Download PDF
IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA HOLDEN AT ABUJA Before His Lordship: - Hon. Justice P.O Lifu (JP) - Judge Wednesday 11th February, 2015 SUIT NO: NICN/ABJ/240/2013 Between: Stephen Izonebi Claimant And Federal Judicial Service Commission Defendant REPRESENTATION Claimant absent. Defendant present E.N. Nwachukwu (Miss) for the claimant; Nafisa Adama (Miss) for the defendant; Olajide Abdulkadir; Chief Legal officer represent the defendant. JUDGEMENT By a writ of summons otherwise called a compliant dated the 23rd of September 2013, the claimant sought for the following reliefs; 1. A declaration that the dismissal of the Plaintiff by the Defendant from its service without fair hearing contravenes section 36 (1) and (2) subsection 6 (b) and (c) of the 1999 constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) and section 61, Subsection 1,2 , and 3 and section 46 (4) I – xii of the Federal Judicial Service Commission Regulation 2010, therefore illegal, null and void. 2. A Declaration that the letter from, the Defendant reference No. FJSC/5/7/04VOL6/19 dated the 2nd July, 2013 purportedly dismissing the Plaintiff from the service of the Defendant is null and void and of no effect whatsoever having been issued in violation of the Federal Judicial Service Commission Regulation, 2010. 3. A Declaration that the plaintiff’s purported dismissal by the Defendant is in breach of his contract of employment and also contravenes section 36 (1) and (2) subsection 6 (b) and (c) of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended ) hence null and void. 4. An order compelling the defendant to reinstate the plaintiff and to pay up all his outstanding monthly salaries without loss of promotion, benefits and entitlements. In accordance with the rules of court, the claimant frontloaded his process along with the originating court processes. The defendant in this suit by an order of court regularized its appearance and statement of defence and in accordance to the rules of this court frontloaded its processes in its defence; on the 9th of April 2014 the claimant opened his case by calling a lone witness in person. He adopted his witness statement on oath and tendered the following exhibits. (1) Witness statement on oath sworn to at the registry of this court on the 23rd of September 2013 is exhibit S.I. 01 (2) Letter of appointment is exhibit S.I 02 (3) Promotion letter of 19th April 2005 is Exhibit S.I 03 (4) Query letter from Court of Appeal is exhibit S.I 04 (5) Letter of invitation to appear before disciplinary committee is exhibit S.I 05 (6) Letter of dismissal dated the 2/07/2013 is exhibit S.I 06. (7) Reply to query is exhibit S.I 07. During cross examination, the claimant also identified the original copy of the reply to the query which was admitted in evidence and marked as exhibit S.I 08. Claimant stated further that he was forced to appear before the disciplinary committee on the 20th of June 2013 while he submitted his reply to query on the same date but appeared before the panel before he submitted the answer to the query. He further stated that he was served with the letter of dismissal exhibit S.I 06 on the 2nd of July 2013. The witness also testified that, by exhibit S.I 05 which is the letter of invitation to appear before the disciplinary committee, he knew the time, date and venue of the sitting of the committee; He also stated that, exhibit S.I 07 and exhibit 08 are not the same. In the absence of any re-examination, the claimant closed his case. In its defence, the defendant filed a 13 paragraph statement of defence and frontloaded its processes. The defendant then called a lone witness in person of Nathaniel Demola Adeniran, a Principal Confidential Secretary to the defendant who tendered the following documents as exhibits. (1) Witness statement on oath exhibit S.I 09. (2) A four paged document dated 21st June 2013 on report of committee to investigate the level of involvement of the claimant on the leakage of Supreme Court judgment; in exhibit S.I. 10. (3) A 12 paged report on committee on leakage of Supreme Court Judgment in SC/179/2012 is exhibit S.I 011. (4) 8 paged minutes of the 59th meeting of FJSC held on 2nd July 2013 is exhibit S.I 012. (5) FJSC regulation 2010 is exhibit S.I 013. During cross examination, the defence witness introduced himself as a Principal Confidential Secretary with the defendant and holds a HND certificate in Secretarial Administration and a member of the Nigerian Institute of Professional Secretaries. His duties included being a secretary receptionist and a recorder to the defendant during their meetings. He claimed to know the claimants from his records in the file kept with the defendant. He further testified to the fact that he also performs other duties as may be assigned to him by the defendant as he was aware that the claimant is regulated by the Judicial Service regulation 2010. The witness who knew why he was in court narrated the processes of discipline and procedure of the defendant on erring staff which includes the following: (1) Initiation of disciplinary process through a query. (2) A receipt of reply to the query if any (3) Invitation of the erring staff to a disciplinary panel or committee set up for that purpose. (4) The findings of the report shall be sent to the Chief Registrar who in turn will send it to the Secretary of the defendant. (5) The Secretary of the defendant will then forward the report and the recommendation to the commission who will take a decision during its regular meeting. The witness testified further that as a constitutional responsibility the commission i.e the defendant will consider the report of the committee from the court based on the Federal Judicial Service Commission (FJSC) regulations and any decision taken shall be forwarded to the Chief Registrar of the court of the affected officer. The witness in cross examination further stated that there was a panel setup by the Supreme Court but it was not in connection with the disciplinary process of the claimant in this case; even though the claimant may have appeared there. Witness agreed that the Supreme Court Panel was in relation to the leakage of the Supreme Court decision involving Senator Igbeke Alphonsos of which the witness claimed not to have known him in person but from the records forwarded to their office. He agreed that the Senator was at the centre of the Supreme Court investigation on the leakage of yet to be delivered judgment of the Supreme Court. He testified further that only those in their jurisdiction affected by the disciplinary process were invited for questioning as Senators Igbeke Alphonsos matter was to be handed by the office of the Honourable AG of the Federation in accordance with the minutes of the defendant’s deliberation. The query letter and the invitation to appear before the investigating committee were letters written on the 19th of June 2013. The claimant he stated was given 24 hours to reply to the query. The witness further testified that the jurisdiction of the defendant covers staff from level 7 to level 17. While the powers of the court covers level 1 to 6. In the absence of any re-examination, the defence closed its case. On the 3rd of November 2014, the parties adopted their regularised final written addresses; In His written address, the defendant counsel Mr. Adegboyega, before adoption amended exhibit S.I 08 to read exhibit S.I 07 in line 9 counting from bottom page. He also amended the word plaintiff to read defendant in paragraph 4:9: 3 of page 17 of the written address. These amendments were not opposed by the claimant counsel and it was accordingly granted. After a review of the background of the facts leading to this case including the evidence adduced by either side, the defence counsel after urging the court to discountenance and expunged exhibit 07 for being unreliable and a fraud, formulated two issues for determination namely: (1) Whether from the entire facts of this case the defendants dismissal of the plaintiff was carried out without regard to or without affording him his right to fair hearing contrary to the provision of section 36 (1) (2) and 6 (b) and (c) of the 1999 constitution as amended. (2) Whether the defendants dismissal of the plaintiff from service was carried out without regard to the provision of section 61 (1), (2) , (3) and 46 (4) i-xii of the Federal Judicial Service Commission (FJSC) regulation 2010 and whether the defendant letter Ref. No FJSC 5/7/04 vol. 6/19 dated 2nd July 2013 dismissing the plaintiff from service is null and void; On issue one Mr. Adegboyega submitted that the two main ingredients of fair hearing have been satisfied in this case as the claimant. (1) Was given adequate notice of the allegation leveled against him to enable him make representation in his own defence. (2) Was given an opportunity to answer the allegation leveled against him or the question put to him. Counsel referred the court to the cases of: (1) Moh Vs. Kano NA . 1968 All NLR 411 at 413 (2) Okike VS. LPDC 2006 I NWLR (PT 960 ) 67 AT 99. (3) Baba Vs. NCATC 1991 5 NWLR (Pt. 192) 388 at 431 (4) A.T.A Poly Vs. Marina 2005 10 NWLR Pt. 934 P. 487 (5) Ransome Kuti Vs. AG. Federation 1985 2 NWLR Pt. 6 P. 211 The counsel also cited the case of Dunicz Nig Ltd Vs. Nwakhoba 2008 18 NWLR (Pt. 1119) 361 at 373 – 374 and urged the court to hold that since the claimant has failed to prove by evidence his entitlement to the declaratory relief, he must fail as declaratory relief is not granted by default of defence or admission but by positive proof. Counsel also referred the court to exhibits 04, 05, 08 and paragraph 4, 5, 6, 7,8 and 9 of the claimants Exhibit 01 i.e the witness statement on oath to show that fair hearing principle was adhered to by the defendant in the process of carrying out the disciplinary measures on the claimant; It is also the contention of counsel, that the allegations of the claimant in his reply to the statement of defence that he was not given opportunity to call witnesses, neither was he given opportunity to give a reply to the query or given ample time to cross examine witnesses are all baseless as they are not proved before the court; Consequently counsel urged the court to discountenance the pleaded facts as they go to no issue. Counsel referred the court to the case of Woluchem Vs. Gudi 1981 5 SC 291. It is on record. Counsel further contended that exhibit 10 did not show that any witness was called at the court of appeal disciplinary proceedings of 20th June 2013. Counsel further contended that there was no evidence before the court to show that the claimant was forced to appear before the disciplinary panel; there was also no evidence before the court to show that he complained of the inadequacy of time in replying to the query issued to him, moreover, counsel contended also that there is no law requiring that a recommendation or finding of the Supreme Court should be given to the affected officer before he answers to the query or a decision is taken by the defendant. This is so because the finding and recommendation of the Supreme Court inquiry was not meant for him. It is also submitted by the defence counsel that the defendant need not prosecute the claimant before summarily dismissing him when allegation of criminality is made ; Counsel contended that there was no criminal allegation or charges on going against the claimant as at the time the investigation panel or committee proceedings was going on; In any case, counsel submitted, that there is no requirement of the law that a criminal charge must be preferred, prosecuted and determine before decision can be taken on allegation of misconduct against a staff or employee by a defendant; Counsel referred the court to the cases of Arinze Vs. FBN PLC 2004 12 NWLR Pt. 888 page 663 at 673; Olatubosun Vs. Niser 1988 3 NWLR Pt. 80 25 at 56 -57 and 59; Mike Eze Vs. Spring Bank PLC 2011 12 SC (PT.I) 173 at 180; Mauki Vs. Micheal Imodu Institute for Labour Studies 2009 All FWLR (Pt. 491) at 979. Counsel urged the court to believe the relevant, admissible and uncontradicted evidence of the DWI as stated in paragraph 11 of exhibit 09. Counsel referred the court to the case of Obiniami Brick and Stone Nig Ltd Vs. AC B Ltd 1992 NWLR Pt. 229, 294. Counsel on this first issue raised for determination finally urged the court to discountenance the claimant case as he was given adequate notice of allegation against him, of which he replied to the allegations and appeared before the disciplinary panel wherein he was granted opportunity to defend himself before a decision was taken against him by his employer. On issue 2 formulated by counsel to the defendant, he submitted that the defendant complied with the relevant laws particularly the FJSC regulation 2010 and section 46 and 61 thereof. Counsel posited that the defendant complied with all the requirement of the extant laws before finally dismissing the claimant from its services namely issuance of query, answer thereto, fair hearing opportunity, deliberation by the committee and finally the deliberations and decision of the FJSC the claimant employer leading to his dismissal from service; Counsel finally urged the court to dismiss the entire claims of the claimant for lacking in merit; In His final written address dated and filed on the 31st October 2014, the claimant’s Counsel sofiyegha Dickson Esq. after giving the background facts of the case including the submission that exhibits 07 and 08 are the same, cogent and credible formulated two issues for determination namely: (1) Whether the plaintiff dismissal by the defendant was done contrary to section 46 (4) 1-11 of the FJSC regulation 2010 as amended and section 36 (6) (1) (b) and (c) of the 1999 constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria hence the defendant letter Ref. No. FJSC 5/7/04 Vol. 6 /19 dated the 2nd of July 2013 dismissing the plaintiff from service is null and void. (2) Whether the defendant is not entitled to prove the issue of leakage which is a criminal allegation beyond every reasonable doubt as required in criminal cases. On issue one, counsel submitted that section 46 (4) (1) of the FJSC regulation 2010 which requires the claimant to have access to any documents or reports used against him. The claimant officer shall also state in his defence that he was given access to such documents or reports which he may use in his defence to exculpate himself. Moreover, counsel contended that apart from section 46 (4) of the FJSC regulation 2010 that was violated, section 36 (6) of the constitution of Nigeria 1999 was also violated which requires the subject, the affected officer charged with the criminal offence to be given adequate time and facility to defend himself apart from having the opportunity of defending himself in person or by a legal practitioner. Aside that such criminal allegation, counsel contended must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Counsel therefore urged the court to adopt a liberal interpretation to section 46 (4) (1) of the FJSC regulation 2010. Mr. Sofiyegha contended that the evidence that the claimant was not given time to prepare for his defence at the investigative panel set up at the court of Appeal was not contradicted or challenged by the defendant as he was not allowed time between the submission of the reply to the query and the appearance before the panel of investigation; Counsel cited the case of Onioregbe Vs. Daniel Lawal 1980 3-4 SC P. 76 at paragraph 20-25 and urged the court to rely on this uncontradicted evidence; Counsel also posited that the giving of 24 hours to the claimant in a query to give a reply cannot be considered “adequate time” to profer an answer to such a serious allegation as in the instant case. On the issue of fair hearing Mr. Sofiyegha posited that a person likely to be affected by disciplinary proceedings must be given adequate notice of the allegation to enable him defend himself or procure a counsel of his choice. Counsel cited the case of Yusuf Vs. UBA Ltd 1996 6 NWLR (Pt. 457) at 645 ; Agip Nig Ltd Vs. Agip Petrole Int’l 2010 5 NWLR (Pt 1187) P. 348 Ukwuyok Vs. Ogbuku 2010 Pt 1157 5 NWLR P. 316 at 346. Counsel also urged the court to hold that the claimant employment was statutorily flavoured having been employed under level 07 which is under the control of the defendant. On issue 2, counsel submitted that the query as contained in exhibit 04 contains criminal allegations of conspiring with 5 other Supreme Court staff to leak yet to be delivered judgment of the Supreme Court involving Alphonsos Igbeke Vs. Magaret Okadigbo and Anor. Counsel cited the case of Ochenuaja Vs. State 2008 15 NWLR Pt. 1109 P. 57. Counsel also submitted that the evidence of DWI Mr. Adeniran, who was the confidential Secretary II with the defendant was a here say evidence since he was not a member of the Supreme Court panel nor was he a member of the court of Appeal Panel. His evidence therefore, counsel submitted should be expunged on ground of heresay. Counsel also referred to Ojukwu Vs. Yaradua 2009 12 NWLR (Pt. 1154 ) P. 50 at 188 Moreover, counsel contented that there was no evidence before the court either through the senator Igbeke or Mr. Russel Ndenu to prove that the yet to be delivered Supreme Court judgment actually leaked through him; In the absence of such evidence counsel urged the court to regard the testimony of the DWI as heresay and should be expunged. In addition to the submission made above, counsel further submitted that Exhibit 12 which is the 59th meeting minute of the defendant was not signed and as such was not admissible in evidence. Consequently, counsel urged the court to expunged it as it lacks credibility. Counsel called in aid of this submission the case of Dantuje Vs. Kanya 2009 4 NWLR Pt. 1130 P. 30 at 39. Counsel also urged the court to discountenance Exhibit 06 which is the letter of dismissal of the claimant as it was hurriedly prepared and handed over to the claimant without necessarily considering Exhibits 10 and 11 by the defendant. Counsel contended that there is no evidence anywhere before the court to show that there was a consideration of Exhibits 10 and 11 by the defendant before the decision in Exhibit 06 which is the letter of dismissal of the claimant. On the twin grounds of section 46 (v) (i) and (iv) of the Federal Judicial Service Commission (FJSC) regulation 2010 as amended and section 36 (6) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (FRN) which were not complied with before the issuance of Exhibit 06, the claim of the claimants should be granted. I have painstakingly listened to the arguments and submissions of counsel for respective parties in this suit; An employee who seeks a declaration that his dismissal was wrongful, unconstitutional must prove the following material facts in law (a). That he is an employee of his employment. (b). The terms and conditions of his employment. (c). The way and manner the terms and conditions of his employment were breached by his employer. See the case of NRW Industries Ltd VS. Akingbulugbe 2011 11 NWLR (Pt. 1257) (CA) It is not the duty of the employer to prove any of these facts. See the case of Afribank Nig. Plc Vs. Osisanya 2000 1 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; Emokpae Vs. University of Benin 2002 17 NWLR (Pt. 795) 139 CA. There is no issue as to whether or not the claimant was an employee of the defendant. Parties are at idem on that fact. i.e that fact is well established. On the requirement 2-3 stated above which must be proved by the claimant for the court to arrive at a decision on that frontloaded processes particularly the list of documents and exhibits tendered and admitted in this suit have to be looked into and considered by the court. More than one document may contain the terms and conditions of the employment. See the case of Ladipo Vs. Chevron Nig. Ltd 2005 1 NWLR (Pt. 907) 277CA. In this case, Exhibits S.I 013 which is the Federal Judicial Service Commission (FJSC) regulations 2010 becomes important amongst other documents containing the terms and conditions and how those terms have been breached or violated by the employer; The facts of this case briefly put is that the claimant who was a level 7 officer of the Court of Appeal introduced some staff of the Supreme Court of Nigeria to an appellant Senator Alphonsos Igbeke and in fact acted as an intermediary and a go-between the Senator and the Supreme Court Staff; This episode led to the leakage of undelivered Judgment of the Supreme Court in Appeal No. SC/179/2013 between Senator Uba Igbeke Vs. Lady Margery Okadigbo & 3 Others and was published in the Daily Sun Newspaper of Thursday 30th May 2013, a day before the Judgment were to be delivered by the Learned Justices of the Supreme Court of Nigeria. Investigations were conducted to unravel the circumstances surrounding the misconduct by the Supreme Court leadership and the Court of Appeal administration. The investigation led to the setting up of a disciplinary committee wherein the claimant who was earlier given a query of which he responded, appeared in person. Thereafter the committee recommended the dismissal of the claimant and in its 59th meeting the defendant dismissed the claimant from its employment. This dismissal led to the claimant filing this suit before this court; asking for the reliefs which had been earlier stated in this judgment I have carefully looked at the Federal Judicial Service Commission (FJSC) regulation 2010 particularly paragraph 46, Paragraphs 49, 61 thereto. In Exhibit S.I. 04 which is the query issued to the claimant, the following allegations were made against him under regulation 48 of Exhibit S.I 03. (1). Unauthorized disclosure of official information. (2). Corruption (3). Dishonesty (4). Divided loyalty In his reply to the query (exhibit 04, the claimant denied the allegations describing it as baseless; The reply stated in exhibits S.I 07 (Photocopy) and 08 original handwritten are the same in content, character and context; In exhibit 05, the claimant was invited to appear before a disciplinary committee. The letter is dated 19th June 2013. He complied and appeared before the committee on the 20th of June 2013. The response to the query was equally done on the same date. The query was issued on the 19th of June 2013 as well; ie the query and the invitation to appear before the disciplinary panel were dated the same date 19/06/13; The claimant responded to the query on the 20/06/2013 the date he also appeared before the panel; Although the time of receipt of the query is not stated and the evidence of the claimant did not reveal any, he was directed to respond, to the query within 24 hours; 24 hours from 19th June 2013 will lapse on the 20th June 2013, the following day when the letter of invitation to appear before the disciplinary panel was issued. So also the time of receipt of the invitation letter exhibit S.I 05 is equally not stated and not in evidence. By Exhibit S.I 01 the claimant testified as follows 4. That I aver that on the 19th day of June 2013, the defendant Via the Court of Appeal Abuja Division served a query letter on me dated same day 6. That on the same 19th June 2013 I was summoned via letter of invitation dated same day to appear before a disciplinary Committee by 10 am in the office of Director of Administration Court of Appeal Abuja Division for disciplinary proceedings. 9. That when I was compelled to appear before the disciplinary committee I was interrogated briefly by the members of the committee and I stated my own side of the story and maintained that I am at all time ignorant of the allegation. 10. That when I was directed to appear before the disciplinary committee I also inform the members that I have just submitted a copy of my answer to the query as directed by the Chief Registrar of the Court of Appeal. From the above quoted portions of the claimants witness statement on oath which he swore and adopted before this court; it is crystally clear that he was given a query, an opportunity to be heard through a reply and a further opportunity to be heard through an appearance before a disciplinary committee. There is no evidence before this court to show that the claimant ever complained of insufficient time of notice or inadequate time to present his query response or his testimony before the disciplinary committee. In fact Exhibit S.I 010 which is the report of disciplinary committee duly endorsed by the 3 man committee members has the following reflecting the testimony of the claimant (1). The Senator is someone I knew in the Court of Appeal. (2). Okay, I purposely took Russell to Hilton Hotel to introduce him to Senator. In answer to the reason for the introduction, the claimant response before the panel or disciplinary committee is as follows (3). In case the Senator has any matter at the Supreme Court and he needed someone to assist him there. On the question as to whether or not the claimant visited Senator Igbeke with Russell at Protea Hotel on the 30th day of May 2013, the claimant answered in the affirmative by saying “YES”! In exhibit S.I 011, which is the Supreme Court investigation report, it was revealed that the sum of N500,000 collected in two installments of N100,000 and N400,000 by some Supreme Court Staff to leak the yet to be delivered judgment of the court from the chambers of Hon. Justice I.T Mohammad through a staff who was asked to make copies for his Lordship’s use who is to deliver the lead Judgment; Evidence shows that the source of the problem/leakage is traceable to the introduction of Senator Igbeke by the claimant to Russell Ndeau a Supreme Court Staff at Hilton and Protea Hotels Abuja. In Exhibit S.I 012 which was duely signed by the chairman of the defendant and the secretary, Hon. Justice Mariam Aloma Muktar and Mrs. Bilikisu Bashir respectively, the report of exhibit S.I 10 was exhaustively discussed in particular as its affects the claimant at page 12 to 13. The argument of the claimant counsel to the effect that exhibit S.I 012 should be expunged and discontinuance by the court cannot be sustained; On the argument by Mr. Sofiyegha that the testimonies of DW1 is a hearsay and should be treated as such and discountenance, I could not see the reason for such within the meaning and context of what is hearsay by the provisions of the evidence act; In exhibit S.I 09, the DW1 stated as follows: Paragraph 1 I am a Principal Confidential Secretary II of the Federal Judicial Service Commission (FJSC) Abuja (the defendant) the commission which among other statutory duties, appoint and exercise disciplinary control over the Chief Registrars of the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal the Federal High Court and all other members of the staff of the Judicial Service of the Federation. Paragraph 2 By virtue of my aforesaid position, the facts and matters which I hereunder depose to are facts within my personal knowledge, and/or derived from reading documents relevant to subject matter of this suit which facts are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. Paragraph 14 I know as a fact that the defendant at its meeting of 2nd July 2013 which I attended considered the court of appeal disciplinary committee report and decided that the plaintiff had compromised his position as a Court of Appeal staff and should be dismissed from the services of the defendant immediately for serious misconduct. I am persuaded and convinced that even though the witness DW1 was not part of the Supreme Court or Court of Appeal investigative panel and disciplinary committee, he is a competent witness whose evidence complied with the Evidence Act particularly Section 115. The claimant counsel had equally argued that the allegations against the claimant being criminal ought to be proved beyond reasonable doubt before he can be disciplined by his employer. With due respect to the learned counsel, I do not agree to that position. The claimant counsel was invariably relying on the old dispensation as evinced by case law authorities such as Biishi Vs. The Judicial Service Commission 1991 6 NWLR Pt. 197 331 CA which were to the effect that where a criminal offence is alleged against an employee, he must first be prosecuted for the offence before disciplinary measures if necessary are taken against him. The new dispensation is, however exemplified by cases such as Arinze Vs. FBN Nig. Ltd 2000 1 NWLR (Pt. 639) 78 CA. which laid down that it is not an immutable principle that where the act of misconduct by an employee also amount to a criminal offence the employee must first be prosecuted before the employer can exercise his power of summary dismissal of the employee. The Supreme Court in the same case, Arinze Vs. FBN Ltd 2004 12 NWLR (Pt. 888) 663 SC affirmed this principle when it held that an employer can dismiss an employee where the accusation against such employee is gross misconduct involving dishonesty bordering on criminality; and in such a case, it is not required under section 36 (I) of the 1999 constitution that an employee must first be tried in a court of law; That is to say, it is erroneous to argue that once crime is detected, the employer cannot discipline the employee unless he is tried and convicted first. The Supreme Court went on to say in that case of misconduct, bordering on criminality all that is required of an employer before summarily dismissing an employee is to give him fair hearing by confronting him and requiring him to defend himself; and to satisfy the rule of natural justice and fair hearing. I think, in my considered view, from the various exhibits before me particularly exhibits S.I 04, S.I 05, S.I 07, S.I 08 and Exhibit S.I 010, the defendant had complied with the rules of fair hearing and natural justices lavishly which is in consonance with the principle that a person likely to be affected directly by the disciplinary proceedings must be given adequate notice of allegation against him to afford him the opportunity of representation in his defence. The Court of Appeal in the case of ATA Poly Vs. Maina 2005 10 NWLR Pt. 934 487 CA reiterated and applied this principle; Fair hearing, in any case, is an opportunity to be heard. The claimant was given and he utilized that opportunity. In the instant case, therefore the argument of the claimant counsel in that regard accordingly goes to no issue and I so find and hold. The claimants counsel also made a heavy wheather of the issue of issuing a dismissal letter the same date the defendant met in its 59th meeting. This letter exhibit S.I 06, which was served on the claimant at the end of the meeting according to counsel was predetermined and hurriedly done; I find it extremely difficult to appreciate this argument and contention in views of the use and application of technology at this age and civilization; In any case, how long will it take to print out Exhibit S.I 06, the letter of dismissal. I find this argument and submission inconsequential and of no utility value to the merit of this case. Consequently it is of no moment and I so hold. From the totality of the reasoning and conclusion so far in this judgment, the issues formulated by the claimants counsel for determination are resolved against the claimant while the two issues formulated by the defence counsel for determination by this court are resolved in the negative. Consequently, the claimant’s case lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed. Judgment is hereby entered accordingly and there is no order as to cost. ----------------------------- Hon. Justice P.O Lifu JP. Judge