Download PDF
IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA HOLDEN AT ABUJA Before His Lordship: - Hon. Justice P.O Lifu (JP) - Judge Thursday 5th November, 2014 SUIT NO: NICN/ABJ/341/2012 Between: Mr. Lawal Gambo Claimant And Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS) Defendant REPRESENTATION Claimant present Defendant absent; F.S. Gambo Esq. for the claimant; T. B Liman Esq. for the defendant RULING /JUDGMENT By a complaint dated the 18th of December 2012, and filed on the same date, the claimant prayed the court for the following reliefs: 1. A Declaration that the indefinite suspension of the claimant, by the defendant was wrongful, unlawful, null and void of no legal effect. 2. A Declaration that the disciplinary Measures meted on the claimant, involving suspension, proceedings before the defendant’s Disciplinary Committee and termination of the Claimant’s appointment were Ultra vires the powers and functions of the defendant. 3. An order setting aside suspension of the Claimant by the defendant. 4. A Declaration that the termination of the claimant’s appointment with the defendant, by the defendant via a letter dated 7th September, 2012 was unlawful, null, void and of no legal effect in that it was done in contravention of the provisions of the Federal Inland Revenue Service (Establishment ) Act, 2007 and Public Service Rules applicable to the Claimant’s appointment with the Board. 5. An Order restoring the Plaintiff to his employment with the Defendant, with all promotions due to him were it not for the complained conduct of the defendant, and accord him full rights and privileges as a staff of the defendant. 6. An Order directing the defendant to immediately compute and pay to the plaintiff his salaries and other allowances withheld consequent upon the unlawful termination of his appointment by the Defendant. 7. The sum of N10,000.00 (Ten Million Naira) as aggravated damages for the pain, embarrassment, humiliation and public scorn the plaintiff was made to suffer as a result of the unlawful termination of his appointment. 8. An order of Perpetual Injunction restraining the defendant, its privies or agents from preventing or disturbing the Plaintiff from carrying out his duties as a public servant in the services of the Defendant, save in accordance with the provision of the Federal Inland Revenue Service (Establishment) Act, 2007 and the Public Service Rules. 9. Costs of the action. The complaint is accompanied by a statement of facts and other frontloaded processes in compliance with the rules of this court. The defendant entered an appearance on the 23rd of January 2013 and filed his defence along with its frontloaded processes on the 15th of May 2013. On the 6th of February 2014, the claimant opened his case wherein he adopted his witness statement on oath as his oral testimony in this suit and also tendered several frontloaded documents as follows; (1) Witness statements on oath Exhibit LG 01 (2) Unijos certificate Exhibit LG 02 (3) Termination of appointment letter- Exhibit LG 03 (4) Solicitors letter – Exhibit LG 04 (5) Unijos testimonial Exhibit LG 05 (6) Letter to defendant by claimant Exhibit LG 06 (7) Letter of Suspension Exhibit LG 07 (8) Letter of Query – Exhibit LG 08 (9) Letter of acceptance of appointment Exhibit LG 09 (10) Letter of automatic employment Exhibit LG 010 (11) Request for upgrading reply latter Exhibit LG 011 (12) ANAN Certificate Exhibit 012. (13) Letter of acceptance of offer Exhibit LG 013 (14) Letter of offer Exhibit LG 014 (15) Re: Notification of admission LG 015 (16) Provision letter – Exhibit LG 016 (17) FRN Official Gazette Exhibit 017 (18) Claimants appointment letter Exhibit 018 (19) New appointment letter Exhibit LG 019 The witness testified further that, the university requested for the originals of his testimonials for investigations upon his complaint but only issued him with a pass degree certificate and never returned his testimonial. On cross examination, the witness who agreed that he was conversant with the facts of this case said that he was not aware that the automatic employment was given to all staff of the defendant. Both the letter of appointment and that of termination came from the same source i.e the chairman of the board of Inland Revenue and he was terminated on the ground that his services was no longer required. The witness urged the court to grant his prayers. On the 13th May 2014, the defence opened with a witness who adopted his Witness Statement on Oath and tendered same as exhibits LG 020. The witness then referred the court to Exhibit LG 03 which authorizes the defendant to hire and fire. He testified during cross examination to the effect that the claimant was not known to him before this case but his name was in the nominal role; the witness agreed to be the head of the appeal and petition department of the defendant as his basic duty was to address issues and grievances or complaint from ex-staff and serving staff members of the defendant as he investigate claims and complaint that come to the department and advise management in form of writing briefs for its deliberations and considerations. The witness testified that he wrote a brief to management on the claimants solicitors letter and that the employment of the clamant was governed by the FIRS establishment Act and the public service rules including the letter of appointment containing the terms of engagement and based on exhibits LG 10 &3 the termination of the defendant do not comply with the terms of engagement or employment. The witness who claim to be familiar with the process of discipline of staff by the defendant by virtue of his earlier involvement in disciplinary processes enumerated and outline the stages in the disciplinary process of an erring staff as follows: (1) The process of issuance and service of a query to a staff (2) Response of the staff (3) Suspension and further deliberations (4) Committee hearing on the matter (5) Final decision of the board on submission of committees decision/report. The suspension the witness testified is for three months and if the investigation is not concluded within this 3 months, the suspension can be extended and communicated to the affected staff. He further testified that all these outlined processes were followed in the case of the discipline of the claimant and there is nothing in the defendants rule that specify any class of degree as entry qualification into the defendant establishment as the entry qualification is HND Certificate. In the written addresses of the defendant, dated the 26th of June 2014 and filed on the 03rd of July 2014, the defendants counsel, Mubarrak Yanusa Esq. formulated four issues for determination as follows; (1) Whether or not the defendant can terminate the appointment of the claimant on the ground of presenting a certificate discountenanced by the University of Jos. (2) Whether the claimant was given sufficient opportunity to defend himself of the allegation against him (3) Whether the defendant has adduced sufficient evidence to support its case (4) Whether claimant in this case have come to this Honourable court with clean hands. On issue one, counsel urged the court to answer the issue in the affirmative due to the content of exhibits LG 02 and LG 06 where the claimant admitted the issue of falsification of academic record which is a gross misconduct within the meaning of misconduct under the public service rules. Counsel referred this courts to rules Nos. 030401 and 030402 (a) – (b) Counsel referred the court to rules 030301 and 030401 of the public service on the definition of serious misconduct and how the court applied it in the case of P.C Mike Eze Vs. Spring Bank Plc 2011 LPELR SC 69/1998. Counsel further cited section 123 of the amended evidence Act 2011 and the cases of Ayoke Vs. Bello 1992 10 NWLR Pt. 10 NWLR Pt. 218 at 380; FCSC Vs. Laoye 1989 2 NWLR (Pt. 106 ) 652 to the fact that the admission by the claimant that he presented false degree certificate to the defendant during verification absolve the defendant of any other proof of that fact as it is trite law that an admission need no further proof; it is the contention of counsel that exhibits LG 08 and LG 06 were never disputed or contested by the claimant and as such his pleading to the contrary capable of Misleading the court should not be believed by the court. On issue two, counsel submitted that the claimant responded to the query duly issued to him, and he was given the opportunity to appear before the panel before he was relieved of his appointment. Counsel asserted and submitted that paragraph 21 of the claimants statement of facts, exhibits LG 08 and LG 07 all go to show that the claimant admitted presenting the certificate in controversy to the defendant, responded to the query and even appeared before the disciplinary panel and as such the defendant has complied with the principles of fair hearing as held in the cases of Bassey Vs. C S C of Cross River State 2010 LPELR CA/C/166/08. In the absence of any challenged evidence as in this case, counsel urged the court to believe the facts as presented in respect of fair hearing granted the claimant as proved. Counsel called in aid the cases of Okonkwo Vs. Onovo 1999 4 NWLR (Pt. 597) 110. On issue three, counsel submitted that it is the duty of the claimant to establish and prove his case on the balance of probabilities upon preponderance of evidence and not to depend or rely on the weakness of the defendants case. Counsel rely on section 133 (1) of the evidence Act and the cases of Nwabuoku Vs. Ottih 1961 All NLR Pt. 2 at 489 and Ukaegbu and Others Vs. Nwolo Lo 2009 3 NWLR (Pt. 1129) 194 SC and urged the court to dismiss the claimants case as he has not sufficiently proved his case. Counsel posited further that the claimant was suspended in accordance with Rule 030406 of the public Service before he was finally disengaged by way of termination as exhibit LG 07 was issued in accordance with the public Service Rules; counsel urged the court to dismiss the claimants case. On issue four submitted for determination by the court counsel submitted that the failure of the claimant to rely on his own reply to query and the report of the disciplinary committee was a deliberate and calculated attempt to mislead this Honourable court and therefore means the claimant has not come to the court with clean hands. Counsel referred this court to the cases of Adefarati Vs. Gov. Ondo State 2006 7 NWLR (Pt. 960) 145 at 157. Counsel finally submitted that the court cannot force an employee on an unwilling employer, moreso that exhibits LG 02 remains unchallenged, uncontroverted undisputed and uncontested as the claimant admitted submitting a false certificate to his employer as such his claim is brought in bad faith lacking in bad faith, and an attempt to mislead the court. In His final written address dated and filed on 4/7/14 in support of his case, claimants counsel F.S. Jimba Esq. formulated three issues for the courts determination namely: (1) Whether in view of the circumstances of this case, the suspension of the claimant by virtue of exhibit LG 07 was not unlawful and therefore null and void (2) Whether the purported termination of the appointment of the claimant with the defendant Via Exhibit LG 03 was not unlawful and therefore null and void (3) Whether in view of the circumstances of this case, the claimant is not entitled to succeed in this suit as per the relief sought. On issue one, counsel referred to section 123 of evidence Act 2011 as amended, paragraph 36 (1) of the statement of facts and paragraphs 15 and 18 of the statement of defence to the effect that an admitted fact need no further proof. Counsel posited also that parties are ad Idem to the effect that the claimant employment is statutorily flavoured, being a senior staff whose employment is regulated by the FIRS Establishment Act 2007 and the public service Rules . Counsel also submitted and urged the court to hold that paragraph 25, 26, and 29 of the statement of facts which has not been specifically denied should be regarded as admitted against the defendant as regards the suspension of the claimant more than 3 months contrary to the FIRS establishment Act 2007 and the public service Rules; counsel call in aid the cases of Smab Inter- Trade Ltd Vs. Bulangu 2013 All FWLR Pt. 693 2019 at 2033; Atanda Vs. Iliasu 2012 12 SC Pt. III 67 at 87. The sole witness for the defence, counsel submitted further, admitted that the suspension of the claimant exceeded three months and was terminated in the fourth months. On issue two, counsel contended that where no other reason is stated in a letter of termination as in this case except the reason given therein as “services no longer required” the court cannot go outside the (reason ) stated in the letter of termination to discover the real reason for the termination, i.e the court should limit itself to the content of the letter conveying the termination. Counsel call in aid the cases of Iwuoha Vs. Mobil Producing Nig Unltd 2013 All FWLR Pt. 664 144 at 151; CBN Vs. Amika 2000 13 NWLR (Pt. 683) 21; Counsel contended further that Rules 020803 and 020801 which borders on probation of a staff are not relevant to the claimant on the basis of exhibit LG 10 which is an offer of automatic employment sequel to the FIRS establishment Act 2007. This exhibit LG 10 Counsel contended forms part of the terms of employment of the claimant as section 63 of the FIRS Act 2007 provides that termination during Probation attracts one month notice or one month salary in lieu and after confirmation of appointment it is three months’ notice or three months’ salary in lieu of notice. Counsel contended also that since the claimant was no longer on probation, offering him one month salary in lieu of notice was wrongful and unlawful as by Exhibit LG 10, the probation period of the claimant ended 1st June 2011. Counsel cited the case of The Council of Federal Poly Ede Vs. Olowookere 2013 All FWLR (Pt. 699) at 1200. Counsel urged the court to hold that the claimant having worked and continued to work after the probation period was automatically confirmed by conduct; Counsel stated further that exhibit LG 03 has no reference to the alleged certificate falsification of which the claimant was disciplined as the reason given in the termination letter simply says “services no longer required”! Counsel urged the court to hold that since the claimant is not guilty of any misconduct in his employment and he has excused himself from the allegation of falsification of examination record; the termination was unlawful, null and void and of no effect whatsoever. On issue three counsel urged the court to hold that since the claimants termination was not done in line with the public service rules, the suspension and eventual termination should be declared unlawful null and void; this fact, counsel contended was reaffirmed by the defence witness during Cross Examination. Counsel contended also that since the remedy for wrongful termination is reinstatement due to the principle of statutory flavour, the court should reinstate the claimant; counsel cited the case of Yemisi Vs. FIRS 2013 All FWLR Pt. 693 1992 at 2016; Olufeagba Vs. Abdulraheem 2010 All FWLR (Pt. 512) 1033 at 1074. Counsel finally urged the court to grant all the reliefs of the claimant. In the process of adopting counsel final written addresses, both counsel addumberated on some issue which is worthy of note in this judgment Mr. Gimba, submitted that the defendant never raised the issue of misconduct in their written addresses coupled with the fact that it was never pleaded by the defendant neither was it raised during trial. Counsel relied on the case of Ayorinde Vs. Sogunro 2012 4-5 SC 160 at 213 and urged the court to discountenance any aspect of counsel address on that issue. Counsel also urged the court not to go beyond the letter of termination as the defendant never gave any reason for the termination apart from using the sentence “services no longer required” Mr. Mubarrak, counsel to the defendant referred the court to paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 of the defence statement where the issue of misconduct was raised as the said fact was also referred to the defence witness statement on oath which is exhibit GL 20. I have read and heard counsel on their various submissions and the authorities cited. The duty of a trial court is to assess the evidence before him to see whether or not the claimant has discharged the burden of proof in a case before him. The standard of proof in a civil claim is proof on balance of probabilities. See the case of FBN Plc Vs. Onukwugha 2005 16 NWLR (Pt. 950) 120 at 153. By the authority of NRW Ind. Ltd Vs. Akingbulugbe 2011 11 NWLR Pt. 1257 CA, an employee who seek a declaration that the termination of his employment was wrongful must prove the following material facts (1) That he is an employee of the defendant (2) The terms and conditions of his employment (3) The way and manner and by whom he can be removed. (4) The way and manner the terms and conditions of his employment were breached by his employer. It is not the duty of the employer to prove any of these facts; see the cases of Afibank Nig. Plc Vs. Osisanya 2000 I NWLR (Pt. 642) 592 CA Adams Vs. LSDPC 2000 5 NWLR Pt. 656 291 CA; Kabel metal Nig Ltd Vs. Ativie 2002 10 NWLR (Pt. 775) 250 CA and Emokpae Vs. University of Benin 2002 17 NWLR (Pt. 795) 139 CA. In an employment contract as in this case which is a contract of service as against contract for service, the court is not entitle to look outside the contract of service as to the terms and conditions. These must be gathered there from and/or from other sources which can be incorporated by reference to the contract as the case may be. It is the best and only way to decide the right of the parties under the contract. See the case of Idoniboye Obu Vs. NNPC 2003 2 NWLR (Pt. 805) page 589 at P. 600. In the same vein, it is trite law that when an employee complains of wrongful termination of employment by his employer, he has the onus to prove the wrongful termination of the said contract of employment by placing before the court the terms and conditions of the contract of employment and proving in what manner the said term were breached by the employer. See the case of Famakinswa Vs. T.A. Nig PCC 2007 WRN (Vol. 18) 36 at 40-49. This is so because the terms of the contract is the bedrock of any case where the issue of wrongful dismissal from or termination of employment calls for determination. See also the case of Nigeria Insurance Corporation Vs. Obende 2002 All FWLR (Pt. 116) P. 951. The apex court has also amplified this principle and position of the law when it held in the case of Chukwumah Vs. SPDC Nig. Ltd 1993 4 NWLR (Pt. 289) at 103 para A-B. That “it is within the right of the employer to terminate the services of the employee but where conditions for such terminations are terms of the contract of service, such conditions must be satisfied”. The facts of this case which are not very complex are that the claimant who was employed by the defendant as a clerical staff in 1990 grew through the rank and as at the time material to this case he was Tax officer I. In the course of his employment, he got and obtained the permission of the defendant his employer, and completed his undergraduate bachelors programme in the University of Jos and also completed his professional programme at the Association of National Accountants of Nigeria (ANAN) In Jos Plateau State. He was subsequently queried for submitting a forged or fake University of Jos Degree to his employer. The claimant answer to his query led to his suspension and his eventual termination of his employment hence this action. There is no doubt that there is a contract of service between the parties. It is not also in doubt that the contract is statutorily flavoured as the contract is regulated by the Federal Inland Revenue Services Establishment Act 2007. The query Exhibit LG 08 that eventually led to the termination of the claimant employment reads; “It has come to the attention of management that you presented an academic certificate purportedly issued by the University of Jos, to facilitate your employment into the service. This certificate has been declared to be fake by the institution. In view of the above, I am directed to request you to explain why disciplinary action should not be taken against you for the alleged serious misconduct” The claimant responded to the query according to his testimony as reflected in paragraph 21 of his witness statement on oath, this has gone a long way to satisfy requirement of fair hearing principle; fair hearing means hear the other side; fair hearing also means an opportunity to be heard. See the case of Lawrence Idemudia Oborkhale Vs. LASU 2013 30 NLLR (Pt. 85) I NIC; In imonikhe Vs. Unity Bank Plc 2011 12 NWLR (Pt. 1262) 624 at 640 the Supreme Court held that where an employer accuses an employee of misconduct by way of a query and allows the employee to answer the query before the employer takes a decision on the employment of the employee that satisfies the requirements of fair hearing because he answered the query and a decision was taken by the suspension and eventual termination. The claimant who was queried in October 2011, appeared supposedly before a committee in April 2012 and was suspended in May 10th 2012 according to the testimony of the defendant as stated in paragraph 6 (g) of exhibit LG 20. Furthermore paragraph 6 (f) of Exhibit LG 20 which is the defence testimony – witness statement on oath states that the University of Jos wrote to the defendant confirming that the certificate presented by the claimant was forged or fake; it must be noted that this letter from the University of Jos was not presented before the court. The said exhibit referred to 2 letters dated 26th July 2011 and 5th March 2012; The claimant denied that the certificate presented were forged by him . Once this is in issue the burden then shift to the defendant to establish that the certificates were fake as he who alleges must prove as allegedly indicated in the two letters not before the court; The defendant suspended the claimant in a letter dated 10th May 2012 which is exhibit LG 07; Paragraph 2 of the exhibit reads; “Consequently upon your formal representation, your submission to the disciplinary committee when you appear before it; couple with the reinvestigation report received from the University of Jos reaffirming the stand of the Institution that you graduated with a pass instead of a second class lower division certificate you presented to the service, management has directed that you should be suspended from the office with effect from 14th May 2012 pending the determination of the case.” From the above, it is clear that the claimant was suspended on allegation of presenting fake certificate to the defendant. Exhibit LG 03 before the court which is the letter of termination of appointment took effect from the date of suspension i.e. the 14th May 2012 suffice it to say that the letter of termination was dated 7th September 2012. In the said letter of termination which is exhibit LG 03, there is no specific reason given and no reference was made to the alleged presentation of fake certificate of which he was suspended and queried. I perceive that the reason for the termination is due to the allegation of presenting fake certificate. In section 167 of the evidence Act 2011 as amended “the court May presume the existence of any fact which it deem likely to have happened, regard shall be had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relationship to the facts of the case” In this context, the court can in appropriate circumstances look beyond the letter of termination by drawing inferences from the surrounding circumstances of the case to reach a conclusion as to the reason for termination. See the case of CBN Vs. Ogwilo. I therefore hold that the termination of the claimant employment is one to the allegation of presenting fake certificate as it is directly related to or connected with it and cannot be divorced from the allegation. Once a reason exist for an action such as termination in this case, the employee can contest that reason, if that reason is found by the court not to be a lawful reason, the termination will be declared null and void, i.e a nullity which means the employment was never stopped, so it continued and still subsist. See the case of Isievwore Vs. NEPA 2002 12 NWLR Pt. 784 417 SC. By Exhibit GL 09, the claimant replied to the query issued to him by this words “It was the certificate issued to me by the university that I presented to Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS). I did not present any fake certificate to Federal Inland Revenue Service, right from my primary school leaving certificate and secondary school when I was employed in January 1990”. It is the evidence of the defence witness during cross examination that the entry requirement into the defendants establishment is HND and no particular class of degree is a requirement in the defendants rule or law; the claimant was terminated on the basis of presenting a fake 2nd class lower degree when he had a pass degree; the question is , Assuming this is correct does a penalty of termination meet the justice of the case when no law or rule specify a class of degree for employment. Moreover, a letter dated October 24th 2011 attached to exhibit LG 06 which was received by the defendant on the 31st of October 2011 by the chairman of the defendant gives a clearance to the claimant on this allegation of certificate forgery. The letter from the examination and record of the University of Jos by paragraph 2 and 3 reads; ‘2’ “from our record Gambo Lawan enrolled into the University of Jos during the 2000/2001 academic session. He completed the prescribed academic pragramme successfully in the year 2003/ 2004 academic session and was awarded the Bachelor of Science in Business Management with second class honours lawer division with testimonial on. 023250” as approved by the senate an August 22, 2005” ‘3’ “We sincerely regret all the inconveniences our initial reply regards to the above named candidate sent to your establishment might have caused you. It was due to some record errors which were later rectified” Exhibit LG 05, which is the testimonial issued by the University of Jos to the claimant which number was quoted in the exhibit reproduced above tallies; it is amazing that this clearance letter was received by the executive chairman of the defendant on the 31st of October 2011 as shown in exhibit LG 06 yet the defendant proceeded to suspend the claimant on 10th may 2012 with effect from 14th may 2012 and eventually terminated him on 7th September 2012 with effect from 14th May 2012. By exhibit LG 010, the claimant was offered an automate employment which he accepted with exhibit LG 09. It is in evidence that the claimant was still in employment of the defendant when this offer was made sequel to his additional qualifications being a B.SC Certificate and a professional accountancy certificate which is exhibit LG 012. As I have stated earlier in this judgment, exhibit LG 010, the offer of automatic employment form part of the contract of employment upon acceptance with exhibit LG 09. Exhibit LG 010 took effect from 1st June 2010 with a probation period of one year. Paragraph 3 of the exhibit states. “During the probation period either party may terminate this appointment in writing by giving one month notice or pay one month salary in lieu of notice. After confirmation of employment, notice for termination shall be three (3) months or payment of three (3) months salary in lieu of notice from either side” This exhibit LG 010 is a new contract altogether containing its own terms and conditions. Consequently the earlier appointments even though confirmed and gazette as can be seen in exhibits LG 013, 14 and 17, cannot supersedes exhibit LG 010. There is no evidence before this court to show that the claimants employment as constituted by exhibit LG 10 was confirmed in any formal manner but he continued to work even beyond the period of confirmation when exhibit LG 03 terminating him was received. That means it took the defendant to terminate him 1 year and 5 months after the acceptance of the automatic offer of employment; to be more precise, the claimant was offered employment on 1st of June 2010. Through a letter dated 14th December 2010; he accepted the officer on 27th January 2011 and he was terminated on 14th of May 2012 through a letter dated 7th of Sept 2012. The purpose of a probation period is normally to enable the parties to make an assessment of the advantages resulting from the conclusion of an employment contract. During this period the worker has to demonstrate his ability and competence. It is a period of insecurity which should not be unduly prolonged. However, the continuation of services after the expiry of the probation period without a new contract being drawn up in a form of confirmation, is equivalent to the conclusion of a contract of indeterminate duration which takes effect on the date on which the probation period began, or where the worker as in this case continue to work after the probation period, the contract is deemed to have been concluded on the date on which the probation period began. This is in accordance with international best practices and fair labour practice principles as enshrine in section 254C (i)(f) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended. Based on the principle of labour law stated above, and by virtue of Exhibit LG 010, I hold that the employment of the claimant, apart from being one with statutory flavor is a permanent and pensionable one. Consequently terminating the claimant giving him one month salary in lieu of notice as stated in Exhibit LG 03 is contrary to the spirit and intent of Exhibit LG 010 and therefore unlawful. On issue one submitted for determination by the defendant counsel, it has been established by evidence before this court that the certificate duly issued to the claimant, the basis of which he presented to the defendant was the property of the University of Jos of which the claimant cannot be held liable in view of Exhibit LG 06. Issue two & four have been answered in the affirmative in the course of judgment as the claimant cannot complain of fair hearing. On issue three, this court is satisfied on the basis of the imaginary scale, that the evidence of the claimant preponderates and tilt the scale in his favour. The issues submitted for determination by the claimant are all answered in the affirmative in view of the various reasonings and conclusions which I have irresistibly arrived at in this judgment. Issues of damages need to be proved specially as claimed by the claimant and since there is no evidence before the court to elicit such quantum of damages claimed, the claim fails. Consequently, judgment is hereby entered for the claimant as follows: (1) The suspension of the claimant on the 14th of May 2012 by the defendant is hereby set aside for being unlawful. (2) The termination of the claimants appointment by the defendant by a letter dated the 7th of September 2012 is hereby declared unlawful. (3) The defendant is hereby ordered to reinstate the claimant to his employment and pay him all his dues including salaries, emoluments, entitlement and other benefits attached to his office from the date of suspension till the date of satisfaction of this judgment. (4) I award the sum of N50,000 cost in favour of the claimant but against the defendant. ----------------------------- Hon. Justice P.O Lifu JP. Judge