Download PDF
The claimant took up a complaint dated and filed on 7th September 2012 praying this Court for the following reliefs – 1. DECLARATION that the purported termination by the 3rd defendant of the claimant’s employment vide the defendants’ letter of 8th June 2012 was wrong, illegal and of no effect. 2. DECLARATION that the claimant is still a staff of the 3rd defendant as the Director of Works with the Ibadan North East Local Government of Oyo State. 3. PAYMENT of the claimant’s salary from June, 2012 when the claimant’s employment was wrongly terminated by the defendant until judgment is given in this case. 4. N5,000,000.00 as general damages for the wrongful termination of the claimant’s contract by the defendant. 5. DECLARATION that the defendants’ letter of 8th June 2012 is libellous of the claimant. 6. PAYMENT of the sum of N50 million to the claimant by the defendants being damages for libel contained in the 3rd defendant’s letter of 8th June 2012 written or caused to be written and publish or caused to published by or on behalf of the 3rd defendant by the 4th defendant and generally circulated in Ibadan to several people including but not limited to some civil servants under the 1st and 3rd defendants’ employment wherein the defendants falsely and or maliciously published of and concerning the claimant inter alia as follow – RETIREMENT FROM THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICE OF OYO STATE I am directed to inform you that the present Administration in the State has observed that your continued stay in the service is not in its best interest. To this end therefore you are hereby retired from the Local Government Service of Oyo State with effect from the date of this letter. Wishing you the best of luck in your future endeavour E. A. Adebunmi J.P Permanent Secretary For: Chairman Local Government Service Commission 7. AN ORDER of Perpetual Injunction restraining the 3rd and 4th defendants either by themselves, their servants, agents and privies or otherwise howsoever described or called for further printing or caused to be printed and published or in any manner circulate the said or any similar libel of and concerning the claimant. Accompanying the complaint are the statement of claim (the statement of claim was later amended by order of Court made on 15th January 2013), claimant’s list of witness(es), claimant’s witness statement on oath, list of documents to be relied upon and copies of the documents, marked in Court as Exhibits C1A, C1B, C2, C3, C4 and C5. The defendants entered appearance and then filed jointly their statement of defence, list of witness to be called, written statement on oath of the witness, list of documents to be relied upon at the trial and copies of the documents, marked in Court as Exhibits D1, D2 and D3. Parties accordingly joined issues and the matter went to trial. At the trial parties called a witness each – the claimant testified on his own behalf as CW; while Mr. Sunday Olukayode Adedeji, a Senior Admin officer at the Local Government Service Commission of Oyo State testified as DW for the defendants. From the sworn deposition of the claimant, his case is that he was offered appointment as a Technical Officer (Grade Level 07) in September, 1981 by the 3rd defendant vide letters dated 28th day of September, 1981 Ref. Nos. CP. 2525/12 and CP.2525/14 (Exhibits C1A, C1b). The claimant’s employment was subsequently confirmed by the 3rd defendant by a letter dated 19th January, 1984 Ref No. US. 26/171 (Exhibit C2). The claimant was later converted to Assistant Chief Building Officer (Grade Level 14) from his post as Chief Technical Officer by the 3rd defendant vide Exhibit C3, a letter of 24th March 2010. In June 2012, the claimant’s employment with the 3rd defendant was terminated and at the time of the termination the claimant was the Director of Works with the Ibadan North East Local Government on Grade Level 15 (Step 9) and after he has put in 31 years of meritorious service with the 3rd defendant; and for which he was never given any query or asked to appear before any disciplinary panel as he was never found wanting in anyway. He is due for retirement from the Oyo State service in 2016 when he would have attained 35 years in service with the defendants. The claimant went on that sometime in June 2012, he received a letter from the 3rd defendant signed by the 4th defendant purportedly terminating his employment. That the purported termination of his employment by the 3rd and 4th defendants vide the letter of 8th June 2012 is not in line with the service rules and General Order guiding and regulating his employment with the defendants and, therefore, the purported termination of his employment is wrongful, illegal, null and void. That by not following the various Service rules and General Order specifying how his employment with the 3rd defendant could be determined/terminated especially by not giving him the required three (3) months’ notice or payment of salary in lieu of the notice to terminate his employment, the 3rd defendant’s purported termination of his employment vide the letter of 8th June 2012 is wrongful, illegal and void. To the claimant, by the 3rd and 4th defendants’ act of not following the right procedure for terminating his employment, he is still a staff of the 3rd defendant and is entitled to the payment of his monthly salary of N106,642.47 from June 2012 until he reaches his retirement time in 2016 or till his employment is properly terminated by the following the right and correct procedure. He then prayed the court to grant to him the reliefs claimed. Under cross-examination, the claimant inter alia testified that he was born on December 12, 1958 and so at the time of testifying, he was 54 years old. The case of the defendants from the sworn deposition of DW, on the other hand, is that the claimant’s employment was terminated in accordance with due process. DW testified that the claimant is a builder by profession and was appointed to the rank of Technical Officer in the Local Government Service Commission of Oyo State on the 28th September 1981. That the appointment of the claimant was confirmed on the 28th September 1983 and this was conveyed to the claimant vide a letter dated 18th January 1984. Following an appeal by the claimant, he was placed on the Building Officer Cadre. That the claimant’s employment was terminated in compliance with the guidelines laid down in section 39 of the Oyo State Local Government Service Commission Regulations 1978 which is reproduced in Volume VI Laws of Oyo State of Nigeria 2000. That the defendants are not unaware that three (3) months’ salary ought to be paid to the Claimant in lieu of notice and the sum of money is ready and waiting collection by the claimant. That there has been no breach of contractual obligations to the claimant by the defendants. In the instant case, that the original and duplicate letter of compulsory retirement of the claimant were sealed and delivered to the Chairman of the Local Government where the claimant was serving and the Chairman was expected to deliver the original to him. That the 3rd defendant discharged its statutory duty and responsibility and there was no personal vendetta in this case. That the claimant’s appointment was terminated because his services were no longer required without more and appropriate steps have been taken by the calculation of his terminal benefits which await collection. Under cross-examination, DW acknowledged that the claimant is entitled to 3 months’ notice before his services can be terminated. He also acknowledged that he is aware that the claimant throughout his working career was never indicted or invited to any disciplinary panel. Before going into the merit of the arguments of the parties, I need to point out that the counsel to the claimant acknowledged that this Court has no jurisdiction over the claims of the claimant contained in reliefs 5, 6 and 7 in the complaint and statement of facts, which have to do with the tort of libel/defamation. The counsel then abandoned those claims, urging the Court to strike them out. In consequence, reliefs 5, 6 and 7 claimed by the claimant are hereby struck out. This leaves out only the claims as to the termination of the employment of the claimant. In this regard, only the first of the two issues framed by the defendants in their written address (dated 5th March 2013 bur filed on 8th March 2013) is relevant, namely – Whether terminating the employment of the claimant by retiring him as his services were no longer required was lawful. To the defendants, by the authority of the Court of Appeal decision in Ikhile v. Federal Airports Authority of Nigeria [2003] FWLR (Pt. 181) 1726 at 1743 – It is trite law that whether the relationship of master and servant is conditioned by statute or common law rules or both, the master may terminate the contract with the servant at any time and for any reason or for no reason at all. That it would result in anarchy if for whatever reason, an employer had to put up with an employee, even when the employee’s services are no longer required – he who hires can fire, as held by the Court of Appeal in the case of Akinfe v. UBA Plc [2007] 10 NWLR (Pt. 1041) 185. The defendants went on that the Supreme Court stated in the case of Jombo v. P.E.F.M.B [2005] 14 NWLR (Pt. 945) 443 that termination of appointment is intended always to put paid to any job or assignment one is holding, or for the time doing. That the issue of whether the person whose appointment is terminated accepts it does not arise. Even if the person whose appointment has been brought to an end by a letter of termination challenges it in court, that does not mean that the employer had any other intention than to put an end to the job description held by the subject of the letter of termination. Therefore, when an employer brings the contract of employment to an end by terminating it, the employee effectively ceases to be in the employment and his subsisting rights, if any, are to make a claim for the terminal benefit as provided in the contract of employment. The employee cannot at his option keep alive a contract of employment, which has been determined by the employer. That in relieving the claimant of his duties, there was strict adherence to laid down formal and appropriate means of communication between the Government of Oyo State and its employees in the delivery of correspondence under the flying seal of his Head of Department or officer who supervises his work. In the instant case, the original and duplicate letter of compulsory retirement of the claimant were sealed and delivered to the Chairman of the Local Government where he was serving and as is the practice, the Chairman was expected to deliver the original to him. That the case of Garuba v. Kwara Investment Company Ltd [2005] 1 SC (Pt. II) 80 reiterated the above and held that a master is entitled to dismiss his servant from his employment for good or for bad reasons or for no reason at all. Ordinarily and consistent with the common law principle, that the Court will not impose an employee on an employer. In the ordinary case and following the common law principle, termination of a contract of service even if unlawful brings to an end the relationship of master and servant, employer and employee. This rule is based on the principle of the confidential relationship between master and servant which cannot continue in the absence of mutuality. To the defendants, the 3rd defendant discharged its statutory duty and responsibility and there was no personal vendetta in this case. As the defendants are not unaware that three (3) months’ salary ought to be paid to the claimant in lieu of notice, appropriate steps have been taken to calculate the sum of money, which is ready and awaiting collection by the claimant. The defendants went on that it is pertinent to note that as it is trite that judgments should be based on pleaded and proven facts, the converse is also true as was held in the case of Odubeko v. Fowler [1993] 7 NWLR (Pt. 308) 637. That the defendants in this case pleaded in paragraph 7 of the statement of defence that the claimant’s employment was terminated in compliance with the guidelines laid down in section 39 of the Oyo State Civil Service Commission Regulations 1978 which is reproduced in Volume VI Laws of Oyo State of Nigeria 2000. Also, in paragraph 12 of the statement of defence, it was pleaded that the claimant’s appointment was terminated because his services were no longer required without more and appropriate steps have been taken by the calculation of his terminal benefits which await collection. To the defendants, the claimant buttressed the assertions of the defendants by pleading in paragraph 13 of his amended statement of claim as follows: That my condition of service is governed and regulated by the Unified Local Government (Staff) Regulations and the said Law confirms that the conditions of my service shall be equated with those obtaining for employees in the State Public Service which means that the Public Service Regulations further regulates my appointment. That flowing from this, therefore, the claimant concedes that his employment was properly determined in accordance with the Civil/Public Service Regulations. Section 39 of the Oyo State Civil Service Commission Regulations 1978 states – In any case in which it appears to the Commission to be desirable that a pensionable public officer should retire, or that the appointment of a contract officer should be terminated before the expiration of the term of engagement stipulated in the officer’s agreement or that the appointment of any officer should be terminated, the Commission may notwithstanding the provisions of regulations 35, 36, 37 or 38, direct the head of department to take such proceedings as are appropriate in accordance with any of those regulations or itself initiate proceedings in that behalf in such manner as it shall think fit. Finally, that section 82 of the Civil Service Commission Rules states as follows – Nothing in these regulations shall be construed – (a) As limiting the right of the State to dismiss or terminate the appointment of any public officer without compensation; or retire an officer with compensation. That in the instant case, there was strict compliance with the Public Service Rules in the retirement of the claimant. In conclusion, the defendants contended that the claimant was not dismissed but retired with full benefits; so he has lost nothing. Besides, the Court ought not to force an employee on an unwilling employer as it will result in strained relations, since trust no longer exists between the employee and his employer. That the claimant being a Grade Level 14 officer is a Category 1 officer and is subject to Oyo State Civil Service Commission Regulations 1978 as reproduced in Volume VI Laws of Oyo State of Nigeria 2000 and section 39 thereof states that an officer need not be consulted at all before his employment is terminated: The Government need not consult or give any reason before retiring. Indeed, that several other persons were relieved of their duties. That the claimant was, therefore, retired in accordance with the Civil/Public Service Rules because his services were no longer required. The defendants then urged the Court to dismiss the suit of the claimant as it is unmeritorious, vexatious and gold digging. In his reaction, the claimant filed and served his final written address dated and filed on 14th March 2013. To the claimant, from the state of the pleadings and the evidence of the witnesses, the following facts are not in dispute between the parties – 1. That the claimant was a staff of the defendants at all times material to this case. 2. That the letter of employment of the defendant is dated 28/9/1981 (Exhibits C1A and C1B) and the letter of confirmation of the claimant’s employment is dated 19/1/1984 (Exhibit C2). All the letters were issued by the 3rd defendant. 3. That prior to the issuance of Exhibit C4 which was the 3rd defendant’s letter of 8th June 2012 terminating the claimant’s employment as a Senior Staff Officer and a confirmed established member of the 3rd defendant’s staff, no prior query was served on the claimant and the claimant was not invited to appear before any panel or considered to be inefficient in the performance of his duties. His post has not been abolished. He was never indicted, or accused of any act of misconduct or wrongdoing and the claimant was not confirmed as being medically unfit for further service. 4. That at the time the claimant’s employment was terminated he was a Grade Level 15 (Step 9) confirmed established member of staff with the 3rd defendant. To the claimant since all of the above facts are not in dispute between the parties, it is settled law that what is admitted need no further proof, referring to University of Ilorin v. Adesina [2009] All FWLR (Pt. 487) 56 CA, Victabio Ventures Ltd v. W. Van Der Zwam & Z.N.B.V. [2009] All FWLR (Pt. 490) 756 CA, Ekpemupolo v. Edremoda [2009] All FWLR (Pt. 473) 1220 SC, Henshaw v. Effanga [2009] All FWLR (Pt. 466) 1896 CA, F.M.H v. Comet Shipping Agencies Ltd [2009] All FWLR (Pt. 483) 1260 SC, Iyere v. Bendel Feeds and Flour Mill Ltd [2009] All FWLR (Pt. 453) 1217 SC, and Buhari v. INEC [2009] All FWLR (Pt. 459) 419 SC. The claimant then framed one issue for the determination of the Court, namely – From the state of the pleadings the sole issue for determination in this case is: whether the compulsory retirements of the claimant by the 3rd defendant vide its letter of 8th June, 2012 was valid/proper and not in violation of the claimant's condition of service. To the claimant, he is principally seeking a declaratory relief, the burden of proof of which he had discharged since he supplied sufficient evidence before the Court to prove that he is entitled to the declaration he prayed for; hence he is also entitled to the consequential mandatory order he prayed for. The claimant went on that where an employment is protected by statute such an employment is said to have statutory flavour and the terms and conditions of the service including how the employment can be determined can only be found in the statute which contained and spelt out the procedure for his employment and discipline. That looking at the claimant’s amended statement of fact, the claimant in paragraphs 12, 13 and 14 deposed to the fact that his employment is governed by the Unified Local Government Service (Staff) Regulations and this fact is also contained in paragraphs 11 and 12 of his statement on oath. That the defendant has not disputed this fact. That the law is settled that where a party pleads a fact and the other party who has the opportunity to controvert that fact fails or neglect so to do, such a fact is no longer in issue and the alleging party is relieved of the burden of proving the existence of same and the Court is bound to accept and believe such unchallenged and un-contradicted evidence of a party in reaching its decision, citing Oru v. Onyeka [2007] All FWLR (Pt. 370) 1520, Ogunyade v. Osunkeye [2007] All FWLR (Pt. 389) 1179, Oguntifa v. UBA Plc [2007] All FWLR (Pt. 371) 1711, Alagbe v. Abimbola [1978] 2 SC 39, Balogun v. Egba Onikolobo Community Bank [2007] All FWLR (Pt. 382) 1952, UBA v. Union Bank Plc [1995] 7 NWLR (Pt. 405) 72, Nwaranta v. Egboka [2006] All FWLR (Pt. 338) 768, Durosaro v. Ayorinde [2005] NWLR (Pt. 927) 407 and Gov. of Zamfara State v. Gyalange [2013] All FWLR (Pt. 658) 821 at 841. That a court should take as the truth any piece of evidence that was not in any way contradicted or challenged particularly when the Court has no cause to disagree with such evidence. That going by the facts before this Court in both the parties pleadings, the statement on oath of the witnesses and the admitted exhibits, the claimant’s condition of service with the 3rd defendant is governed and regulated by the Unified Local Government Service (Staff) Regulation as contained in Cap 78 of the Law of Oyo State 2000 and this position is confirmed by Clause 4 of the claimant’s letter of employment dated 28/9/1981 (Ref No. CP. 2525/12) which is admitted without objection as Exhibit C1A. To the claimant, the termination of his appointment by the 3rd defendant vide its letter of 8th June 2012 (Exhibit C4) is in breach and violation of the Unified Local Government Service (Staff) Regulations Cap. 78 of the Laws of Oyo State of Nigeria 2000 attached to the claimant’s statement. That the defendant cannot deny that the Unified Local Government Service (Staff) Regulations Laws of Oyo State 2000 govern the claimant’s employment. Clause 4 of the claimant’s letter of employment dated 28/9/1981 (Ref No. CP. 2525/12) (Exhibit C1B) with the heading, “Offer of Temporary Appointment as Technical Officer Grade Level 07” states – You will comply with the Unified Local Government Service (Staff) Regulations and other instructions of the Commission for the time being in force, in so far as the same are applicable. The claimant urged the Court to note that the defendant also tendered the claimant’s letter of employment as an exhibit before the Court. And in Federal Medical Centre, Ido Ekiti v. Kolawole [2012] All FWLR (Pt. 653) 1999 it was held at 2011 that “In determining whether an employee’s appointment is statutorily flavoured or not recourse should be had to the content of the letter of appointment”. That in the absence of any contradiction on the part of the defendants other than to say that the claimant’s appointment is governed by the Civil Service Commission Regulations, it is submitted that from clause 4 of the claimant’s letter of employment dated 28/9/1981 Ref No. CP. 2525/12 (Exhibit C1B) the claimant’s employment is governed and regulated by the Unified Local Government Service (Staff) Regulations and that being the case, it is beyond any shadow of doubt that the claimant’s employment enjoys statutory flavour. The claimant went on that in Federal Medical Centre Ido Ekiti & Ors v. Kolawole (supra) at page 2011, it was held that – An employment with statutory flavour is one where the procedure for employment and discipline are governed by statute. The condition of service would determine whether the termination of employee’s employment was done following due process. In the instant case, the respondents’ letter of appointment clearly stated that he was employed under the Public Service Rules (PSR) therefore the respondents’ appointment had statutory flavour. To the claimant, an employment with statutory flavour or that has statutory backing as in the claimant’s case must be terminated in the way and manner prescribed by the relevant statute and any other manner of termination inconsistent with what is contained in the statute i.e. the Unified Local Government Service (Staff) Regulations is null and void and of no effect, citing Bashir Alade Shitta-Bey v. Federal Public Service Commission [1981] 1 SC 26 at 35 – 36 per Idigbe, JSC and Iderimaa v. River State Civil Service Commission [2005] All FWLR (Pt. 285) 431 at 456 – 457 per Oguntade, JSC. That the implication of these judicial pronouncements is that the moment it is established that the appointment of an employee is governed by instruments or condition of service that are made by a statute like the Unified Local Government Service (Staff) Regulations as with the present claimant, such an employee cannot just be removed at the pleasure of the employer as such an employee can only be removed or have his appointment terminated in strict compliance with the conditions governing such service, referring to Eperokun v. Unilag [1986] 4 NWLR (Pt. 34) 162, Olaniyan v. Unilag (No.2) [1985] 2 NWLR (Pt. 9) 550, Adedeji v. Public Service Comm. [1967] All NLR 72 and Gov. Ekiti State v. Ojo [2006] All WLR (Pt. 331) 1298 (incomplete citation). Thus the termination of the claimant’s employment by the 3rd defendant vide its letter of 8th June 2012 was improper as same is not in compliance with the statute regulating the claimant’s conditions of service with the 3rd defendant. That Part 6 of the Oyo State Unified Local Government Service (Staff) Regulation makes provision for the termination of appointment of a Confirmed Established Member of the Service. Regulation 47 makes provision for conditions when the appointment of a confirmed established member of the service may be terminated and these are well laid out under sub-paragraphs (a) – (f) as follows – The appointment of a confirmed established member of the service may be terminated where – (a) he is considered to be inefficient in the performance of his duties; or (b) he is considered to be medically unfit for further service; or (c) he has been found guilty of an act of misconduct as a result of disciplinary proceedings; or (d) he resigns his appointment; or (e) he reaches retiring age; or (f) his post is abolished, with the approval of the Commissioner as a result of reorganization or financial stringency. Regulation 48(1) goes on to make provision for the termination of appointment of a confirmed member of the service by the 3rd defendant on the ground of general inefficiency and the grounds are – (a) he has, during the immediately preceding period of six months, been warned in writing at least once that his work has been unsatisfactory; or (b) he has failed to pass any departmental, technical or trade test which he may under these regulations be required to pass: or (c) he becomes financially embarrassed, a result of imprudence or other reprehensible cause; or (d) he has been persistently absent from, or late for duty without adequate excuse and has been warned in writing at least once during the immediately preceding period of six months; or (e) his appointment has previously been withheld or deferred. Regulation 48(2) of the Oyo State Unified Local Government Service (Staff) Regulations then makes provision for the procedure to be followed by the 3rd defendant before terminating the appointment of the claimant who is a confirmed member of the service. By Regulations 48(2) and (3) – (2) The appointment of a confirmed member of the service shall not be terminated until he has been given an opportunity of submitting his representations to the Commission and such representations shall be submitted within fourteen days of the date of the notification issued in accordance with regulation 39(a). (3) A confirmed member of the service whose appointment is terminated for inefficiency shall be given one month’s notice, or alternatively may be discharged with one month’s pay in lieu of notice may reasonably be expected to be received to the day numerically corresponding to that day in the following month, less one day. To the claimant then, the stipulation of the law that an employer does not have to give employee a reason for sacking him does not apply to employment with statutory flavour as in this case but is applicable only to ordinary master/servant relationship. Statutory flavour gives the holder of the office or employment a special status over and above ordinary master/servant relationship, citing Bamigboye v. University of Ilorin [2001] FWLR (Pt. 32) 12 at 72. Thus that the authorities of Ikhile v. Federal Airports Authority of Nigeria [2003] FWLR (Pt. 181) 1726, Akinfe v. UBA Plc [2007] 10 NWLR (Pt. 1041) 185 and Jombo v. Petroleum Equalization Fund (Management Board) & Co. [2005] 14 NWLR (Pt. 945) 443 by the defendants’ counsel are not relevant to the present case. That the passages quoted Ikhile v. FAAN and Jombo v. PEFMB as supporting the submission that he who hires can fire for no reason are just obiter and not the ratio in the cases; while the case of Akinfe v. UBA Plc is not relevant as the employment involved in the case was a case involving ordinary master/servant relationship and not an employment with statutory flavour as in the present case. The claimant then urged the Court to disregard/discountenance the three authorities cited by the defendants. Continuing, the claimant contended that in Federal Medical Centre Ido-Ekiti v. Kolawole, in considering a similar submission that an employer who can hire can fire with or without a reason, the Court held at page 2014 that – The learned counsel to the appellants had argued that he who hires can fire with or without any reason at all, in justifying the 1st appellant’s termination of the respondent’s appointment. This argument does not support the present case but would apply in ordinary master and servant cases where the terms of the contract of employment would be specified. That there is no evidence before the Court for the reason why the claimant’s employment was terminated by the 3rd defendant. No evidence before the Court that the claimant falls within any of the categories (a) – (f) of Regulation 47 or 48. Not only that, even if there was any case of misconduct against the claimant the procedure laid down in Regulation 48(2) and (3) has not been followed/complied with by the 3rd defendant. Neither was the claimant given one month’s notice or one month’s pay in lieu of the notice as stipulated in Regulation 48(3). The claimant went on that even if his employment is governed by both the Unified Local Govt. Service (Staff) Regulation Cap. 78 of the Laws of Oyo State 2000 as he claimed in virtue of clause 4 of his letter of appointment and the Civil Service Commission Regulations as claimed by the defendants, which the claimant is not conceding to, the 3rd defendant’s termination of the claimant’s employment is even in total violation of the provision of the so-called Civil Service Commission Regulations under which the 3rd defendant claimed it terminated the claimant’s employment. That the defendant’s witness in paragraph 6 of his statement on oath and paragraph 7 of the defendants’ joint statement of defence claimed that the claimant’s employment was terminated in compliance with the guidelines laid down in regulation 39 of the Oyo State Civil Service Commission Regulations. Regulations 35 and 39 of the Civil Service Commission Regulations provide as follows – Regulation 35: If it appears to a Head of Department that there is reason, arising out of the officer’s conduct or efficiency, why a public officer who has been confirmed in a pensionable office and has served for not less than fifteen years should be called upon to retire, the Head of Department shall – (a) If the officer is in category 1 or 2 make a recommendation, giving his reasons to the Commission, and if the Commission authorize him to call upon the officer to submit representations regarding his proposed compulsory retirement, the Head of Department shall do so and upon receiving any such representation or if the officer does not avail himself of the opportunity to submit representations before a date specified by the Head of Department (which date shall allow a reasonable interval for the purpose) he shall report the fact to the Commission; or (b) If the officer is not in category 1 or 2 afford him an opportunity of submitting representations regarding his proposed compulsory retirement and if the officer does not avail himself of that opportunity before a date specified by the Head of Department (which date shall allow a reasonable interval for the purpose) or if it still appears to the Head of Department, after considering any such representations, that the officer should be called upon to retire, he shall make a recommendation to the Commission, attaching any representations the officer has made, and giving his reasons for his recommendations, which shall include his observations upon any representations made by the officer. Regulation 39: In any case in which it appears to the Commission to be desirable that a pensionable public officer should retire or that the appointment of a contract officer should be terminated before the expiration of the term of engagement stipulated in the officer’s agreement or that the appointment of any officer should be terminated, the Commission may, notwithstanding the provisions of regulation 35, 36, 37 or 38 direct the Head of Department to take such proceedings as are appropriate in accordance with any of those regulations or itself initiate proceedings in that behalf in such manner as it shall think fit. To the claimant, regulation 39 of the Oyo State Civil Service Commission Regulations did not give the 3rd defendant the general power to compulsorily and unilaterally terminate the claimant’s employment. The regulation talked of the 3rd defendant (the Commission) directing the Head of the Department of the claimant to take such proceeding as are appropriate in accordance with any of those regulations or itself initiate proceeding in that behalf in such manner as it shall think fit. That what Regulation 39 asked the 3rd defendant (Commission) to do is to direct the claimant’s Head of Department to initiate the proceeding as contained in regulation 35 by calling on the claimant (who is a level 15 (Step 9) officer) where it appears to his Head of Department that there is reason arising out of the claimant’s conduct or efficiency and that the claimant should be called upon to retire, his Head of Department should make recommendation giving his reason to the Commissioner and the Commissioner after receiving the claimant’s Head of Department’s recommendation authorize the claimant’s Head of Department to call upon the claimant to submit his representation regarding his proposed compulsory retirement and the claimant’s Head of Department shall do so and upon receiving any such representation or if the claimant fails to avail himself of the opportunity to submit representations before the date specified by his Head of Department and which date shall allow a reasonable interval for the purpose, his Head of Department shall report the fact to the Commission. That both regulations 35 and 39 are meant to be read together/jointly and not disjointedly as regulation 35 laid down the procedure to be followed by the Commissioner in invoking the provision of regulation 39. The claimant continued that there is no evidence before the Court that the procedure laid down in regulation 35 was adhered to by the 3rd defendant in exercising the power conferred on the Commission by regulation 39. Further, that there is no evidence before the Court that the claimant’s Head of Department called upon the claimant to make representation regarding his proposed compulsory retirement which the claimant failed to make. The 3rd defendant, therefore, did not comply with the regulation guiding the claimant’s employment in terminating his employment. To the claimant, once a staff whose employment has statutory flavour is employed and had his employment confirmed he is expected to enjoy his tenure up till retirement age except there is good cause to determine the appointment, referring to Olatunbosun v. NISER [1987] 3 NWLR (Pt. 80) 25, OAU v. Onabajo [1991] 5 NWLR (Pt. 193) 543, Fetuga v. Unibadan [2000] 13 NWLR (Pt. 683) 118, Ogieva v. Igbinedion [2005] All FWLR (Pt. 260) 85 Prof. Dupe Olatunbosun v. NISER [1988] NWLR (Pt. 80) – the page is not supplied, and NEPA v. Ango [2001] 15 NWLR (Pt. 737) 627 at 631. The claimant continued that the failure of the defendants to comply with the procedure for the determination of the claimant’s employment is fatal to the defence of the defendants. That in employment with statutory flavour strict compliance and adherence with the procedure for the termination as laid down in the statute or regulation made there under must be followed and the breach of one step in the procedure is a breach of all that would warrant granting the relief sought by the employee, citing University of Ilorin v. Prof Abe [2003] FWLR (Pt. 164) 267 at 283, Iderima v. Rivers State Civil Service Comm. [2005] All FWLR (Pt. 285) 431 and Okocha v. Civil Service Commission of Edo State [2004] FWLR (Pt. 190) 1304. The claimant then urged the Court to grant relief 1 of the claimant’s claims in favour of the claimant by granting the declaration that the purported termination of the claimant’s employment vide the 3rd defendant’s letter of 8th June 2012 is wrongful, illegal and of no effect. Regarding reliefs 2 and 3, the claimant submitted that where the procedure for the termination of an employee whose employment has statutory flavour is held to be unlawful, null and void the natural sequence of events would be an order reinstating the claimant because the termination being null and void was never terminated and the employment is still subsisting, citing Federal Medical Centre Ido-Ekiti v. Kolawole [2012] All FWLR (Pt. 653) 1999 at 2014, U.N.T.H.M.B. v. Nnoli [1994] 8 NWLR (Pt. 363) 376, Ogieva v. Igbinedo [2004] 14 NWLR (Pt. 894) 467; [2005] All FWLR (Pt. 260) 85, Saliman v. Kwara Poly [2006] 5 NWLR (Pt. 794) 477, Adefemiwa v. Osun State College of Education, lIesa [2009] All FWLR (Pt. 456) 1860, Kwara State Civil Service Comm. v. Abiodun [2009] All FWLR (Pt. 493) 1315 at 1367, Gov. Kwara State v. Ojibara [2007] All FWLR (Pt. 348) 864 at 869 and Ulegede v. MILAD Bendel State [2000] FWLR (Pt. 22) 981; [2001] 2 NWLR (Pt. 696) 73 at 77. On the basis of the above authorities, the claimant urged the Court to also grant the claimant’s reliefs 2, 3 and 4. That the defendants’ claim that the claimant salary in lieu of notice is awaiting collection with the 3rd defendant is an afterthought and same should be disregarded by the Court. In conclusion, the claimant urged the Court to hold that the claimant is still a staff of the 3rd defendant as the compulsory of retirement of the claimant by the 3rd defendant vide the letter of 8th June 2012 is unjustifiable, null and void as same cannot be supported by the provision of the claimant’s conditions of service. The claimant then urged the Court to resolve all the issues in this suit in his favour and grant all his claims in their entirety. The defendants did not file any reply on points of law. The issue for determination before this Court is whether the retirement of the claimant is valid. To be able to answer this question, it will be necessary to also determine whether the claimant’s employment is statutory or not. The case of the claimant is that he enjoys statutory employment and so must equally enjoy security of tenure. The defence of the defendants is that they retired the claimant in accordance with due process. While the claimant also argued that his employment is regulated by the Oyo State Unified Local Government service (Staff) regulations Cap. 78 of the Laws of Oyo State 2000, and so this case should be decided on that basis argued their action, the defendants on the other hand argued that their action was under the Civil Service Regulations of Oyo State. Other than these differences as to the issues, there isn’t much disagreement as to the facts of the case between the parties. The claimant was offered temporary appointment as Technical Officer on Grade Level 07 vide Exhibit C1(b). He accepted the offer and so was issued a letter of appointment to the rank of Technical Officer vide Exhibit C1(a) with effect from 28th September 1981. Exhibit C1(b) is also Exhibit D1 frontloaded by the defendants. The appointment was actually as a Temporary Technical Officer on a salary of N2830.00 per annum on salary Grade Level 07. The claimant was latter confirmed vide Exhibit C2 (which is also same as Exhibit D2 frontloaded by the defendants) with effect from 28th September 1983. However, by Exhibit C2 (Exhibit D2), the confirmation of the claimant’s appointment was for his “appointment as Asst. Technical Officer, GL.06 in the Unified Local Government Service”. Clause 4 of the offer of appointment, Exhibit C1(b), had provided that the claimant “will comply with the Unified Local Government Service (Staff) Regulations and other instructions of the Commission for the time being in force, in so far as the same are applicable”. This means that the conditions of service of the claimant were as provided for and regulated by the Unified Local Government Service (Staff) Regulations; and I so find and hold. Now, from the recital, this Unified Local Government Service (Staff) Regulations 2000 was “made under section 107 of the Local Government Law Cap. 68 of the 1959 Edition, and remaining in force under section 204(3) of the Present Law”. What this means is that the appointment of the claimant is statutorily regulated. The claimant’s appointment, therefore, has statutory flavour; and I so find and hold. By 8th June 2012, the claimant was retired from the Local Government Service of Oyo State vide Exhibit C4 of that date. In other words, the claimant was retired with immediate effect. The reason for the retirement was put in the following words – …the present Administration has observed that your continued stay in the service is not in its best interest. This means that the claimant had put in some 31 years of service at the point of his retirement. Meanwhile, under cross-examination he testified that he was born on December 12, 1958 – this put him to be 54 years old. Regulation 52 of the Unified Local Government Service (Staff) Regulations dealing with retirement provides that – (1) A member of the service who has reached the age of sixty years shall retire from the service. (2) In special circumstances a member of the service may retire or be called upon by the Commission to retire after reaching the age of forty-five years, provided that when ordered to retire or retiring before the age of sixty, the giving of six months notice shall be required. (3) A member of the service who retires or has been retired in accordance with regulations 54 shall be entitled to any leave for which he may be entitled under regulations 68 and 70 to free transport to his home town. There is no evidence before the Court that the claimant was given six months’ notice of his retirement as required by regulation 52(2). Instead, as I found earlier, Exhibit C4 retired him with effect from the date of the letter i.e. 8th June 2012; in other words, with immediate effect. This is in breach of regulation 52(2) of the Unified Local Government Service (Staff) Regulations 2000; and I so find and hold. This, therefore, means that the retirement of the claimant is wrong, unlawful and hence null and void. By E. P. Iderima v. Rivers State Civil Service Commission [2005] 7 SC (Pt. III) 135 employment with statutory backing must be terminated in the way and manner prescribed by that statute and any other manner of termination inconsistent with the relevant statute is null and void and of no effect. See also Union Bank of Nigeria Ltd v. Chukwuelo Charles Ogboh [1995] 2 NWLR (Pt. 380) 647. The defendants had argued that three months’ salary in lieu of notice awaits the claimant. However, the case of Adeniyi v. Governing Council Yaba College of Technology [1993] 6 NWLR (Pt. 300) 426 is clear that the payment and receipt of three months’ salary in lieu cannot validate a wrongful retirement. The case of Alhassan v. ABU Zaria [2010] All FWLR (Pt. 538) 962 at 975 is apposite also. The case enjoins a presumption in favour of the claimant that his employment can only be brought to an end for proven misconduct or other specified reason. The reason adduced by the defendants for retiring the claimant, which is that the claimant’s continued stay in service is not in the best interest of the defendants, is not tenable given the testimony of DW that the claimant throughout his working career was never indicted or invited to any disciplinary panel. The case of Okocha v. CSC, Edo State [2004] 3 NWLR (Pt. 861) 582 is explicit when it states that public servants are invested with a legal status and they cannot be properly or legally removed until the said Rules are strictly complied with. See also this Court’s decisions in Francis Oluyemi Olamiju, Esq. v. Local Government Service Commission, Ekiti State & anor unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/157/2011 the judgment of which was delivered on November 26, 2012 and Mr. A. A. Owolabi v. Local Government Service Commission, Ekiti State & anor unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/160/2011 the judgment of which was delivered on November 26, 2012. Having declared the retirement wrong, unlawful, null and void, the law is that it is deemed not to have occurred in the first place. See E. P. Iderima v. Rivers State Civil Service Commission (supra), where it was held that once the dismissal of a civil servant is declared null and void, the effect of such a pronouncement is that the civil servant was always and still is a civil servant. I agree with the claimant’s counsel that the authorities cited by the defendants that an employer can hire and fire at will, for reason or no reason at all, are inapplicable to the instant case. Those authorities are relevant only to master/servant cases devoid of a statutory flavor. The instant case is one with a statutory flavor and so the claimant can only be retired in accordance with the Law. This the defendants did not do. The appropriate remedy, therefore, is that the claimant must be reinstated with full benefits and without any loss of salary, position or seniority. On the whole, the claimant’s case is meritorious and so succeeds. The claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought but only in the following regard – 1. It is hereby declared that the retirement of the claimant by the 3rd defendant vide the defendants’ letter of 8th June 2012 is wrong, illegal and of no effect. 2. It is here by declared that the claimant is still a staff of the 3rd defendant as the Director of Works with the Ibadan North East Local Government of Oyo State. 3. It is hereby ordered that the claimant’s salary from June, 2012 when the claimant was wrongly retired by the defendant be paid to him until his due and rightful retirement. 4. Cost is put at Fifty Thousand Naira (N50,000) only payable by the defendants to the claimant. Judgment is entered accordingly. …………………………………… Hon. Justice B. B. Kanyip