Download PDF
This suit was first commenced at the Federal High Court, Owerri on the 3rd November, 2010 as suit number FHC/OW/CS/227/10. The Claimant sought from the defendants jointly and severally, the following reliefs: (a) A declaration of the Court that the dismissal of the claimant from the Nigeria Police Force vide letter reference No. P.6221/FS/FHQ/ABJ/23 dated 2nd September, 2010 was wrongful and deprived the plaintiff of his right to fair hearing as provided for in section 36 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. (b) Order of Court reinstating the plaintiff in the Nigeria Police Force, granting him promotions given to him which were later denied him; salary arrears, and other benefits and promotions which he is entitled to OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE: Order of Court directing the Police Service Commission and the Nigeria Police Force to grant the plaintiff pension as he has served the Nigeria Police Force for Thirty-Two years, and is Fifty-Three years old. By an ORDER OF TRANSFER dated 20th day of February, 2013, the Federal High Court ordered that this case be transferred to the National Industrial Court, on the ground that the Federal High Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the action. Accompanying the complaint is the statement of facts, witness’ statement on oath, documents to be relied upon and list of witnesses. The defendant entered appearance and filed its statement of defence, list of witnesses, witness’ statement on oath and documents to be relied on. Parties joined issues and the matter went on trial. Hearing commenced on the 3rd day of December 2013. The Claimant testified in person as CW1 and tendered four Exhibits numbering C1, C2, C3 and C4. Inspector Theophile Onu, the Administrative Officer attached to the Legal Department of the State CID Owerri testified on behalf of the Defendants as DW1 and tendered four Exhibits numbering D1, D2, D3 and D4. Hearing was concluded by the 17th day of December 2013, and at the close of the case for each of the parties, final written addresses were filed in accordance with the rules of this court, starting with the defendant. The defendant filed its written address on the 3rd day of February 2014 and the Claimant’s written address was filed on the 25th day of February 2014. There was no reply on points of law. Parties adopted their respective written addresses on the 24th day of April 2014. The claimant’s case on the pleadings is that he joined the Nigeria Police force as a Constable on the 1st day of December, 1978, and rose through the ranks to become a Superintendent of Police on the 1st day of February, 2003. His last promotion was conveyed to him vide a Police Wireless Message DTO: 211440/02/2003. In April 1999 the claimant was transferred from Oron Division to Abak division of the said Police Force as the Divisional Police Officer, the said transfer took effect from 25th day of April, 1999 and the handing over was to be completed on or before the 25th day of April, 1999. The claimant reported accordingly. On the 29th day of April, 1999 a patrol team led by Sergeant Imoh Moses of the Nigeria Police Force Abak Division, Akwa Ibom State allegedly shot and killed a man called Ukpong Jackson, a native of Ikot-Imoh, Abak Local Government Area of Akwa Ibom State who was said to be a suspected Armed Robber and the patrol team brought his corpse to the Divisional headquarters. The said patrol team and guard team said the man was shot during a gun battle with the police, the police said they recovered a locally made pistol with live cartridges from the dead suspect. Having just reported in his new division as at the date of this incident, the claimant had not taken over the control of the various teams existing in the said Police Division Abak. The claimant claimed he did not establish the squad or teams already in existence as at the time the incident occurred. He claimed he was not a member of the said patrol team, neither did he order the killing of the said Ukpong Jackson. The said patrol team came to the house of the claimant at about 1am on the 30th day of April, 1999 to inform him that they had an encounter with armed robbers and they shot and killed one of the robbers whose body the said team had deposited at the Abak Police Station. The said patrol team also informed the claimant of the locally made pistol and live cartridges recovered from the dead suspect. The claimant opened an investigation into the incident as required by the Police CID circular as preliminary investigation and the case file was transferred to the State Police Headquarters, Uyo for consolidation and completion of investigation. The corpse of the said suspect was deposited at the Mercy Hospital, Abak for autopsy, after which the body of the suspect was disposed of by the patrol and guard team. Months later the then Commissioner of Police Akwa Ibom State Command was petitioned by the relatives of the dead suspect stating that the man Ukpong Jackson was not an armed robber as alleged. The Police then instituted a panel of inquiry to look into the matter. The board of inquiry never gave the claimant the opportunity to cross-examine the patrol team during the trial. The team that shot and killed the suspect were arrested and interrogated by the panel. The panel discovered that the said suspect was shot and killed by the team in his house. The panel recommended that the said patrol team that shot and killed Ukpong Jackson be charged to Court for Murder. The said members of the patrol team are Friday Onoyom, Imoh Moses, Ikpi Ubi and Fearless Inyang. On hearing that they the alleged team members were to be prosecuted for the murder of Ukpong Jackson they deserted the Police Force and were subsequently dismissed for desertion. The claimant was queried for Misconduct and Lack of Supervision by the then Commissioner of Police, Akwa Ibom State Command in the person of Alhaji Yahaya Baba who the claimant alleged that the Commissioner of Police had issues of malice against him and that the Commissioner had in the past had personal issues when they were both co-lecturers at the Police College Oji River. The Commissioner of police sent a prejudiced report to the Police Force Headquarters, Abuja. The claimant was then invited by the Force Disciplinary Committee of the Nigeria Police Force for further investigation. The claimant claimed to have received a query only after the patrol team members deserted the Force and that he was never charged to Court for any criminal involvement in the course of the investigation. The claimant alleged that he was not given fair hearing by the Force Disciplinary Committee, and that it amounts to double jeopardy to reprimand and transfer him, and later dismiss him from service on the same factual situation. The allegation of misconduct and lack of supervision made against the claimant before the Force Disciplinary Committee was not proved by the defendants. The defendants in their Final Written Address filed on 3rd February 2014, raised the following issues for the determination of the court: 1. Whether the dismissal of the claimant based on his gross misconduct and lack of supervision is right. 2. Whether the claimant have proved their assertions to grant them their reliefs. In his written address, counsel to the defendants submitted that the claimant has failed to prove his assertion of wrongful dismissal by the defendant, and as such, is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought in this suit. It was submitted that it was the lack of supervision of the claimant who was the substantive DPO of Abak that led to his team of policemen to raid, shoot and kill one Cletus Ebong Ukpong, alleging that he was an armed robber; that the claimant ought to have supervised the patrol team which was his main duty as the Divisional Police Officer. The Claimant also failed to get his men detained the very first day they reported to the claimant about their action even though the claimant knows that he ought to have detained them during the course of investigation. That failure to detain them led to the desertion of his team members from the Police Force till date. The Defendant claimed that the claimant had been issued a query dated 26th January, 2000 to defend himself on this matter which he answered. That before this query, an earlier query had been issued to him on another matter sometime in 1999 which he failed to answer and that that is a gross misconduct in the Police Force. That the issuance of the query was based on section 04104 and 04201 of the Civil Service Rules which is the instrument that guides Police officers besides section 34 (2)(b) of the Constitution as amended. The rule also provides and recognizes a specific procedure for dealing with or to discipline members of the Police Force; and that this was strictly adhered to but the claimant never obeyed or answered all the queries issued him and even the one he answered was not worthy enough and had no satisfactory answer, thereby leading to his dismissal. Counsel cited the case of Olatunbosun vs. NISER (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt. 80) 25; Olaniyan vs. Unilag (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 9) 599 and Shitta Bey vs. Federal Public Service Commission (1981) 1 SC 41 at 56. Counsel to the defendants submitted further that the claimant was given all opportunities to know and defend himself for his gross misconduct and lack of supervision case, and that the defendants complied with all the relevant rules and statutes (the 1999 constitution and the Civil Service Rules) before the claimant was dismissed. Fakuade vs. OAUTH Complex Mgmt Board (1993) 5 NWLR (Pt. 291) Pg. 47 (SC); Amodu vs. Amode (1990) 5 NWLR (Pt. 150) Pg. 356. Refusal to respond to a query and unsatisfactory answer to another query is an indication that the claimant was given an opportunity to defend himself. On issue two, the defendants submitted that the claimant did not prove his assertion of wrongful dismissal. There is no evidence before this honourable court to prove that the claimant was wrongfully dismissed; and that the onus of proof was on the Claimant. Nigeria Airways vs. Gbajumo (1992) 5 NWLR (Pt. 244) 735 R 8. Defendant submits that the gross misconduct and lack of supervision of the claimant on his patrol men led to the criminal act of murder by the patrol men of his station, that if not for the desertion of his men they should have been tried for murder, and the claimant for conspiracy, which allegation warrants the Police Force to dismiss the claimant besides the unsatisfactory answer to the second query and refusal to answer the first query. Abubakar Tatari Ali vs. Polytechnic Minna (2005) All FWLR (Pt. 284) 250 at 296 (CA). To the defendants, the Claimant in his action for wrongful dismissal, ought to prove his appointment and the terms and conditions thereof, for it to succeed. Having failed to so prove therefore, his suit should be dismissed. See Kabel Metal Nig. Ltd. vs. Gabriel Ativie (2001) FWLR (Pt. 66) 662 at 675 (CA). The court was urged to take judicial notice of the Civil Service Rules as being the Statute governing the disciplinary aspect of this relationship. Babatunde vs. Osogbo Steel Rolling Ltd. (2000) FWLR (Pt. 10) 1659 (CA). Without conceding that the claimant was not given fair hearing, the defendant submitted that mere failure to accord a dismissed employer fair hearing is not enough to entitle him to judgment in an action for wrongful dismissal if he was dismissed for gross misconduct. See Ali vs. N.A.A. (2005) All FWLR (Pt. 272) 265 at 2890290 (CA). In conclusion the defendant submitted, citing Katto vs. CBN (2001) FWLR (Pt. 53) 188 at 201 (SC) that the claimant did not put forward the terms of employment and how it was breached by the claimant, which led to his dismissal. See also Ziideh vs. Rivers State Civil Service Commission (2001) FWLR (Pt. 46) 821 at 826 (CA) also affirmed in Ziideh vs Rivers State Civil ervice Commission (2007) All FWLR (Pt. 354) 243 at 258-9 (SC). The Defendants finally urged the court to hold that the claimant’s suit is bereft of facts, and that the claimant has failed to prove his allegation of wrongful dismissal against the defendant. The court was urged to dismiss this suit for lack of merit. The Claimant’s written address filed on the 25th day of February 2014 raised the following 4 issues for the determination of the court: 1. Whether the employment of the claimant is an employment with statutory flavor 2. Whether fair hearing was observed as it relates to the trial of the claimant. 3. Whether or not it is right to reduce the rank of the claimant from a full Superintendent of Police down to Deputy Superintendent of Police for an alleged “lack of supervision” AND to dismiss the claimant from the Nigeria Police Force on the same “lack of supervision” without any other or new offence or another lack of supervision being alleged or proved. 4. Whether the claimant has proved his case to be entitled to the reliefs sought by the claimant. On issue 1, the claimant states that the employment of the claimant is an employment with statutory flavor. An employment with statutory flavor is one where the procedure for employment and discipline are governed by statute as in the present case. The organization and administration of the Nigeria Police Force which is a creation of the Constitution, is regulated and prescribed by Acts of the National assembly. See S.214 (2) (a) and 215 of the 1999 Constitution as amended. Counsel submitted further, citing chapter 16 rules 160101 to 160601 of the Public Service Rules 2006, that parastatals which include Security Agencies are governed by the Public Service Rules of the Federation; and that the employment, promotion and discipline of the claimant are governed by statute. Consequently the procedure for the claimant’s DEMOTION OR DISMISSAL shall also be governed by statute. Mr. Richard Omidiora & Anor vs. Federal Civil Service Commission & Ors. (2008) All FWlR (Pt. 415) Pg. 1897; FMC Ido Ekiti vs. Kolawole 2012 All FWLR Pt. 653 Pg. 1999. On issue 2, it is the Claimant’s submission that fair hearing was not observed in the alleged trial of the claimant. The claimant was never confronted with any person who dealt with the matter of the alleged lack of supervision. The Claimant also said he was not permitted or allowed to even cross examine the members or any member of the patrol team that allegedly worked under him, stating also that it was the same police who had custody of the patrol team members that also released them before they all absconded from the Force, as the Claimant had at that time, was posted far away from the division where the incident occurred. Claimant submits that he was never allowed to narrate his own side of the matter, neither was he given the chance to respond to a remark made by a member of the Force Disciplinary Committee who was said to be a relation of the deceased thus: “so you are one the people that killed my cousin”. To the Claimant therefore, the effect of this absence of fair hearing is to render the entire procedure which led to the purported dismissal a nullity. The Claimant also maintained that he was never given the opportunity to see any deposition or statement made against him; thereby raising the issue of bias or likelihood of bias. It is further stated that the defence did not rebut this assertion. As regards the issuance of query, Claimant referred to rule 030203 of the Public Services Rules which provides for at least 3 three warnings before dismissal. Under cross examination, the defence witness stated that “whenever a query is issued, the Senior Police Officer will endorse on the acknowledgement copy, I do not have an acknowledgement copy of the query issued to the claimant”. Claimant submitted that whoever asserted issuance of query to the claimant and service thereof, should provide evidence of issuance and service by providing the acknowledgement copy. He therefore urged the court to find as a fact that a second query was never issued. Claimant made further reference to that rule 030307(xiii) of the Public Service Rules which provides that “All disciplinary procedures must commence and be completed within a period of 60 days except where it involves criminal cases.” By Rule 030307 (x), “if upon considering the report of the board…., the commissioner is of the opinion that the officer should be dismissed, such action shall be immediately taken.” This suggests that the 60 days rule ought to be adhered to. For a matter that happened in 2000, punishment coming in 2010 (i.e.10 years after), is therefore clearly outside the 60 days envisaged by the rules. Besides, ten years is a very unreasonably long time to effect a decision over a matter. The claimant submitted that the defence merely traversed the salient facts pleaded in the statement of claim, but failed to proffer evidence to buttress their defence. Failure to answer the following salient questions lends credence to this submission. Questions such as: Who did the claimant cross examine? Who testified against him? Why did it take 10 years to effectively communicate to the claimant the result of a finding when he was still in the Force receiving posting? Is it not tantamount to double jeopardy for another aspect of fair hearing, to demote the claimant and again dismiss him after so many years on the same fact situation? He then submitted, referring to FMC Ido Ekiti vs. Kolawole (2012) All FWLR (Pt. 653) Pg. 1999; and Richard Omidiora & Anor vs. Federal Civil Service Commission & Ors. (2008) All FWLR (Pt. 415 Pg. 1807, that where termination of a statutory employment was illegal and unlawful, the court has a duty to re-instate the claimant. On issue 3, claimant submits that reduction in rank or demotion or refusal to promote as at when due and dismissal are positive sanctions. Therefore, unless where the rule or contract requires that both could be meted out on the same fact situation against an offender, it is wrong to do so. Demoting the claimant and thereafter dismissing him for the same offence after over 34 years of serving the Police Force, is considered unfair by the Claimant who urged the court to hold that this amounts to double punishment for an alleged offence which is not proven against the Claimant. On issue 4, it is Claimant’s counsel submission that the claimant has proved his case to be entitled to the reliefs sought. It is further submitted that the cases relied upon by the defence are not applicable to the present situation as they are cases involving employment without statutory flavour. He urged the court to grant the claims of the Claimant. I have carefully considered the pleadings of the parties, the evidence of the witnesses, the submissions of counsel on both sides, and I have formulated the following two (2) issues for determination: 1. Whether the dismissal of the Claimant from the Nigeria Police Force was wrongful. 2. Whether the Claimant is entitled to any of the alternative prayers sought by him. Let me first quickly point out that issue three raised by the claimant in his address refers to a reduction in rank. All through the length and breadth of the pleadings and oral evidence of the parties, no reference was made to any factual situation to the effect of reduction in rank. Address of counsel cannot take the place of evidence. All arguments relating to that issue are hereby discountenanced. In determining issue No 1, it is noted that the Claimant testified that he was employed into the Nigeria Police Force on 1/12/78 and he did rise through the ranks up to a superintendent of Police on 1/2/2003. The defendant did not deny this fact. It is therefore not in dispute that the Claimant was until his dismissal, a member of the Nigeria Police Force. The Nigeria Police Force is an establishment of Section 214(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended). Subsection (2) of the section provides that the administration and organization of the Police Force shall be in accordance with an Act of the National Assembly, hence the Police Act Cap P19, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004, which provides for the organization and administration of the Police Force, and the appointment and dismissal of members of the Police Force. The 1st defendant has the responsibility in Paragraph 30 of Part 1 of the 3rd schedule of the constitution, to appoint members of the police force, and to dismiss and exercise disciplinary control over them. The Claimant’s employment is therefore regulated by the Constitution and the Act of the National Assembly. There is no gainsaying that the Claimant’s employment enjoys statutory flavour. See Imoloame vs. WA.E.C. (1992) 9 NWLR (Pt. 265) 303; Olaniyan vs. University of Lagos (1985) All NLR 363; N.E.P.A. vs. Edegbero (2000) 14 NWLR (Pt.688) 615. For the Claimant’s dismissal from the Police Force to be valid, statutory provisions and the extant regulations must be proved to have been observed. Ordinarily, a master has the right to terminate his servant’s employment for good or bad reasons or no reasons at all, but where the employment has statutory flavour, the employment has to be terminated in accordance with the way and manner prescribed by statute or regulations governing the employment. See Union Bank vs. Charles Ogboh (1995) 2 NWLR (380) 647 @ 669 where the Supreme Court held that "Employment with statutory backing must be terminated in the way and manner prescribed by the relevant statute and any other form of termination inconsistent therewith is null and void and of no effect." See also: Eperokun vs. University of Lagos (1986) 4 NWLR (34) 162; Bamgboye vs. University of llorin (1990) 10 NWLR (622) 290 @ 320. The Civil Service Rules or the Nigeria Police Regulations applies to the discipline of the Claimant. See Regulation 369 of the Police Regulations. Evidence reveals that the last rank of the Claimant was superintendent of Police. By virtue of Section 2 of the Police Act, he is a Superior Police Officer. By virtue of Regulation 369, he is subject to the Civil Service Rules of the Federation. See also Rule 160101 of the Public Service Rules (2006) which makes the rules applicable to parastatals in the Public Service of the Federation. Rule 030203 of the Public Service Rules makes it mandatory that before a staff is dismissed, he must have been warned for at least three (3) times. The Claimant testified that he was given a query for an allegation of misconduct and lack of supervision. The defendant claimed that the Claimant was given two (2) queries, but under cross-examination, DW1 could not substantiate that the Claimant received the first query. I find therefore that only one query was proved to have been given to the Claimant. Again, no warning was said to have been issued. Rule 030307 (xiii) prescribes that all disciplinary procedures (except respecting criminal cases) must commence and be completed within 60 days. The Rule states further in Paragraph (x) that if the punishment is a dismissal, such action shall be taken immediately. From the preponderance of evidence, the query was issued to the Claimant in year 2000. In 2005, he was invited to Abuja to face the Force Disciplinary Committee. He received his dismissal letter (dated 2/9/10) on 2/9/10. The defendants had referred in Paragraph 11 of their Statement of Defence to letters of 14/12/2005 and dismissal letter of 14/8/2006. The Claimant testified that “I was posted in January 2005 as OC D6 (fraud), Owerri. I was there till 2010 when I got this letter. All through this period, I was receiving my salary and entitlements as a police officer.” This piece of evidence indicates that the Claimant was not dismissed in 2005 as alleged by the defendant. Notwithstanding the purported dismissal in 2005, they still paid his salary till 2010. I find that the date of Exhibit C1 (letter of dismissal) being 2nd September 2010, is the date the Claimant was dismissed. It is further noted that the offence for which the Claimant was dismissed, “Lack of supervision” was not criminal as to warrant an exemption from the 60 days prescribed for the completion of the disciplinary procedures referred to in Rule 030307 (xiii) earlier referred to. This the defendants had clearly exceeded, considering the number of years that elapsed between the issuance of the query in 2000 and the eventual dismissal in 2010. Again, these facts are not rebutted. The defence both in their evidence, submissions and even in the letter of dismissal (the subject of this suit), have clearly alleged misconduct. Misconduct is defined by the Public Service Rules as a specific act of wrong-doing or an improper behaviour which is inimical to the image of the service, and which can be investigated and proved, and can lead to termination and retirement. The same Rules defines serious misconduct as a specific act of very serious wrongdoing and improper behaviour which is inimical to the image of the service, and which can be investigated and if proven, may lead to dismissal. Rules 130302-130306 of the Public service rules set out the disciplinary procedure for misconduct and serious misconduct. Where misconduct is alleged as in this case, as a basis for dismissal, the employer must prove the misconduct and give the employee adequate opportunity to defend himself. This requirement is applicable to misconducts and serious misconducts. In Odiase vs. Auchi Polytechnic (1998) 4 NWLR (Pt. 547) 477 at 493, it was held that where the employing authority wants to remove its servant on grounds permitted by statute, then the principles of eternal justice will dictate that the servant cannot be lawfully dismissed without first telling him what is alleged against him and hearing his defence or explanation. The rule of natural justice requires that the employee must (a) know the nature of the accusation; (b) be given the chance to state his case; (c) the disciplinary body must be impartial. The Claimant testified that he was not given fair hearing by the defendants. He didn’t know who complained against him, he was never allowed to cross-examine the patrol team members when they were arrested and being interrogated, and was not allowed to state his case before the Force Disciplinary Committee. Further in his testimony, he told the court that a member of the panel was a relative of the deceased. There is no evidence in rebuttal of these assertions. I am inclined to agree with the Claimant that he was not given fair hearing, and I find that the rule of natural justice was not complied with in the process leading to the dismissal of the Claimant. Now in answering the main question as to whether or not the dismissal of the Claimant was wrongful, having established that the Claimant’s employment is statutory, and the procedure prescribed by the statute was not complied with, therefore the resultant dismissal must be held to be wrongful, and I so hold. In determining issue No. 2 as to whether the Claimant is entitled to any of the alternative prayers sought by him, it is again pertinent to take a look at the reliefs sought by the Claimant. While he seeks a declaration of the Court that his dismissal from the Nigeria Police Force was wrongful, he further seeks- “An order of Court reinstating him to the Nigeria Police Force, granting him promotions given to him which were later denied him; salary arrears, and other benefits and promotions which he is entitled to OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, An order of Court directing the defendants to grant him pension as he has served the Nigeria Police Force for Thirty-Two years, and is Fifty-Three years old”. It is well settled that the consequence of wrongful or unlawful termination of employment governed by statute is that the employee is entitled to be reinstated. See Shitta-Bey vs. Federal Public Service Commission (1981) 1 SC (Reprint) 26. See also Olaniyan vs. University of Lagos (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 9) 599 at 680 where Karibi-Whyte JSC held that reinstatement is the correct remedy for an ineffective and invalid exercise of a power to dismiss. The claimant is therefore entitled to re-instatement, and is hereby re-instated into the Nigeria Police Force. Now, what is the effect of such re-instatement? Idigbe J.S.C held in Shitta-Bey vs. The Federal Civil Service Commission (Supra), that the effect of such pronouncement is that the Civil Servant was always and is still a Civil Servant; while in Nnoli vs. UNTH Management Board (1994) 13 KLR (Pt. 25) 1613 at Paragraphs 13 – 35, Onu J.S.C. held that “the effect is that the respondent is entitled to return to her duty post”. Having held in this judgment that the dismissal of the claimant from the Police Force is wrongful and void, therefore he is deemed to have always been, and still is in the Police Force. It is clear from the evidence of the claimant that he was no longer paid his salaries since he was wrongfully dismissed in September 2010. Having made an order for reinstatement, it means that the claimant is being restored to his status quo ante. The attendant rights and privileges attached to his employment as a Superintendent of Police should also be restored. I am persuaded on this view by the Supreme Court decision in Iderima vs. Rivers State Civil Service Commission (2005) All FWLR (Pt. 285) 431 at 447 Para. G-H. See also the decision of this court sitting in Enugu in the case of James Perekeme Ubaka vs INEC Unreported suit No NICN/EN/56/2012, in a judgment delivered on the 16th day of September 2013, where Hon Justice Obaseki-Osaghae held in line with the decision in Shitta-Bey vs. Federal Public Service Commission (Supra) and ordered the re-instatement of the Claimant in that case into his position as Chief Administrative Officer, with the rights and privileges he is entitled to, and with no loss of seniority. On the whole and for all the reasons given above, the Claim of the Claimant succeeds. I hereby make the following declaration and orders: (a) The dismissal of the claimant from the Nigeria Police Force vide letter reference No. P.6221/FS/FHQ/ABJ/23 dated 2nd September, 2010 is hereby declared wrongful, null and void and is hereby set aside. (b) The Claimant is hereby re-instated into the Nigeria Police Force immediately, with all the attendant rights, benefits, and privileges of his rank, and with no loss of emoluments and seniority. (c) The Claimant is entitled to his salaries and emoluments due to him from the 2nd day of September 2010, payment of which is hereby ordered. Cost of N100,000.00 is awarded in favour of the Claimant. Judgment is entered accordingly. Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe