defence, Immigration and Prison Services Board’s Rules and Regulations on appointment, promotion and discipline of the claimant on his appointment with the defendant was not tendered in evidence neither was any evidence given on then so as to enable the Court determine the rights and duties of the parties in this employment relationship and also to enable the Court determine in “what way or manners” the defendant was wrong in dismissing the claimant from the employment. It is basically from these documents that the Court will determine the steps to be taking by the defendant in dismissing the claimant. The claimant did not refer the Court to the terms and condition of his employment, or the standing order his counsel mentioned in the address as regulating the procedure that the defendant will follow in dismissing the claimant. As it is, this Court cannot determine how the Investigating panel is to be properly constituted neither can the Court decide on the scope or power of the Deputy Controller of Prisons (Agodi Prison) in reviewing the recommendations of the Investigating Panel by recommending a higher punishment than what the Panel recommended. Claimant’s counsel addressed the Court copiously on the non-compliance with the principle of fair hearing as regards the constitution of the Investigating Panel and the review of the recommendation of the Panel including the recommendation of higher punishment by the Deputy Controller of Prisons (Agodi Prison) from what the Panel recommended. However, it is trite that an employer has a discretion to give a lesser punishment to an employee, he has no discretion to give a higher punishment than is prescribed. For instance, in the case of Udegbunam v. F.C.D.A. & Ors [2003] NWLR (Pt. 829) page 487 @ 503 paragraphs C to D; the Supreme Court, Per Tobi JSC held that: --- Although the appellant was by paragraph 4202 of the Federal Civil Service Rules due for outright dismissal from the service, the respondent’s magnanimity resulted in the termination of his appointment. This is in order. An employer has a discretion to give a lesser punishment to an employee, but he has no discretion to give a higher punishment. Since the termination of appointment is a lesser punishment, the appellant has not right to complain. This cited authority shows that the Court needs to see the terms and conditions of the employment relationship between the parties before it can decide whether the punishment melted on the claimant in this case is higher than what he deserved. The report of the Investigating Panel is not part of the terms and conditions of the said employment. Rather the terms and conditions of the employment in question are as laid down for the Public Service of Nigeria, and the Civil Defence, Immigration and Prison Services Board’s Rules and Regulations on appointment, promotion and discipline; together with the content of the ‘Standing Order, 2011’; which counsel submitted that it states provisions for Discipline of staff of Prison, including the claimant. This Court is not seized of any of these documents. All the case cited by the claimant’s counsel in the instant suit are those decided based on terms and conditions of employment agreed upon by the parties, placed before the Court. It is not enough to raise the issue of fair hearing before the Court without stating or referring to the respective rights and duties of the parties as contained in the said terms and conditions of employment. By failing to produce the terms and conditions together with ‘the standing order’ regulating the claimant’s appointment with the defendant, the court does not know the right and duties of the parties including the “dos and do-nots” of the Investigating Panel and the powers of the “Deputy Controller of Prisons (Agodi Prison) in reviewing the report of the Panel by recommending a higher punishment than what the Panel recommended. The law is that the case of a claimant stands or falls upon his own evidence and not upon the weakness of the defence; because he who asserts must prove. In the case of Regt Trustees, B.C. & S. v. Edet [2016] 5 NWLR (Pt. 1505) CA 374 at 403, para F-G, Oyewole, JCA held that: Pleadings, once un-admitted must be supported by evidence and where evidence is not provided, any case built on it must fall like a pack of cards. Parties must support their pleadings with evidence in order to succeed. In civil cases; the scale of justice tilts towards the party with more coherent and believable case, unfazed by sentiments and unfounded insinuations. See also the case of Kafaru v. Reliance Telecommunications Ltd. (supra) on the same principle. As it is, the claimant has not discharged the burden of proof placed on him in section 133 (1) and (2) of Evidence Act, 2011 and this burden has; therefore, not shifted to the defendant to disproof. It is also trite that parties must support their pleadings with evidence in order to succeed. Where one party fails or refuses to submit issues raised in his pleadings for trial by giving or calling evidence in support of same; the trial Judge must resolve the case against the defaulting party, unless there are other legal reasons dictating the contrary. Indeed, refusal by a party to lead evidence in support of an averment in the pleadings or the entire pleadings translates into a voluntary abandonment of such averments or the entire pleadings as the case may be; see West African Examination Counsel v. Oshionebo (supra). In the circumstance of the instant case, I find that the claimant has failed to submit issues he raised in his pleadings for trial by giving or calling satisfactory evidence in support of his case. Again, the claimant has not shown any legal reasons dictating to the contrary why the Court should not resolve the case against him. Therefore, I hold that by not leading evidence on the terms and conditions of the contract of his employment, the claimant has not succeeded in proving the way and manner those terms and conditions were breached by the defendants in this case. Consequently, I hold that the claimant has not proved his case to the satisfaction of this Court so as to be entitled to the relief being sought for. This case is hereby dismissed. Judgment is entered accordingly and I make no order as to cost. Hon. Justice F. I. Kola-Olalere Presiding Judge