Download PDF
JUDGMENT This action was instituted by the Claimant on 23rd February 2017. In his endorsed Complaint, the Claimant sought the following reliefs: 1. A Declaration that the Claimant is still under the employment of the Defendant. 2. A Declaration that the detention of the Claimant in cell by the Defendant for 7 days in 2008 and 2011 respectively is unlawful. 3. A Declaration that the prosecution of the Claimant by the Defendant is malicious. 4. A Declaration that the stopping of monthly contribution to the Claimant’s Pension Administration by the Defendant is unlawful. 5. An Order directing the Defendant to pay the Claimant’s salary from 1st March, 2011 till date at the rate of N123,000.00 per month (or at the rate that the Claimant’s mates are being paid) with interest at the rate of 2% per month from March 2011 until total liquidation. 6. An Order directing the Defendant to remit to the Claimant's Pension Managers (Sigma Pensions), the monthly contributions from August 2016 until the Claimant's employment is lawfully determined or till he retires. 7. An Order directing the Defendant to release the result of the promotion examination that the Claimant took. 8. An Order directing the Defendant to allow the Claimant to continue with his work at the same grade level that his mates that were employed with him at the same time are now. 9. An Order directing the Defendant to pay damages for the detention of the Claimant in cell for 24 days and for malicious prosecution of the Claimant and general damages in the sum of N100,000,000.00. Pleadings were duly exchanged and hearing commenced on the 17th day of October 2017. The Claimant testified for himself as CW1. The Defendant was absent from these proceedings on several days despite its being aware that the case pended in court and despite being served several hearing notices. After the Claimant was done with his evidence-in-chief, the case was adjourned on a number of dates to enable the Defendant appear, to cross examine the Claimant. This court was constrained to foreclose the Defendant from cross examining the Claimant when it was obvious that the Defendant was not forthcoming. The Defendant was however permitted to defend the suit by leave of this court. My ruling of 24/5/2018 refers. The above intervening events and applications were resolved and hearing continued with the evidence of Achogu Chidi, a staff of the Defendant who testified as the Defendant’s sole witness (DW1). Hearing ended on the 25th day of June 2018. Parties were ordered to file final addresses. These were accordingly filed and subsequently regularised and duly adopted on 9th November 2018. CLAIMANT’S CASE The Claimant testified in proof of his case on 17/10/2017. His case is that he was employed by the Defendant as a Cadet Officer on Grade Level 8 in an employment letter dated 1st May 2006. During his employment, he attended several courses and trainings at the instance of the Defendant. Sometime in November 2008, the Defendant alleged that it wrote a letter to the University of Ilorin, where the Claimant graduated from, to confirm the authenticity of the statement of result presented by the Claimant for employment. The Defendant also claimed that the University of Ilorin responded to say the Claimant graduated with a 3rd class degree and not the 2nd class (lower) degree contained in the statement of result presented by the Claimant. The Claimant told the Defendant that the result he presented was what was given to him by the University. The Claimant was made to write a statement under words of caution and he maintained that the result was given to him by the University. The Defendant detained him in a cell for 7 days from 7/11/2008 to 10/11/2008. The Claimant further averred that he continued his duties for the Defendant until sometime in 2011 when again he was told to make more statements. He did and maintained that the result he presented was what he was given by the University. He was again detained in the Defendant’s cell for 17 days from 1/3/2011 to 24/3/2011. Thereafter, the Defendant preferred charge no. CR/47/2011 against him before the FCT High Court and he was arraigned on 28/3/2011. In the judgement of the court in the case delivered on 25/11/2016, the Claimant was discharged and acquitted of the charges. His solicitor subsequently wrote some letters to the Defendant on the outcome of the case, but the Defendant ignored the letters. The Claimant himself went to the Defendant’s office with a copy of the judgment but he was told by the Head, Human Resources of the Defendant that unless the University of Ilorin informs the Defendant that it made a mistake in the issuance of the statement of result to the Claimant, the Defendant cannot do anything for the Claimant. The Claimant said also that his monthly salary was the sum of N123,000.00 but the Defendant stopped paying him salary since February 2011. The Defendant also stopped paying his pension contributions to his Pension Administrator, Sigma Pension, in July 2016. He also said he wrote a promotion examination, but the Defendant refused to release the result of the examination. The Claimant tendered a number of documents in evidence. They were admitted in evidence and marked Exhibits C1, C2A, C2B, C3, C4, C5, C6, C7, C8, C9, C10, C11 and C12. DEFENDANT’S CASE Pursuant to the leave granted to the Defendant, the Defendant filed a defence to the suit. The Defendant opened its defence on 25/6/2018 and called one Ahuchogu Chidi, a staff of the Defendant, as its only witness. The case of the Defendant is that on 11th November 2008, the Defendant, when conducting vetting exercise of staff to determine their suitability for retention in service, wrote a letter to the University of Ilorin requesting transcript from date of entry to graduation of the Claimant. The University sent a response to the Defendant dated 27/11/2008 wherein it stated that the University did not issue the statement of result presented by the Claimant to the Defendant. The University of Ilorin in their response stated that the Claimant graduated from the University in the year 2003 and was awarded a B.Sc (Business Administration) degree with a Third Class Honours instead of the 2nd Class lower degree he presented. The Defendant carried out investigation into the allegation and the Claimant was invited to state his own side of the story. The Claimant made extra-judicial statement dated 24/11/2008 but he was not detained. The Defendant investigated the authenticity of the statement of result presented by the Claimant and the signature purporting to be that of Dr. (Mrs.) J. I. Oyebanji on it but found it to be forged. Dr. (Mrs.) J. I. Oyebanji was invited in the course of investigation but she stated that the signature on the statement of result is not hers and she volunteered samples of her signature for forensic examination. The forensic report showed that that the author of the specimen signature is not the same as the author of the statement of result. Another letter was written to the University of Ilorin in February 2011 and the response received from the University showed that the Claimant’s statement of result was fake. The response was accompanied with the transcript of the Claimant from his year of entry to graduation and the order of proceedings to the 22 convocation ceremonies of the University. These documents revealed that the Claimant graduated with a Third-Class Honours. Upon conclusion of investigation and based on all the evidence gathered, the Claimant was charged to court. Although the Claimant was discharged and acquitted, the prosecution’s failure to prove beyond reasonable doubt that that the statement of result was forged does not make the statement of result presented by the Claimant authentic. The University of Ilorin has maintained that the statement of result presented by the Claimant for employment did not emanate from them. Some documents were tendered in evidence through DW1. They were admitted in evidence and marked Exhibits D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, D6, D7, D8, D9, D10, D11, D12 and D13. DEFENDANT’S ADDRESS The Defendants filed their final written address wherein learned counsel for the Defendants formulated the sole issue for determination to wit: Whether the Claimant has made out a case for his malicious prosecution and stopping of his salary. In arguing the sole issue for determination, learned counsel for the Defendant placed reliance on Sections 131-134 of the Evidence Act, 2011 and the courts pronouncements in NATIONAL BANK OF NIGERIA LTD vs. DEBORAH OPEOLA (1994) 1 NWLR (Pt. 319) 126 at 139. Counsel submitted that a party who makes allegations in a pleading should produce evidence to substantiate them as part of his case. Counsel argued that the Claimant in proving the Defendant wrong should have applied for his transcript from the University of Ilorin to show that it is the same as his statement of result and that the documents from him were given by the University if the University is proving otherwise. In addition, counsel submitted that the Claimant did not adduce any credible evidence in proof of his case and argued that the Claimant failed to debunk the claim of the institution either by applying for his transcript and duplicate statement of result and producing same to clear his hard earned degree instead of relying on a statement of result which the University clearly disclaimed that it did not issue. Placing reliance on the courts’ pronouncement on NEPA vs. INAMETI (2002) 11 NWLR (Pt. 778) 425-426, paras. A-E, counsel argued that it is only on such proof on preponderance of evidence that the burden will shift to the Defendant who is then expected to contradict the Claimant's case. Further, counsel argued that the Claimant claimed that his prosecution was out of malice and he was detained for several days on different occasions and also not paid salaries and pensions and the Defendant refused to produce the result of his promotion exams, but he failed to produce any evidence in proof of this assertion. I have reviewed other submissions made by counsel in her Final Written Address, and I will make reference to them whenever required in the course of this judgment. In conclusion, it was the submission of the Defendant counsel that the Claimant having not proved any of his claims as contained in his statement of facts against the Defendant is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought against the Defendant. Counsel urged the Court to dismiss the Claimant's claims against the Defendant for having not discharged the burden of proof placed on him by law with substantial cost. CLAIMANT’S ADDRESS The Claimant filed their final written address wherein learned counsel for the Claimant formulated the following two issues for determination: 1. Whether having regard to the Claimant's Statement of Claim, his written deposition on oath and all documents admitted, he is entitled to all the reliefs sought. 2. Whether the Defendant presented any credible Defence to the Claimant's claims. On Issue One, learned counsel for the Claimant referenced the Claimants exhibits and submitted inter alia that the Claimant was employed by the Defendant and that the said employment of the Claimant has not been determined in any way. Further, counsel argued that the Claimant is a public servant whose employment can only be determined according to the Public Service Rules. The basis for the Defendant's allegation against the Claimant has been destroyed having been discharged and acquitted by a court of competent jurisdiction (as per Exhibit C8) and hence he ought to have been reinstated in compliance with the Public Service Rules. See Section Rule 030411 Public Service Rules and CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA AND ANOR vs. IGWILLO (2007) 4-5 SC Page 154 at 157. Counsel argued that the Defendant in its pleadings did not state that the Claimant has been sacked, dismissed or relieved of his duty. The Claimant counsel alleged malicious prosecution by the Defendant against the Claimant and submitted that the Claimant was exonerated hereby entitled to the reliefs he claimed against the Defendant. Counsel also alleged that the Defendant did not plead certain paragraphs before the court nor did he comply with the necessary procedure to dismiss the Claimant from service. Counsel urged the court to grant the reliefs of the Claimant. On Issue Two, it was the submission of the Claimant that the Defendant had failed to deny the material facts of the case or reverse the Claimants victory in the criminal trial as exhibited before the court. Counsel further highlighted parts of the Defendants arguments in its final written address that were not pleaded before the court and submitted that evidence led on facts not pleaded should be discountenanced as it goes to no issue. See the case of HASHIDU vs. GOJE (2003) 15 NWLR (Pt. 483) 325 at 379-381. Counsel further urged the court to discountenance Exhibit D8 and urged the court to hold that the Defendant has not presented any credible defence to the Claimant's claim and find in favour of the Claimant. Further submissions of counsel for the Claimant will be referred to if and when necessary in this judgment. DEFENDANT’S REPLY The Defendants filed their reply on points of law wherein learned counsel for the Defendant maintained his arguments as canvassed in his Final Written address and reiterated that the Claimant is not entitled to the reliefs sought in the suit. Counsel submitted that the Claimant has not discharged the burden of proof placed on him and therefore has not proved his case. Counsel urged the court to hold that Exhibit C8 is not proof that the Claimant is a staff of the Defendant and asked that the Claimant produce his duplicate statement of result to exonerate himself. COURT’S DECISION I have considered the facts of the case, the evidence adduced by the parties and the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties in their respective final written addresses. In my view, the sole issue to be determined in this judgment is whether the Claimant has proved his case to entitle him to the reliefs he sought in the case. The Claimant sought several reliefs in this case. His first claim is for a declaration that he is still in the Defendant’s employment. It is observed that reliefs 4, 5, 6 and 8 are dependent on the success of this relief. The case of the Claimant is that he was employed by the Defendant on 1st May 2006. In 2011, pursuant to the Defendant’s allegation that he forged the statement of result he presented for employment, the Defendant preferred a charge against the Claimant before the FCT High Court in Charge No. CR/47/2011. The Claimant said he was arraigned on 28/3/2011 and tried. The judgment in the case was delivered on 25/11/2016 wherein he was discharged and acquitted of the charges against him. The judgment is Exhibit C8. Meanwhile, the Defendant stopped paying his salaries from February 2011 and during the case, the Defendant also stopped remitting pension contribution into the Claimant’s pension account. When the criminal trial terminated in his favour, his lawyer wrote two letters to the Defendant. These letters are Exhibits C9 and C10. But the Defendant ignored the letters. The Claimant himself went to the Defendant’s office to find out why he was not recalled after the judgment, but he was told that he cannot be helped unless the University of Ilorin writes to the Defendant to say it made a mistake in the issuance of the statement of result to the Claimant. From the case of the Claimant, he has not said his employment has been terminated or otherwise relieved of his appointment. The issues are that since his acquittal and the letters written to the Defendant, the Defendant refused to act. His salaries have also not been paid to him since February 2011. In Exhibits C9 and C10, the Claimant’s solicitors wrote to the Defendant on the outcome of the criminal trial and requested for the recall of the Claimant and payment of his salaries. The Claimant told the court in his evidence that the Defendant did not respond to these letters. It was on the basis of these facts the Claimant wants the court to declare that he is still in the employment of the Defendant. The Claimant having shown that his employment has not been terminated by the Defendant, it is now the duty of the Defendant to show that the Claimant is no longer in the employment. In order words, the burden shifts to the Defendant to prove why the declaration sought by the Claimant should not be granted. In paragraphs 6 and 21 of the evidence-in-chief of DW1, he stated that the Claimant was a former staff of the Defendant and he has been dismissed from service. DW1 also said the Claimant was queried following his involvement in the offence of forgery of his statement of result. This part of the evidence of DW1 was not contained in the facts pleaded in the Defendant’s statement of defence. There is nowhere the Defendant pleaded in its statement of defence that the Claimant has been dismissed from the employment or queried at any time. The only action pleaded by the Defendant to have been taken in respect of the allegation of forgery of statement of result levied against the Claimant is the investigation and filing of a criminal charge in court against the Claimant. It is not the case of the Defendant, as pleaded in the statement of defence, that the Claimant has, at anytime been dismissed from the employment or at anytime subjected to internal disciplinary process. I find that the aspects of the evidence of DW1 where he said the Claimant was queried and has been dismissed were not pleaded. It is settled law that evidence adduced on a fact not pleaded are treated as non-issue. In NWOKOROBIA vs. NWOGU (2009) All FWLR (Pt. 476) 1868 at 1888, the Supreme Court held thus: “The position of the law is that evidence must support pleadings as a party is expected to give evidence that is within the periphery of his pleadings and not beyond it. When such evidence are adduced, the law says they should be ignored as they are regarded and treated as non-issue” The implication of the foregoing finding is that the Defendant did not make any case to the effect that the Claimant had been queried or subjected to disciplinary action or dismissed from the employment. From the facts pleaded by the Defendant, it is not the Defendant’s case that the Claimant has been dismissed from the employment. The defence put up by the Defendant is that the Claimant was discovered to have forged the statement of result he presented to the Defendant for employment. It is the Defendant’s case that after investigating the allegation, the Defendant charged the Claimant to court in charge number CR/47/2011. Let me point it out that merely filing a criminal charge in court against the Claimant for the alleged offence does not constitute a dismissal from the employment nor does it amount to a disciplinary action against the Claimant. The Claimant was appointed by the Defendant pursuant to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (Establishment) Act and the Claimant’s employment with the Defendant is a service in the Public Service. See Sections 8 and 10 of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (Establishment) Act 2004. Therefore, the Claimant’s employment was subject to the Public Service Rules and other regulations governing the employment in the Defendant. See Section 9 of the Act. The Claimant’s employment is therefore an employment with statutory flavour. He cannot be removed from the employment in any other way other than as provided for in the Regulation or the PSR. There is no evidence from the Defendant to the effect that the provision of the Regulation or PSR regulating dismissal in the public service was observed at any time up to date with respect to the Claimant’s employment. As pleaded by the Claimant in paragraph 11 of the statement of facts, Charge No. CR/47/2011 was filed on 10/3/2011 and the Claimant was arraigned before the FCT High Court on 28/3/2011. In paragraph 18, the Claimant averred that payment of his salary was stopped from February 2011. It is clear from the facts that the Defendant stopped paying salaries to the Claimant from the moment the charges were filed against the Claimant. Perhaps, the Defendant meant the filing of the charge to be a dismissal. That could explain why it stopped the Claimant’s salaries. The offences alleged in the charge were mere allegations against the Claimant. Until convicted, the Claimant cannot be said to be guilty of the allegations. Having filed the charges against the Claimant in court, it is only after the Claimant was convicted on the charges that the Defendant can validly take disciplinary action against the Claimant. Therefore, it was wrong for the Defendant to stop paying salaries to the Claimant on the basis of the charges filed against the Claimant. It was also wrong for the Defendant to stop paying salaries to the Claimant when no disciplinary steps had been taken to determine his employment. In any case, the Claimant was eventually found not guilty of the alleged offences. The judgment of the FCT High Court in Charge No. CR/47/2011 discloses that the Claimant was charged for the offences of forgery and using as genuine punishable under Sections 364 and 366 of the Penal Code Act respectively. In the judgment delivered on 25th November 2016, the court held that the prosecution did not prove the offences beyond reasonable doubt. The Claimant was consequently discharged and acquitted. By the acquittal of the Claimant, the allegation that the Claimant forged the statement of result with which he was offered employment, being the reason the Defendant prosecuted him and stopped his salaries, has been resolved. The Defendant has no justification, after the judgment was handed down, to continue to persecute the Claimant in his employment because of the same unproven allegation. The Defendant ought to have immediately recalled the Claimant and pay his salaries after the judgment. Rather, the Defendant refused and ignored the letter from the Claimant’s solicitor requesting the Claimant’s recall and payment of his salaries. The Defendant’s counsel dedicated substantial part of her arguments in the Defendant’s written address to submit that the Claimant has failed to prove in this case that the statement of result he submitted was not forged. Perhaps, the Defendant’s counsel has mistaken these proceedings for another criminal trial of the Claimant. This case is not a revisit or retrial of the criminal charge against the Claimant. That allegation has already been determined by a court of competent jurisdiction. The Defendant, instead of devoting time to defend the Claimant’s specific claims in this suit, is still busy dwelling in its allegation that the Claimant forged the statement of result. From all the facts before me, there is nothing indicating that the Claimant’s employment has been terminated or he has been dismissed. This finding is strengthened by the evidence of DW1 under cross-examination by the Claimant’s counsel when he said he has nothing to show the Claimant was queried or dismissed. In the absence of evidence of the Claimant’s dismissal or termination of his employment, it implies that he is still in the employment. I hold therefore that the Claimant has proved that he has remained in the Defendant’s employment till date. The Claimant also sought the following reliefs, among others: 4. A Declaration that the stopping of monthly contribution to the Claimants Pension Administration by the Defendants is unlawful. 5. An Order directing the Defendant to pay the Claimant’s salary from 1st March 2011 till date at the rate of N123,000.00 per month (or at the rate that the Claimants mates are being paid) with interest at the rate of 2% per month from March 2011 until total liquidation. 6. An Order directing the Defendant to remit to the Claimant's Pension Managers (Sigma Pensions), the monthly contributions from August 2016 until the Claimant's employment is lawfully determined or till he retires. 8. An Order directing the Defendant to allow the Claimant to continue with his work at the same grade level that his mates that were employed with him at the same time are now. These reliefs are numbers 4, 5, 6 and 8 of the Claimant’s claims. The Claimant has given evidence to support the grant of these reliefs. In addition, having found in this judgment that the Claimant is still an employee of the Defendant till date, nothing stops him from getting all he was denied in the employment by the Defendant since the date of his arraignment in court up to date. Accordingly, the Claimant is entitled to all the entitlements which he ought to enjoy in the employment, this is inclusive of salaries, pension contributions and promotions, from 2011 to date. The Claimant further alleged that during the Defendant’s investigation of the allegation of forgery of statement of result made against him, he was detained by the Defendant for several days before eventually charging him to court which criminal trial ended in his favour. The Claimant has now sought the following claims in reliefs 2, 3, and 9: i. A Declaration that the detention of the Claimant in cell by the Defendant for 7 days in 2008 and 2011 respectively is unlawful. ii. A Declaration that the prosecution of the Claimant by the Defendant is malicious. iii. An Order directing the Defendant to pay damages for the detention of the Claimant in cell for 24 days and for malicious prosecution of the Claimant and general damages in the sum of N100,000,000.00. These claims of the Claimant are purely claims for unlawful imprisonment and malicious prosecution under the common law of torts. The matters for which this court is permitted to exercise jurisdiction in Section 254C (1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) does not extend to actions for unlawful imprisonment and malicious prosecution. Clearly, this court does not have jurisdiction to entertain these claims. The claims are struck out. In relief 7, the Claimant sought an order directing the Defendant to release the result of the promotion examination he took. In paragraph 21 of his statement of facts and in his evidence, the Claimant stated that he wrote a promotion examination, but the Defendant refused to release the result of the examination. The Defendant denied this allegation of the Claimant in paragraph 23 of the statement of defence. The Claimant did not supply the particulars of the alleged promotion examination and he did not provide evidence to show that he wrote any promotion examination. I did not find any evidence to support the Claimant’s claim that he wrote any promotion examination. This claim fails. In the final result of this suit, I find that the Claimant has proved his claims in reliefs 1, 4, 5, 6 and 8. These claims are granted. Relief 7 is dismissed while reliefs 2, 3 and 9 are struck out for the reasons I have given in this judgment. Cost of N200,000.00 is also awarded in favour of the Claimant. Judgment is entered accordingly. Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe Judge