Download PDF
JUDGMENT INTRODUCTION 1. The claimant filed this action on 7th June 2018 vide a complaint together with the accompanying statement of facts, list of witnesses, witness statement on oath, list of documents and copies of the documents. By the complaint and statement of facts, the claimant is seeking for the following reliefs: (i) A declaration that the letter of dismissal dated 21/03/2018 issued to the claimant by the defendant is wrongful, illegal, null, void and of no effect. (ii) A declaration that the claimant is still a civil servant and a clerical officer in the Office of the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation. (iii) An order directing the defendant to pay to the claimant all his monthly salaries, allowances and entitlements with increments, that have become due from January 2009 until the date of his reinstatement to service. (iv) Special damages in the sum of N1,920,000.00 PARTICULARS OF SPECIAL DAMAGES (a) N780,000.00 being payment made to a herbal/traditional doctor on 09/01/2009 for setting acute dislocation and fracture of the right hip bones. (b) N650,000.00 being payment made to a traditional/herbal doctor on 15/03/2010 for the treatment of bone fracture and acute dislocation of the right hp bones and joints. (c) N320,000.00 being payment made to a traditional/herbal doctor between May 2011 and December 2014 for treatment of acute dislocation of right hip bone and fracture. (d) N120,000.00 being payment made to a traditional/herbal doctor between April 2015 and September 2015, for treatment checkup of bone fracture and acute dislocation of the right hip bone and joints. (e) N50,000.00 being payment made to a traditional/herbal doctor on 20/02/2016 for final check up and dressing of the fracture and acute dislocation on the right hip bones and joints. (f) Total = N1,920,000.00 (v) General damages of N10,000,000.00 (vi) Exemplary damages of N5,000,000.00 and (vii) Cost of this suit assessed at N2,000,000.00. 2. Along with the originating processes, the claimant filed a motion praying for summary judgment, which motion was overtaken as the defendant entered formal appearance and filed his defence processes (the statement of defence, list of witness, statement on oath, list of document and a copy of the document). At the trial, the claimant (Mr Oko Michael Okata) testified on his own behalf as CW and tendered documents marked as Exhibits C1, C2, C3 C4, C4(a), C4(b), C4(c), C4(d), C5, C6 and C7. For the defendant, Mr Adewumi Isaac Aderemi, Assistant Chief Administrative Officer with the defendant testified as DW. At the close of trial, parties were ordered to file their respective final written addresses. The defendant filed his final written address on 3rd April 2019, while the claimant filed his on 26th April 2019. The defendant did not file any reply on points of law. THE CASE BEFORE THE COURT 3. To the claimant, he was a Clerical Officer in the office of the defendant. That while discharging his official duties at about 7.47pm sometime in May 2008, he fell from the staircase of the defendant and sustained severe, life threatening injuries to his waist, hip and legs. With all the pains to his legs, hips and waist, he reported his fall and excruciating pains verbally to his superior officer Mr Oladapo, a Deputy Director in the defendant’s office. That he subsequently reported his fall and excruciating pains to his legs, hip and waist to the defendant through his application for sick leave dated 20th May 2008 (Exhibit C3). That even with the excruciating and life threatening pains, he continued reporting for work in the defendant’s office, waiting on the defendant to reply to his sick leave application. That the defendant’s reply never came and he was dying off of pains. At a point, that he could not walk as a result of swollen legs, hip and waist and had to be carried to his village by relatives for further medical attention. That throughout the period of his treatment in the village, the defendant who knew that he was away from work for further medical attention never cited the claimant for “abscondment from duty” or commenced any disciplinary measures; but immediately he forwarded a letter to the defendant of his return from further medical attention, the defendant commenced disciplinary measures against him without, however, following the procedures as laid down in the Public Service Rules (PSR) 2008 Edition and affording him a fair hearing. That the defendant then dismissed him through a letter dated 21st March 2018 (Exhibit C7), hence this suit wherein he seeks reinstatement and monetary damages. 4. To the defendant, the claimant was a Clerical Officer on Grade Level 04 in the Office of the Head of Civil Service of the Federation (OHCSF) who is the defendant in this matter. The claimant alleged that he fell from the staircase of the defendant and sustained severe injuries while carrying out his official duties at about 7.47pm in May 2008. That the claimant never reported the injury he claimed he sustained in May 2008 during the course of discharging his official duties in the defendant’s office to the defendant. That the claimant who, however, applied for sick leave on 20th May 2008 did not wait for permission before he embarked on the aforesaid sick leave and never communicated the OHCSF, the defendant in this matter. That all efforts to reach the claimant proved abortive, hence his salary was stopped. That sometime in February 2017, approximately nine (9) years after, the claimant wrote a letter to the defendant, requesting for payment of his salary from January 2008 to December 2016. It was then that the defendant issued a query letter to the claimant to make representation as to his prolonged absence from duty, referring to Exhibit C6. That the defendant offered the claimant an opportunity to make representation as to his prolonged absence from duty without permission; hence the claimant’s letter dated 10th February 2017 (Exhibit HCSF 1) giving reasons for absconding from duty as being his ailment that arose when he allegedly fell and dislocated his right hip bone and joint. Being dissatisfied with the representation made by the claimant, the defendant dismissed the appointment of the claimant and issued a dismissal letter dated 21st March 2018 (Exhibit C7). Dissatisfied and miffed at his dismissal, the claimant initiated the present action seeking for several monetary benefits in damages. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE DEFENDANT 5. The defendant submitted a sole issue for determination i.e. whether having regards to the facts of this case, the claimant has proved his case and so is entitled to the reliefs sought before this Honorable Court. The defendant answered in the negative, submitting that the claimant has not proved his case to be entitled to the judgment of this Court. This is so because the law is trite that the claimant must succeed on the strength of his own case and not on the weakness of the defence, referring to Miracle Time Gospel Int. Inc & anor v. Michael Unu [2018] LPELR-44532(CA). That it is not in dispute that the claimant is a Civil Servant on Grade Level 04 with his appointment, promotion and discipline regulated by the Public Service Rules 2008 Edition. Being a junior Officer on Grade Level 04, the power to discipline the claimant for any misconduct is vested in the Permanent Secretary as explicitly provided under section 030103 of the Public Service Rules (PSR), 2008 Edition, which provides thus: The Federal Civil Service Commission has delegated full disciplinary powers to Permanent Secretaries and Heads of Extra Ministerial Offices in respect of Officers on salary G.L. 13 and below with the exception of the power of dismissal which has been delegated only from G.L. 06 and below. 6. To the defendant, wrongful act or improper behavior of an officer in the Public Service is regarded as a serious misconduct, which attracts dismissal as an ultimate punishment. That section 030401 of the PSR 2008 Edition defines serious misconduct as follows: Serious Misconduct is a specific act of very serious wrongdoing and improper behavior which is inimical to the image of the service and which can be investigated and if proven, may lead to dismissal. Furthermore, that section 030402(E) of the PSR 2008 Edition provides that absence from duty without leave is a serious misconduct that attracts dismissal. 7. That the primary issue to be considered for determination in any wrongful termination/dismissal/retirement is whether the dismissal is in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract of service between the parties. It is the defendant’s submission that the claimant’s appointment, promotion and discipline are regulated by the PSR, referring to Imonikhe v. Unity Bank Plc [2011] LPELR-1503(SC). That from the facts of this case and the evidence led before this Court, it is not in doubt that the claimant was absent from duty without leave from May 2008 to 2017 for about 9 years. That under cross-examination, the claimant was asked where he was between 2009 to 2018 and he informed the Court that he was in his village. That the claimant was further asked whether there was any correspondence between himself and the defendant during the period he was away from duty and the claimant’s answer was in the negative. That under section 030413 of the PSR, an officer who absents him/herself from duty without leave is liable to be dismissed from service until the contrary is proven; the onus shall rest on him/her, to show that the circumstances do not justify the imposition of the full penalty. That it was based on this provision that the claimant’s salary was stopped by the defendant in 2008. 8. The defendant went on that the claimant was aware that his salary was stopped as far back as 2008 and he did nothing about it until sometime in 2017 (9 years after) that he applied for salary arrears. That the request for salary arrears by the claimant triggered the query letter dated 8th February 2017 that led to the representation made by the claimant (Exhibit HCSF 1) at the instance of the defendant. That Exhibit HCSF 1 shows clearly that the claimant was given an opportunity to make representations as to why he was absent from duty without permission, referring to Arinze v. First Bank (Nig) Ltd [2000] 1 NWLR (Pt. 639) 78 at 103-104. That it was after the claimant’s representation was considered and found unsatisfactory that he was recommended for dismissal and a dismissal letter was issued to him on 21st March 2018. 9. The defendant proceeded that the PSR in section 070316(I) provides that the maximum aggregate sick leave which can be allowed an officer, who is not hospitalized, during any period of twelve months shall be forty-two (42) calendar days; where such an officer has been absent from duty on the ground of ill health for an aggregate period in excess of forty-two (42) calendar days within twelve calendar months, the officer should be made to appear before a Medical Board with a view to it being ascertained whether he/she should be invalidated from service. Any period of absence on ground of ill-health in excess of the prescribed aggregate will be without pay and will not be reckoned for purpose of increment for pension. That these provisions of the PSR emphasized that the maximum aggregate sick leave, which can be allowed an officer is 42 calendar days. That the claimant in this case was not seen at work from 2009 to 2018, approximately nine (9) years. Referring to the sick leave dated 20th of May 2008 (Exhibit C3), the defendant submitted that it was in excess of the 42 calendar days as against the provisions of the PSR. That even if the claimant is holding on to the sick leave, it was for a period of time and not forever or for nine years. That there was no authorized permission granted to the claimant by the defendant to embark on leave. That assuming that he had permission certainly the permission could not have been for nine years. That the claimant, a civil servant, subject to the PSR, is duty bound to avail himself of its provisions regarding medical treatment. 10. In any event, that it is a violation of the PSR for the claimant to avail himself of any medical treatment outside those of the certified Healthcare provider or without the express permission of his Permanent Secretary. That section 070108 of the PSR provides in this regard that: An Officer may be granted leave by his Permanent Secretary/Head of Extra-Ministerial Office for the purpose of visiting a Medical Specialist/Dentist, but only if it is certified by the Healthcare Provider that he/she is unable to deal with the case himself/herself and that it will definitely affect the health of the Officer if consultation is postponed. An Officer granted leave in such circumstances will be treated for the purpose of free transport facilities (but not for travelling allowance) as travelling on duty. If no medical certificate is given, it will be open to an officer to apply for casual leave under Rule 100214. 11. The defendant then submitted, relying on sections 030401 and 030402(e) of the PSR, which provides that absence from duty without leave attracts dismissal, that the claimant, having absented himself from duty approximately for a period of about nine years, made himself a candidate for dismissal. That the claimant in this case has not proved that his dismissal from his duty was wrongful, there being no evidence adduced to show that the claimant had permission to absent himself from duty for the period between 2008 to 2017. The defendant referred to Elema v. Akenzua [2000] 6 SC (Pt. III) 26 at 40, which held that a party must lead evidence in proof of his assertions. That the claimant in this case has not been able to justify that his dismissal by the defendant was unlawful. That following the foregoing, the Court should disregard Exhibits 3, C4, C4(a), C4(b), C4(c) and C4(d) tendered by the claimant. 12. The defendant continued that the PSR indulges officers in the service who are ill to avail themselves of authorized Healthcare Providers, referring to section 070202 of the PSR, which provides that: “A staff who prefers to be treated by a private practitioner instead of availing himself/herself of services of authorized Healthcare Provider must himself/herself bear all expenses incurred through such treatment”. That the claimant is required to use only Government approved Healthcare Provider. That Exhibits C4, C4(a), C4(b), C4(c) and C4(d) clearly reveal that the claimant did not comply with the provisions of the PSR by consulting with a private traditional herbal Doctor and so should bear the expenses incurred through such treatment. The defendant then referred to the pay slip of the claimant, a Grade Level 04 Officer, who claimed to have incurred a total expenses of N1,920,00 (One Million, Nine Hundred and Twenty Thousand Naira Only) on Traditional/Herbal medicine to treat himself instead of the approved Healthcare Provider. Referring to Isevwore v. NEPA [2002] 7 SC (Pt. II) 125 at 133-134, which held that an employer is entitled to retire/terminate his employee’s appointment for good or bad reason or no reason at all, the defendant submitted that the claimant’s appointment was dismissed in compliance with the PSR 2008. The defendant then urged the Court to discountenance the claims for damages by the claimant as same is a calculated effort to extort the defendant in this matter. that even the general damages, exemplary damages and cost of this suit as claimed and declared by the claimant should be dismissed as there is nothing before the Court to show that the claimant in this case suffered anything to warrant the award of damages. 13. That under cross-examination the claimant was confronted with his Exhibit C4 and asked “whether the defendant was responsible for his spiritual attack”, and the claimant answered in the affirmative, “yes the defendant was responsible for my spiritual attack because it happened in the office”. To the defendant, the defendant is not in any way whatsoever or however responsible for the claimant’s accident and the issue of spiritual attack alleged by the claimant is unknown to our law, referring to Sunday Njoku v. The State [2013] LPELR-19890(SC) and Vincent Achuku v. The State [2014] LPELR-22651(CA), which disregarded defences founded on witchcraft or juju. In any event, that the claimant did not place anything before the Court to prove that the defendant was responsible for his accident; and having failed to avail the Court with the material evidence to prove that the defendant was responsible for his accident, his claim is nothing but a mere speculation, which cannot ground any action in law, referring to Olatayo Aribo v. CBN & anor [2010] LPELR-4751(CA) and Zenith Bank Plc v. Adejoh Jubrin Yusuf [2016] LPELR-42915(CA). The defendant then urged the Court to hold that the claimant has not put any evidence before it to prove that the defendant was responsible for his accident or attacked him spiritually. 14. The defendant reiterated that the claimant’s prolonged absence from duty is a serious misconduct, which attracts dismissal from the service, referring to section 030407 of the PSR prescribing that the ultimate penalty for serious misconduct is dismissal; an officer who is dismissed forfeits all claims to retiring benefits, leave or transport grants, etc. Additionally, that section 030408 provides that: “when an officer is dismissed, no notice or emolument in lieu shall be given to him/her and his/her dismissal shall take effect from the date on which he/she is notified thereof”. It is the defendant’s submission that in line with the PSR once an officer has been dismissed from service no claims and benefits accrues to him/her. That the claimant is thus not entitled to any salary arrears between the periods of 2008 to 2018 or any other period. That as the claimant was absent from duty for a period of over nine years, he is not entitled to salaries within those period. 15. The defendant drew the Court’s the attention to the sanctity of the PSR. That it is not in dispute that the PSR regulates the employment of the claimant, and it has been held that the PSR is a product of the Constitution commanding strict compliance, citing Bashir Alade Shitta-Bay v. The Federal Public Service Commission [1981] LPELR-3056. That applied to the present action, this should hold that sections 030413, 070316(i), and 070108 of the PSR, relied upon by the defendant as having been breached by the claimant, have constitutional force admitting of very strict compliance. That their breach is material, contributing to the fatality of the claimant’s case. In conclusion, the defendant urged the Court to dismiss the claimant’s case. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE CLAIMANT 16. The claimant adopted the sole issue formulated by the defendant, which is, whether having regards to the facts of this case, the claimant has proved his case and so is entitled to the reliefs sought before this Court. The claimant answered in the affirmative. To the claimant, parties herein are ad idem that the claimant is a public servant and his appointment, promotion and discipline are regulated by the Public Service Rules (PSR) 2008 Edition. In other words, the claimant’s employment enjoys statutory flavor, citing Comptroller General of Customs v. Gusau [2017] All FWLR (Pt. 911) 422 at 458-459. That the law is settled that the only way to terminate a contract of service with statutory flavor is to adhere strictly to the procedures laid down in the statute, citing Bamgboye v. University of Ilorin [1999] 10 NWLR (Pt. 622) 290, Olatunbosun v. NISER Council [1988] 3 NWLR (Pt. 80) 25 and Longe v. First Bank of Nigeria Plc [2010] All FWLR (Pt. 525) 258. Therefore, that the primary issue to be considered for determination in any case for wrongful termination/dismissal/retirement, as in this case, is whether the dismissal is in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract of service between the parties, citing Imonikhe v. Unity Bank Plc [2011] LPELR-1503(SC). 17. That under cross-examination, the defendant’s witness, Mr Adewunmi Isaac, told the Court that the claimant was not invited and did not appear before the (Junior Staff) Committee that looked into his case and recommended his dismissal. Hence, the defendant blatantly and arrogantly denied the claimant his inalienable right to fair hearing, citing Yemisi v. FIRS [2013] All FWLR (Pt. 693) 1992 at 2012, where it was held thus: A careful examination of the relevant Public Service Rules reproduced above shows that the procedure for any disciplinary action against an officer which is likely to lead to dismissal, is in two (2) stages. The first stage is the issuance of the query by the offending officer’s superior and a report by that superior officer to another officer superior to him. The second stage is that where the concerned officer’s reply to the query is not satisfactory and it is considered that the conduct complained of is such that could lead to dismissal, the procedure set out in Rule 04306 [i.e. 00302 of PSR 2008] must be followed. Because of the serious nature of the penalty for the alleged misconduct, the rule set out a detailed procedure that must followed. It fully accords with the principle of fair hearing. Once the Junior Staff Disciplinary Committee came to the conclusion that the appellant’s conduct warranted dismissal or termination, rule 04306(vi) [i.e. 030307(vi) pf PSR 2008 Edition] became applicable. That Rule 030307(iv) of the PSR 2008, which is in pari materia with Rule 04306(iv) states that: The officer shall be informed that on a specific day, the question of his/her dismissal shall be brought before the board and he/she shall be required to appear before it to defend himself/herself and shall be entitled to call witnesses. His/her failure to appear shall not invalidate the proceedings of the board. 18. To the claimant, the operative word is SHALL. Therefore, it is mandatory that “the officer should be informed…” but he was not informed nor invited to appear before the Junior Staff Committee at its meeting held on Wednesday 6th December 2017, where the question of his dismissal was deliberated upon and recommendations reached. Hence, the defendant breached the rules by not affording the claimant a right to fair hearing. Also, that Rule 030307(i) of the PSR (2008 Edition) states in part that: “…In serious cases which are likely to result in dismissal, the officer should be given access to any such document(s) or reports used against him/her and he/she should be asked to state in his/her defence that he/she has been given access to documents”. That this provision of the PSR 2008 Edition was observed in breach by the defendant because in paragraph 35 of the claimant’s witness deposition, the claimant averred that he was not given access to documentary evidence used against him that resulted in his purported dismissal and this fact has not been controverted anywhere by the defendant. The claimant then urged the Court to set aside all the disciplinary procedures adopted and taken by the defendant that culminated in the dismissal letter issued to him for denying him his right to a fair hearing by the Junior Staff Committee set up by the defendant, in accordance with the PSR (2008 Edition) and section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution. 19. In addition, that Rule 030307(xiii) of the PSR (2008 Edition) mandatorily states that: “All disciplinary procedures must commence and be completed within a period of 60 days except where it involves criminal cases”. That this provision is mandatory and does not allow any discretion or choice by the defendant because the word used there is MUST. So, where the period from the date of the purported query from the defendant to the claimant which is the commencement of disciplinary procedure against the claimant is 08/02/2017 (Exhibit C6) and the date of his purported dismissal was 21/03/2018, (Exhibit C7) which is about four hundred (400) days, far beyond the sixty (60) days period mandatorily provided for by the rules, the defendant was in flagrant breach of the rules. Therefore, that the defendant’s ENTIRE DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURE that culminated in a letter of dismissal to the claimant is wrongful, illegal, null and void for not adhering to the mandatory provisions of the rules in this regard, urging the Court to so hold; and citing Yemisi v. FIRS (supra), which held, relying on Iderima v. Rivers State Civil Service Commission [2005] All FWLR (Pt. 285) 431 SC at 450 and Union Bank of Nig Ltd v. Charles Ogboh [1995] 2 NWLR (380) 647 at 669, that employment with statutory backing must be terminated in the ways and manner prescribed by the relevant statute and any other form of termination inconsistent therewith is null and void and of no effect. 20. The claimant then urged the Court to declare the defendant’s letter of dismissal dated 21st March 2018 null, void and of no effect for the failure of the defendant to adhere strictly to the provisions of the PSR (2008 Edition) before issuing the claimant with the dismissal letter. Consequently, that the Court should declare that the claimant is still a Civil Servant and a Clerical Officer in the Office of the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation and order his reinstatement, citing FMC, Ido-Ekiti v. Kolawole [2010] All FWLR (Pt. 653) 1999 at 2014. Therefore, that the Court should order the defendant to pay the claimant all his monthly salaries, allowances and entitlements with increments that have become due from January 2009 until the date of the claimant’s reinstatement. 21. That the claimant is a dutiful Civil Servant who while discharging his official duties sustained life threatening injuries and informed the defendant of his medical condition in writing prior to proceeding on further medical attention and Rule 070316(ii) of the PSR 2008 Edition states that: “An officer who is incapacitated as a result of injury sustained in the course of his official duties shall be entitled to draw full emolument…” That the defendant’s contention that the claimant “absconded from duty” was ONLY an allegation through its letter dated 8th February 2017 (Exhibit C6) meant for the claimant to rebut, which he did. However, a fortiori, when the Court finds and holds that defendant’s entire disciplinary procedure is wrongful, illegal, null and void for breach of the PSR (2008 Edition), then the defendant’s allegation of “abscondment from duty” shall fail and fall like a pack of cards. 22. Also, that by Rule 070309 of the PSR 2008 Edition, assuming but not conceding that the claimant “absconded from duty on health grounds”, then it is the duty of the defendant to enquire of the claimant’s whereabout to ascertain the cause of his absence and when the defendant enquired he discovered that the claimant was on further medical treatment. The reason the defendant took no disciplinary measures against the claimant. That what may have irked the defendant is the claimant’s application for payment of salary arrears as alluded to by the defendant in paragraph 4.11 of the defendant’s final written address. However, that by the PSR and the law as aforestated, the claimant is entitled to his salaries, allowances and entitlements, urging the Court to so hold. 23. The claimant went on that in line with the law, he is entitled to general damages as a result of the unlawful action of the defendant in dismissing him. That prior to his unlawful dismissal by the defendant, he could very well fend for his family’s schooling, hospital bills, housing, transportation, leisure, etc. That he had a moderate lifestyle as a Civil Servant but the defendant’s unlawful dismissal letter pulled him down to a pariah and beggarly lifestyle. Citing WAEC v. Henry [2016] All FWLR (Pt. 834) 153 at 168 and Andrew v. MTN Nigeria Communications Ltd [2017] All FWLR (Pt. 900) 518 at 530-531 on award of general damages, the claimant submitted that having declared the dismissal letter wrongful and reinstated him, the Court should order the defendant to pay him Ten Million Naira as general damages to ameliorate his losses as averred in paragraphs 27 and 37 of the statement of facts. Also, that the defendant, as a government servant, acted arbitrarily and unconstitutionally in dismissing the claimant wrongfully. That the defendant, as custodian of the PSR (2008 Edition) with numerous officers including a retinue of seasoned and senior lawyers, cannot feign ignorance of the provisions of the PSR but flagrantly applied the rules in breach to satisfy itself and punish the claimant for life by issuing him with a wrongful dismissal letter. 24. Citing Ahanonu v. Chukwuemezie [2016] All FWLR (Pt. 829) 1008 at 1035-1036 on exemplary damages, the claimant submitted that the defendant, a government officer and servant, having acted arbitrarily, unconstitutionally and oppressively against the claimant by issuing the claimant with a wrongful dismissal letter, the Court should grant his claim of Five Million Naira as exemplary damages alongside the general damages. Therefore, that the crux of this matter is the unjustifiable, stale, illegal, null and void disciplinary procedure adopted by the defendant and the wrongful dismissal letter that arose therefrom which the defendant has not and cannot justify and having failed to establish a defence according to law, the claimant is entitled to all his claims, urging the Court to so hold. COURT’S DECISION 25. I have carefully considered the processes filed and the submissions of the parties. The fact of the claimant’s employment with the defendant and the fact of his dismissal by the defendant are not in doubt. The fact that the claimant’s employment is regulated by the Public Service Rules (PSR) 2008 Edition is also not in doubt. From the reliefs of the claimant, his case is one contesting his dismissal by the defendant. The claimant accordingly prays that he be reinstated and the backlog of his salaries and allowances paid to him. He also prays for special, general and exemplary damages against the defendant in respect of the injury he sustained while at work and the cost of treatment he incurred in that regard. In considering the merit of the claimant’s case, I need to first clarify a thing or two. 26. The defendant had urged the Court to disregard Exhibits C3, C4, C4(a), C4(b), C4(c) and C4(d) tendered by the claimant. Exhibit C3 dated 20/05/08 is the application for sick leave written by the claimant to Director, PRS through DD, ICT, who endorsed it on 22/5/08. Though dated 20/05/08, the claimant signed Exhibit C3 on 21-05-2008. Exhibit C3 is dated and signed and so would be used as such; all that is left of it is what weight or probative value to place on it. 27. Exhibits C4 is the payment receipt from the Herbal Doctor, Owo-Kani-Ayani of Itekpa, Ihieche-Itekpa, Cross River State. Exhibits C4(a), C4(b), C4(c) and C4(d) are the treatment receipts from the Herbal Doctor, Ode Ihiemu Ogaoga, Ugaga-Ochubi, Cross River State. They are all signed by both the Herbal Doctor and the claimant. Each indicates the payment of a sum of money for a particular period. For Exhibit C4, it is for the period 9/1/2009 to 9/2/2010; for Exhibit C4(a), it is 15th March 2010 to April 2011); for Exhibit C4(b), it is May 2011 to 2014; for Exhibit C4(c), it is April to September 2015; and for Exhibit C4(d), it is 20th February to May 2018. The date of receipt of payment is differently stipulated. For Exhibit C4, it is 9th January 2009; for Exhibit C4(a), it is 15th March 2010; for Exhibit C4(b), it is May 2011; for Exhibit C4(c), it is April 2015 to September 2015; and for Exhibit C4(d), it is 20th February 2016. It should be noted that Exhibits C4(b) and C4(c) do not have the specific date in the month that payment was made. In fact Exhibit C4(c) has it that payment was made “on the April 2015 to September 2015”. How this is logically possible remains the question. So aside from indicating the date in which payment was made, though Exhibit C4(c) cannot be said to have done this, all the exhibits do not actually indicate their respective dates. That payment was made on a particular date does not mean that that is the date of the document. This means that for all intents and purposes, Exhibits C4, C4(a), C4(b), C4(c) and C4(d) are all undated documents. The law is that an undated document has no evidential value. See Global Soaps & Detergent Ind. Ltd v. NAFDAC [2011] All FWLR (Pt. 599) 1025 at 1047 and Udo & ors v. Essien & ors [2014] LPELR-22684(CA). This means that Exhibits C4, C4(a), C4(b), C4(c) and C4(d) have no evidential value; and I so find and hold. 28. A second issue with especially Exhibit C4 is that the payment made is for “setting acute dislocation and fracture of the right hip bones and spiritual attack”. The defendant asked the questions: what payment can be made for spiritual attack, and how the defendant can be said to be responsible for the spiritual attack as to be held responsible for it? The answer of the claimant under cross-examination was that: “Yes, the defendant is responsible for spiritual attack because it took place in the office”; and that “it is the injury, not the spiritual attack, that I sustain that makes me seek for full salary”. How can this evidence be believable? The receipt reads that payment of N780,000 was made for setting the fractured hip bones and for spiritual attack; yet the claimant is now discounting the spiritual attack angle to it even when he said in evidence that it is the defendant that caused the spiritual attack. I do not think that the claimant is a believable witness here; and certainly, I do not believe the evidence of the claimant in that regard. 29. There is another ground upon which the claimant’s evidence is not believable. In Exhibit HCSF 1 dated 10th February 2017, the response of the claimant to the charge of absconding from duty, the claimant at the second paragraph of the second page stated that the complication in his ailment resulted in his “being moved from one treatment to another as the case get (sic) worsen”, after he secured the verbal permission of his boss, Mr David K. Oladapo (DD-ICT), who was not called as a witness in this case, to proceed to travel to the village for traditional treatment. The statement that the claimant was moved from one treatment to another suggests multiple healers looked into the case of the claimant, not just the two healers that Exhibit C4, on the one hand, and Exhibits C4(a) to C4(d), on the other hand, indicate. As it is, therefore, I place no evidential value on Exhibits C4 and C4(a) to C4(d). I so hold. By 7UP Bottling Company Plc v. Augustus [2012] LPELR-20873(CA), special damages must be proved to the satisfaction of the Court. I am just not satisfied with Exhibits C4 and C4(a) to C4(d) as proof of relief (iv). This means that the claim for special damages in terms of relief (iv) fails and so is hereby dismissed. 30. Relief (i) seeks a declaration that the letter of dismissal “is wrongful, illegal, null, void and of no effect”. The claimant appears not to understand that our law makes a distinction between wrongful dismissal and dismissal that is illegal, null, void and of no effect. See BCC Plc v. Ager [2010] 9 NWLR (Pt. 1199) 292 SC, which held that there is a distinction between mere wrongful dismissal and an invalid or null dismissal. That where the Court makes a finding of wrongful dismissal, a payment in lieu of notice will apply; but where the finding is that the dismissal or termination was null and void, then there is no dismissal or termination as what the employer did was a nullity before the law. So as couched, the claimant cannot get relief (i). All he can get is a declaration that the dismissal is either wrongful, or it is null and void, or that it was proper; but all of this, only after a proper consideration of the merit of the case. 31. The defendant had submitted that the claimant in the instant case has not been able to justify that his dismissal by the defendant was unlawful. In the circumstance of the instant case, is the defendant right in this submission? I do not think so. In dismissal cases, especially where an employer gives the reason for the dismissal, it is not for the employee to show that his dismissal was wrongful. It is for the employer to justify the said dismissal. The law is that once an employer gives a reason for terminating or dismissing an employee, the burden lies with him to justify the said reason. See Angel Shipping & Dyeing Ltd v. Ajah [2000] 13 NWLR (Pt. 685) 551 CA. In Institute of Health ABU Hospital Management Board v. Mrs Jummai R. I. Anyip [2011] LPELR-1517(SC), the Supreme Court held that “although it is trite that an employer is not obliged to give any reason for firing his servant all the same it is settled law that where he has preferred any reason at all it is obliged to satisfactorily prove the same as the onus is on him in that regard, otherwise the termination/dismissal may constitute a wrongful dismissal without more”. See also George Abomeli v. Nigerian Railway Corporation [1995] 1 NWLR (Pt. 372) 451, Ogunsanmi v. C. F. Furniture (W.A.) Co. Ltd [1961] 1 All NLR 224 and Mr. Kunle Osisanya v. Afribank Nigeria Plc [2007] All FWLR (Pt. 360) 1480 SC at 1491; [2007] 1 – 2 SC 317. In Exhibit C7 dated 21st March 2018 (the letter of dismissal), the defendant gave the reason for dismissing the claimant as abscondment from duty for a period of 9 years, a serious misconduct under sections 030302 to 030306 of the Public Service Rules (PSR). The duty is on the defendant to justify this reason. 32. As far as relief (i) is concerned, the defendant’s explanation is that the claimant absconded from work for about 9 years and so was dismissed as a result. The story of the claimant as can be seen in Exhibits C3, C5 and HCSF 1 is that in the course of discharging his duties, which is dispatching files to offices, he on 15th May 2008 at about 7.47pm fell from the staircase and sustained a dislocation, which caused him great pains on his hips and legs, for which he could not walk well. That the staircase was dark and there was no light. The following day, 16th May 2008, and 19th May 2008, he visited Maitama District Hospital where x-rays and tests were carried out, and the medical report (Exhibit C2) said that he should modify his work because of his acute right hip dislocation. As a result, he applied for sick leave vide Exhibit C3. There is nothing before the Court to show that the claimant waited for approval of the sick leave application (in terms of Rule 070108 of the PSR) before taking off to his village as Exhibit HCSF 1 indicates. All Exhibit HCSF 1 states is that he got a verbal permission from his boss to travel to his village to see a traditional healer. Now, it is common knowledge that government work is done vide memos, not verbally. Rule 100216 of the PSR 2008 provides that sick leave is the absence of an officer from duty on account of ill-health as authorized by a Healthcare Provider. There is no proof before the Court a Healthcare Provider approved sick leave for the claimant. Exhibit C2 tendered by the claimant simply “advised [the claimant] to modify his activities including his office works, which may aggravate the symptoms”. Exhibit C2, aside from the fact that the signatory, one Dr Ajayi G. T. was not called as a witness, did not approve any sick leave for the claimant. I so find and hold. So when the claimant left for his village without any written permission and without any valid sick leave authorization, the claimant was certainly on his own. 33. The claimant got well, and vide Exhibit C5 dated 20th December 2016, he applied for the payment of his salary arrears for the period January 2009 to December 2016. Instead of paying him the said arrears of salary, the defendant vide Exhibit C6, a query, asked the claimant to respond to the charge that he absconded from duty for 8 years. The claimant responded vide Exhibit HCSF 1 where he reiterated his story. Not satisfied, the defendant dismissed him vide Exhibit C7 dated 21 March 2018. In Exhibit C7, the defendant stated that it acted based on the recommendation of the Junior Staff Committee at its meeting of 6th December 2017. The case of the claimant here is that he was not invited to this Junior Staff Committee meeting to defend himself; as such, he was denied fair hearing. 34. The claimant accordingly urged the Court to set aside all the disciplinary procedures adopted and taken by the defendant that culminated in his dismissal on the ground that he was denied the right to a fair hearing by the Junior Staff Committee set up by the defendant, in accordance with the PSR (2008 Edition) and section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution. The reference to section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution by the claimant cannot be of any help to him as breach of a fundamental right under section 36(1) of the Constitution arises only where the denial of fair hearing has been charged against a Court or tribunal established by law and not before a domestic or standing ad-hoc tribunal raised departmentally by parties such as the Junior Staff Committee of the defendant. See Rev. Prof. Paul Emeka v. Rev. Dr. Chidi Okoroafor & ors [2017] 14 NWLR (Pt. 1577) 410, which relied on Bakare v. LSCSC [1992] 8 NWLR (Pt. 266) 641 at 699 - 700 and Ekunola v. CBN [2013] 15 NWLR (Pt. 1377) 224 at 262 - 263. 35. The claimant placed great reliance on Rule 030307(vi) - the claimant put is as sub-rule (iv). Sub-rule (vi) provides that: “The officer shall be informed that on a specific day, the question of his/her dismissal shall be brought before the board and he/she shall be required to appear before it to defend himself/herself and shall be entitled to call witnesses. His/her failure to appear shall not invalidate the proceedings of the board”. The claimant did not, however, refer to sub-rule (iii), which provides that “if the officer submits his/her representations and the Federal Civil Service Commission is not satisfied that he/she has exculpated himself/herself, and considers that the officer should be dismissed, it shall take such action accordingly”. For junior staff, the claimant was a junior staff on GL 04, the Federal Civil Service Commission (FCSC) has delegated the power to discipline the claimant for any misconduct. This power is now vested in the Permanent Secretaries and Heads of Extra Ministerial Offices pursuant to Rule 030103 of the PSR 2008. So when Rule 030307(iii) talks of the FCSC dismissing an officer, it must be that in respect of the claimant, it is the Permanent Secretary in the OHCSF. A literal reading of Rule 030307(iii) does not indicate that any other thing is required once the decision to dismiss is taken once the FCSC (i.e. Permanent Secretary or Head of Extra Ministerial Office, as the case may be) is not satisfied with the explanation of the junior employee in question. Rule 030307(v), which talks of setting up a board of inquiry is qualified by the phrase “where necessary”. Who determines when it is necessary? Certainly it is the defendant. 36. The claimant further placed great reliance on Mrs Akinyosoye Yemisi v. FIRS [2012] LPELR-7964(CA); [2013] All FWLR (Pt. 693) 1992 at 2012 where Rule 04306 of the then Public Service Rules (same as the present Rule 030307 of the PSR 2008) was considered. I read very carefully the case. What I found was that in considering the applicability of Rule 04306, only sub-rules (i), (v), (vi), (vii), (ix) and (x) of the Rule were considered by Her Ladyship Kekere-Ekun, JCA (as she then was). Especially sub-rules (ii), (iii) and (iv) were not considered. What this means is that the equivalent of Rule 030306(iii) in Rule 04306, which I just considered i.e. that “if the officer submits his/her representations and the Federal Civil Service Commission is not satisfied that he/she has exculpated himself/herself, and considers that the officer should be dismissed, it shall take such action accordingly” was not considered in Yemisi. This being so, Yemisi v. FIRS is distinguishable from the instant case. I so hold. This position accords with Mrs Comfort E. Bassey v. Civil Service Commission Cross River State & ors [2010] LPELR-3858(CA), where His Lordship Akaahs, JCA (as he then was) held: An administrative tribunal is not bound to follow the procedure and practice of the court of law; that although it is bound to observe and comply with the principles of natural justice, that a person who may be adversely affected by its decision is [entitled] to be given adequate opportunity not only to know the case against him but also to answer it. However, he is not entitled to oral hearing unless such a hearing is expressly prescribed. The absence of oral hearing or an opportunity to be heard before an administrative tribunal does not necessarily tantamount to a denial of natural justice (the emphasis is mine). 37. What all of this means signifies is that the defendant was right to have dismissed the claimant for absconding from work. Given Rule 030306(iii), the defendant is not required to follow the processes in sub-rules (iv) to (xii) of Rule 030306 of the PSR 2008. Under Rule 030413 of the PSR 2008, an officer who absents him/herself from duty without leave is liable to be dismissed from service until the contrary is proven; the onus shall rest on him/her, to show that the circumstances do not justify the imposition of the full penalty. The claimant did not satisfactorily explain his absence from work for over 8 years. I so find and hold. I agree with the defendant that the claimant was aware that his salary was stopped as far back as 2008 and he did nothing about it until in 2017 when he applied for salary arrears. 38. The claimant made an issue of not being given access to documents or reports used against him when he was queried by the defendant as enjoined by Rule 030306(i) of the PSR 2008. The circumstance of the claimant in this case does no logically make it possible for the defendant to adhere to this Rule. It was the claimant who was absent from work for 8 years or so. Every document or report that would explain his absence was in his possession. So of what documents or reports is the claimant hoping that the defendant would make available to him? I really do not know. 39. The claimant had submitted that Rule 030307(xiii) of the PSR (2008 Edition) mandatorily states that: “All disciplinary procedures must commence and be completed within a period of 60 days except where it involves criminal cases”. That this provision is mandatory and does not allow any discretion or choice by the defendant because the word used there is MUST. So, where the period from the date of the purported query from the defendant to the claimant which is the commencement of disciplinary procedure against the claimant is 08/02/2017 (Exhibit C6) and the date of his purported dismissal was 21/03/2018, (Exhibit C7) which is about four hundred (400) days, far beyond the sixty (60) days period mandatorily provided for by the rules, the defendant was in flagrant breach of the rules. The Supreme Court recently had the opportunity to interpret the same Rule in Bode Thomas v. FJSC unreported Appeal No. SC.228/2013, the judgment of which was delivered on 16th February 2018). Hear the Supreme Court per His Lordship Akaahs, JSC: When the learned trial Judge x-rayed Rule 030307(xiii) of the Public Service Rules, there was nowhere it was provided that failure to observe the 60 days period would vitiate the proceedings. The logical conclusion which the court ought to have arrived at is that since the Rules did not provide any sanction for non-compliance, the period stated is directory and not mandatory. The lower court was right to intervene and set aside the finding that it was a breach of the plaintiff’s right to fair hearing because of the failure of the defendant to commence and complete the disciplinary procedure against the plaintiff within 60 days as stipulated in Chapter 3 paragraph 030307(xiii) of the Public Service Rules. 40. In all, relief (i) fails; and if relief (i) fails, reliefs (ii) and (iii) seeking a declaration that the claimant is still in service and the backlog of salaries, allowances, and entitlements with increments must equally fail. I so find and hold. Reliefs (v), (vi) and (vii) for general and exemplary damages as well as cost accordingly have no basis. They all fail. I so hold. The claimant’s case, therefore, has no merit and so is hereby dismissed. 41. Judgment is entered accordingly. I make no order as to cost. …………………………………… Hon. Justice B. B. Kanyip, PhD