Download PDF
IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT ABUJA Before His Lordship: HON. JUSTICE O. A. SHOGBOLA JUDGE Date: 18TH MARCH, 2015 Suit No. NICN/ABJ/10/2014 BETWEEN ENGINEER MOHAMMED CHAMALWA ALIYU CLAIMANT AND 1. FEDERAL CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION DEFENDANTS 2. THE CHAIRMAN FEDERAL CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION REPRESENTATION A. A. Malik Esq, with Chris Agbeti Esq, A. W. Muhammad Esq, M. L. Atusemude Esq, D. Okew Esq and L. A. Ikhuoriah Esq for the Claimant. P. A. Imafidor Esq for the Defendant. JUDGMENT By a complaint dated and filed on the 21st January, 2014the claimant claims against the defendant as follows:- Accompanying the complaint are the statement of facts, witness statement on Oath, list of witnesses and list of documents to be relied upon at the trial. The defendants reacted to this complaint by filing their memorandum of appearance dated 7th April, 2014 and other processes. The case went into trial, the claimant testified and tendered Exhibit. The defendants called Mr. Sanni Abdul-Ahmed a Chief Executive Officer in the Federal Civil Service Commission as a witness. On the 18th of February, 2015 parties adopted their final written addresses. The learned counsel for the 1st & 2nd defendants formulated a sole issue for determination of the court which is: Whether from the evidence adduced in this case the claimant was unlawfully denied his promotion as provided by the Public Service Rules. In his argument the learned counsel to the defendants argued that promotion in the Federal Civil Service is governed by the Public Service Rules 2008 and other related circulars and guidelines. He referred the court to Rule 020701 of the Public Service Rules provides for the criteria for promotion in the Federal Civil Service. That particularly in paragraphs C(i) (ii) (iii) and paragraph E Rule 020701 of the Public Service Rules provides that:- (C) Promotions shall be made strictly on the basis of competitive merit from amongst all eligible candidates. (i) In assessing the merit of officers, a clear distinction shall be made between their records of performance or efficiency in lower grades and their potential for promotion, i.e. ability and competence to perform the duties and responsibilities of the higher post efficiently. (ii) Seniority and previous records of performance will be taken into account in choosing between candidates with equal potential for promotion. (iii) In all cases, however, a generally satisfactory record of conduct shall also be considered. (e) All promotions are subject to satisfactory minimum requirements declared by the Federal Civil Service Commission and availability of vacancies. In support of their case the defendants tendered Exhibits DW1, DW2 and DW3 the scored sheets for 2005, 2008 and 2010 promotions interview respectively. But the claimant on the other hand did not put any evidence before the court to entitle him to the relief sought in his complaint. The counsel argued that cases are determined upon preponderance of evidence and on balance of probabilities. He who asserts a fact must prove that fact with credible evidence and where party fails to prove its claim such claim should be dismissed. Relying on the case of Orji V Dorji Textile Mill (2009) 40 NSCQR 597 at 620 that the burden is on the Plaintiff to show that he is entitled to the reliefs sought, the burden does not shift to the defendants. The counsel submitted that the claimant alleged that his results were not released but failed to show or tender any result sheet released by the defendants were his name was omitted as he alleged. He did not show that the results of all the candidates of some of the candidates who sat for the exams was released and that his name omitted from the list or that he was treated in a different manner from his other colleagues who sat for the same promotional exams or that he scored higher than his colleagues that were promoted from the same interview. There is no credible evidence to show that he was denied promotion unlawfully by the defendants. The counsel urged the court to dismiss the case of the claimant. On the alleged commission of criminal acts by the various staff of the 1st defendant, the onus is placed on the claimant to prove same beyond reasonable doubt rests on the claimant. See Section 138(1) of the Evidence Act 2011. The counsel said the claimant did not place any evidence to substantiate his claim alleging the commission of a crime. All that the claimant has placed before this court are speculations, frivolous criminal accusation which he did not tender even a single evidence to prove same. The counsel added that the claimant is not only asking for the release of his result, he is asking to be promoted based on the promotional interview of 2005. He said Exhibit DW1 shows that the number of vacancies were 15 and the officer who took the 15th position scored 60.76 as against the 60.73 scored by the claimant in the 2005 promotion exam and based on merit the claimant was not promoted. Counsel referred to Exhibit DW2 which showed that the claimant scored 55.52 which is below the required pass mark for the promotion exam and because he failed the interview he was not promoted. In Exhibit DW3, though the claimant scored above pass mark in the 2010 promotion exam, he was not promoted based on merit due to the limited numbers of the available vacancies. That by the provision of Public Service Rules, Rule 020701 which governs promotion in the Public service the claimant was not entitled to be promoted in the three instances that he sat for the exams and due process was followed by the defendants in her decision not to promote the claimant. In conclusion the counsel to the defendants urged the court to dismiss the claims of the claimant as it is merely speculative, frivolous and vexations and the evidence before the court does not support his claim. The learned counsel for the claimant submitted for the determination of the court as follows that:- Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the unchallenged evidence (oral and documentary) adduced by the claimant juxtaposed with the law, whether or not the claimant is not entitled to the reliefs sought in this suit. In arguing this sole issue, the attention of this honourable court is invited to the fact that certain critical, factual and legal issues which are font es erigos of the Claimant’s complaint will of necessity be dealt with. Accordingly, distinct subheadings which are critical, factual and legal issues in the form of sub- themes as well as tailor his argument on the sole issue thereon. Is Claimant’s employment statutorily flavoured? Employments that enjoy statutory flavour are quite distinct from those governed by terms under which parties agree to be master and servant. An employment is said to have statutory flavour when the appointment is protected by statute or laid down regulations made to govern the procedure for employment and discipline of an employee. SEE CBN V. IGWILLO (2007) 25 WRN 20; OLANIYAN V. UNIVERSITY OF LAGOS (1985) 2 NWLR (PT.9) 599. In a recent Judgment of the supreme now reported as P.H.C.N. PLC V. OFFOELO (2013) 4 NWLR (PT. 1344) 380 the Court provided, in a rather illuminating manner the cardinal ingredients that must coexist before an employment can be said to enjoy statutory flavour Supreme Court held: at page 417 of the report, the Apex Court (Per Peter-Odili, J.S.C.) stated as follows:- Two of the vital ingredients that must co-exist before a contract of employment may be said to import statutory flavour include the following: a) The employer must be a body set up by statute. (b) The stabilizing statute must make express provisions regulating the employment of the category of the employee concerned, especially in matters of discipline. In a similar vein and in the same case of PHCN V OFFOELO (SUPRA), Peter-Odili , JSC cited with approval the opinion of Niki Tobi, JSC in IDONIBOYE-OBU V N.N.P.C. (2003) F.W.L.R. (PT. 146) 959 AT 1004, (2003) 2 NWLR (PT. 805) 589 AT 63, further stated:- There is an employment with statutory flavour when the appointment and termination of employment is governed by statutory provisions.... It is accepted that where the contract of service is governed by the provisions of statute or where the conditions of service are contained in regulations derived from statutory provisions, they invest the employee with a legal status higher than the ordinary one of master and servant. They accordingly enjoy statutory flavour. See also IMOLOAME V. W.A.E.C. (1992) 9 NWLR (PT. 265) 303 at 317. From the afore-quoted, and particularly when applied to the undisputed fact as shall be shown and how, it comes out clearly that the Claimant’s employment in the 1st Defendant is one that enjoys statutory flavour. The reasons for this assertion are unassailable and can be summarised as follows:- a) There is an undisputed fact and evidence that the 1st Defendant is a creation of statute. See paragraph 3 of the Claimant’s Statement of Facts. This fact has is also being admitted in paragraph 1 of the Defendant’s Statement of Defence. This fact has being further buttressed by the Claimant paragraph 3 of his Witness Statement on Oath. b) Consequently, it is crystal clear from the pleadings and evidence adduced in this case that the Federal Civil Service Commission is a body set up by statute as the Pubic Service of the Federation is a creation of Section 169 of the constitution of the Federal republic of Nigeria (as amended) which provides that: “there shall be a civil service of the Federation”. (c ) Similarly, the Federal Civil Service Commission which is a body regulating the Federal Civil Service and saddled with the responsibility of implementing the laws governing the Federal Civil Service is also a creation of Section 153 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended). (d) Further to (a) (supra) above, section 160 (1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) empowers the Federal Civil Service Commission “with approval of the president, by rules or otherwise to regulate its procedure or confers powers or impose duties on any officer or authority for the purpose of discharging its functions”. e) It is pursuant to the above section that the Public Service Rules 2008 which regulates which activities of the Federal Civil Service Commission, including promotion of civil servants. This is given credence to by the 1st and 2nd Defendant in paragraph 3 of Defendants’ statement of defence and paragraph 1 of Defendants’ Witness Statement on Oath. f) From the above it is not in dispute that Claimant’s employment fulfils the two conditions or ingredients that must co-exist for Claimant’s employment to be statutorily flavoured. From the foregoing it is submitted that taken unabridged under the decision of the Supreme Court cited (supra) and the facts of this case as afore stated, the Claimant’s employment with the 1st Defendant is one protected by law and requires that everything connected with or appertaining to and or incidental thereto must and ought to be done in accordance with the dictates of the Constitution and the Public Service Rules. Being a civil servant or public officer in the manner herein above described the procedure relating to his promotion in terms of the conduct of promotional interview or exercise for him, the handling of his result there from cannot be done in accordance with the whims caprices and fancies of the Defendants and/or their agents. Put differently, Claimant’s promotion in the 1st Defendant cannot be made subject to the malicious, capricious, callous fiendish, obnoxious rephensible and wrongful conduct or acts of the Defendants. We shall address the court further on this shortly. The Supreme Court in LAFIA LOCAL GOVERNMENT V GOV., NASARAWA STATE (2012) NWLR (PT 1328) 94 AT 142 PER RHODES VIVOUR held as follows:- The courts have pronounced that all agencies of government are organs of initiative whose powers are derived either directly from the constitution or laws enacted thereunder. They therefore stand in relationship to the constitution as it permits of their existence and function. The above purports that agencies of government such as the Federal Civil Service are creation of the law and therefore the actions, duties and day to day activities ranging from appointment, discipline, termination of appointment, promotion among several others are regulated by law and thus must be carried out under due process of law. Where it is done otherwise the act will be null and void. The Claimant is a civil servant whose employment is statutorily flavoured as it is regulated by the Federal Government Public Service Rules 2008. Thus, where his promotion is not effected because of the malicious and wrongful intent of the officer of the 1st Defendant, the law should come to his aid by ensuring that he is not short-changed. It is safe to fuse the aforementioned position of the law with the facts and circumstance of this suit and rationally submit that the Claimant in this suit has an employment with the 1st Defendant that is statutorily flavoured and enjoys the foundation and backing of the law vide the provisions of the Constitution stated Supra. The actions of the Defendants and its officers are clearly in contrast with the clear and functional provisions of the law and have led to melting on the Claimant, a high level of professional set back and clearly not within the practise of the Defendant via the provisions of the Public Service Rules 2008. Is the Claimant entitled to promotion and has his right to freedom from discrimination being breached? The Claimant being a civil servant and having been promoted severally before 2005 wrote promotional exams in 2006, 2009 and 2010. Unfortunately, the Defendants consistently and continuously kept omitting the Claimant’s name from the results released and thus denying him the opportunity of knowing his scores and securing promotions. The Claimant having participated in the above stated promotional interviews has satisfied the promotion requirement and rationally is entitled to the release of his performance in the interview sat for. It is most humbly submitted that the Defendants owes the Claimant as well as other employees/civil servants who sat for the exams the duty to ensure that their results are released so that they know their status in relation to their promotional entitlement. The consistent, persistent and continuous omission of only the Claimant’s name from the promotional results released in 2006, 2009 and 2010 and then refusal to attend to his several appeals appropriately was obviously a witch-hunt and victimisation of the Claimant and an attempt to frustrate his upward promotion through outright denial of his right to freedom from discrimination which he is ordinarily suppose to enjoy as a citizen. Section 42 of the Constitution of the federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) provides: 42.-(1) A citizen of Nigeria of a particular community, ethnic group, place of origin, sex, religion or political opinion shall not, by reason only that he Fs such a person- (a) be subjected either expressly by, or in the practical application of, any law in force in Nigeria or any executive or administrative action of the government, to disabilities or restrictions to which citizen of Nigeria of other communities, ethnic groups, places of origin, sex, religious or political opinions are not made subject; or (b) Be accorded either expressly by, or in the practical application of, any law in force in Nigeria or any such executive or administrative action, any privilege or advantage that is not accorded to citizen Nigeria of other communities, ethnic groups, places of origin, sex, religions or political opinions. The Claimant’s right not to be discriminated against is on inalienable right conferred by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria which is unarguably the grund norm. It is humbly submitted that the rights of citizens should not be toyed with under any guise. In the instant case, the facts are clear that the Defendants’ malicious, obnoxious, reprehensible and callous denial of the promotion of the Claimant is a breach of his right to freedom from discrimination as was evident in the pleadings and evidence adduced before this Honourable Court as shall be shown below:- a) Claimant showed that he participated in 3 different promotional exams (See paras 6, 10 and 19) of Claimant’s Statement of Fact and paras (6, 9 and 20 of Claimant’s Witness Statement on Oath). b) Claimant indicates that for the three times he wrote promotional exams, his results were not released as his name was omitted from the score sheets (see paras 7, 10 and 20 of Claimant’s Statement of Facts). c) Claimant shows that there was rot in the system and that particularly after the 2008 promotional exams which took place in September 2009, Ambassador Bindawa, a commissioner in the 1st Defendant overseeing the Ministry of Works requested for a sum of N 2,000,000 (Two Million Naira) which the Claimant refused to accede to (see para. 10 of Claimant’s Statement of Facts). d) Claimant also shows that if was confirmed to him by the then Director of promotions, Alhaji Musa Saleh that he passed the 2005 promotional interview having scored a total of 60% out of 100% (see paragraph 8 of the Claimant’s Statement of Facts). e) The Claimant as stated as fact that the Defendants upon his continuous appeal particularly to the National Human Rights Commission to be promoted maintained that his promotion could not be effected because of limited vacancies of 10 slots. Interestingly, the Claimant in paragraph 8 of his Statement of Fact gives the particulars of 15 employees who were promoted that same year. This particular fact remains was not traversed both in the Defendant’s Statement of Defence and evidence adduced in court. The above uncontroverted facts as distilled from the pleadings of parties and evidence adduced in this matter shows that the Defendants were maliciously bent on violating the constitutional rights of the Claimant. It is humbly submitted that if a right has been breached or infringed whether fundamental right or statutory right and an aggrieved party comes to court for reinforcement of the right, it will not be given complete relief if the court merely declares the existence of such right or the fact that the existing right has been breached. It is the duty of the court to order a proper remedy. This is contained in the legal maxim; Ubi jus ibi remedium. See NAWA V. A.G. CROSS RIVER STATE (2007)33 WRN 192-193; SHITTA-BEY V. FEDERAL PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION (1981) 1 SC 40 AT 62-64; (1981) 12 NSCC 26. Consequently, the Claimant is entitled and indeed has a legal right to be promoted having being evident that the refusal of the Defendants to promote him was borne out of sheer act of wickedness, malice, discrimination and victimisation after he has fulfilled all requirements necessary for his promotion. The role of this Honourable Court can only be rational, just, complete and most functional where having being satisfied that the Claimant was legally entitled to his promotions and has met all the requirement to entitle him to promotion, make an order restoring to the Claimant the professional position he would have occupied as a remedy to the long time wrong the Defendant’s refusal to grant his deserved promotion had occasioned him. Counsel urged the court to avert his mind to the effect of failure of the Defendants to properly communicate to the Claimant his result by releasing same as enunciated by the Apex Court in P.H.C.N PLC V. OFFOELO (SUPRA) as follows: Proper communication of a message in law has its importance. Where there is a failure to communicate or (a break in communicate or lack of communication), the whole purpose of the message is completely defeated. If any step or action is taken by the issuing authority inspite of non-communication (non-service), the step or action taken goes to naught and amounts to nullity in law. In the instant case, the trial court was wrong when it held that failure of that appellant to give appropriate notice to the respondent would not affect the validity of the respondent’s retirement. This is a cloistered kind of legal reasoning by the trial court which is not acceptable. The respondent was justified in his defence that he was not communicated his retirement. Even if he was, the communication was not done in accordance with the regulation as contained in exhibit A. It can be inferred from the above that it was most improper, unreasonable and unbecoming of the Defendants not to release the results of the Claimant through all the three periods he sat for the exams only to finally tender purported results in flimsy sheet as exhibits before the court. Thus, the refusal to release the said results at the appropriate time and at when due was an attempt to cripple the career of the claimant and deny him his right and therefore all the actions of the Defendants of refusing to grant promotion to the Claimant are malicious, derogatory and wicked. It should be adequately noted that the issue of lack of vacancy hammered on by the Defendants in its statement of defence vis-à-vis the DW1 witness statement on oath as constraint to the promotion of the claimant was just a sham to pull wool over the eyes of the court and conceal the Defendants’ malicious intent against the claimant. More so, the fact that the Statement of Defence which the DW1 under cross examination says was the correct fact on vacancy does not agree with the DW1‘s Witness Statement on Oath on the number of vacancies available as at the time of promotion in 2005 notional promotion. We humbly submit that the issue of vacancy is material in this case as it has a logical connection with the consequential facts in relation to evidence. See EZUEGO V. STATE (2013) 9 NWLR (PT 1360) 570. Therefore the effect of discrepancies and contradictions in relation to the vacancy issue by the DWI means that his evidence cannot be relied upon and is sufficient to discredit him as a witness. We refer your Lordship to OKAFOR V. ILUKWE (2013) 10 NWIR (PT 1363) 488 where the court held:- Although it is not every contradiction, however minute, that would be sufficient to discredit a witness; however, where the contradiction and discrepancies are on material points, such a witness should not be relied upon. Also worthy of mention was the fact that the DW1 in his Witness Statement on Oath alluded to 7 criteria that a candidate for promotion must satisfy upon which he included vacancy which under cross examination he stated was within the control of the Claimant. This assumption of DW1 is quite unreasonable and false as vacancy is not a criterion to be fulfilled by the Claimant. If we assume without conceding that vacancy is a condition precedent to be met by Claimant, then it simply would mean that it is legal for the Claimant to get rid of an officer occupying the position to which he is seeking promotion to create vacancy. This would be quite absurd and unreasonable. Section 7 Rules 020701(e) of the Federal Government Public Service Rules (2008 Edition) states:- All promotions are subject to satisfying minimum requirements declared by Federal Civil Service Commission and availability of vacancies. The requirements declared by the Federal Civil Service Commission in the guidelines stipulated in the Civil Service handbook for interview/examination, marks shall be awarded as follows:- a) Interview - 70% b) APER - 20% c) Seniority - 10% d) Overall pass mark - 100% Consequently, only the above requirements are within the control of the candidate in the instant case. It is evident that the Claimant made a pass mark of 60% which qualifies him for promotion. Although, vacancy can be a limitation to promotion as indicated in the Public Service Rules cited above, it is not the case in this suit as the obvious contradictions evident in the evidence of DW1 vis-à-vis the Defendant Statement of Defence is an indication to the fact that the Defendants are only playing pranks with the issue of vacancy. Moreso, the Claimant in his Statement of Claim and in the PW1 Witness Statement on Oath, all gave the full particulars of the 15 promoted officers in the 2005 notional promotion. These full particulars have not been contradicted by the Defendants in any of their evidence as they had continuously maintained that only 10 vacancies were available for the 2005 notional promotion. Therefore, the contradictory evidence by DW1 was obviously an afterthought when it was clear that 15 persons were promoted as against the 10 stated in Defendants several correspondents and their Statement of Defence. This is evidently an attempt to conceal the rot in the system that has been used to cripple the career of the Claimant. He therefore urged the court to hold that the Claimant is entitled to an award of notional promotion to bring him at par with his colleagues at the same grade level 15 in the Federal Civil Service who sat for the same promotional exam interview in 2006 and were promoted to a new grade level 16. iii. Is claimant entitled to damages? The claimant counsel submitted that it is crystal clear that the Claimant has been put through pains by the wrongful acts of the Defendants. It thus becomes very important and vital to compensate him with damages resulting from the consequence suffered in other to restore him to a parity of sorts. The legal maxim restitution in integrum that is to restore the injured party to the position he would have been if he had not sustained the injury inflicted on him by refusing to promote him even when he was entitled by the Defendants. SEE SHELL PET. DEV. CO. V. TIEBI VII (1996) 6 NWLR (PT. 445) 657 AT 680. It has been held that no hard and fast rule can be laid down for The award of damages for pains and suffering but the facts and circumstances of each case must be considered. SEE IGHRERINIOVO V. S.C.C. (Nig) Ltd. (2013) 10 NWLR 147 AT 154. In the instant case, the Claimant through denial of his promotion since year 2005 has been denied the opportunity of reaping the fruits of his labour. If he was promoted as at when due, his salaries and allowances would have increased and he would have been accorded a special treatment in terms of welfare that would be commensurate with his position. However, the action of officers of the 1st Defendant and the 2nd Defendant has resulted in denying the Claimant his entitlements and thereby injuring his self esteem as a Civil Servant. Since damages flow from the injury inflicted on the victim, it becomes crystal clear that the claimant is entitled to damages as a result of pains suffered over the span of about 10 years of refusal to ratify his promotion. He urged the court to award the sum of 5 Million Naira Only as damages to the Claimant over the pains, sufferings and injury suffered over the last 10 years of the Defendants refusal to promote him. In all counsel urged the court to resolve the above issue in favour of the Claimant Having regard to the totality of pleadings and evidence led at the trial, has the claimant on the preponderance of evidence proved that he is entitled to his claims. It is trite that the burden of prove in civil cases is placed on the party who asserts. In accordance with Evidence Act 2011 Section 131(1) states:- Whoever, desires any court to give Judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the exercise of facts which he asserts must prove that this facts exists. The statutory provision has received judicial interpretation by our court in the case of Akinyele V Afribank Plc (2003) 7 NWLR (Pt. 955) 504 at 515 that:- The person who make allegation in a proceeding is by ordinary rules of pleadings bound to provide evidence to substantiate them as part of his case. It is not in dispute, that the claimant employment enjoys statutory flavour and this put his employment over and above that of master and servant relationship. The rules governing the employment relationship between the claimant and the defendants is the Public Service Rules 2008. It is this Service Civil Rules that is applied in appointment, discipline, termination, dismissal and promotion of Civil Servant. The case of the claimant as can be gathered from his pleadings and evidence is that he participated in three promotional examinations in 2006, 2009 and 2010 and his results were not released, his name was omitted from the score sheet. In particular the claimant claimed that he took part in 2006 promotional interviewed examination but his result was officially withheld by the defendants, and that only his result was withheld. When he inquired from the Director of promotion he was shown the master list of the full result of the examination. That he was also informed that he scored 60% and that he passed the promotion interview examination. He claimed that fifteen officers were promoted and that some scored lower than himself in the 2006 examination. But that the defendants however pleaded 10 vacancies as against 15. The claimant claimed that he scored 60.73% and going by Exhibit DW1 he scored more than those that were promoted in 2006. In particular the claimant referred to the candidate on No. 24 on the list that the candidates scored 59.5% and he was promoted, and that promotion is not done on availability of vacancies. Claimant alleged also that a Commissioner in the Commission demanded some money from him. The defendants reacted to the claimant’s allegation on point of law by referring to the documentary evidence tendered in the court. He referred to Exhibit DW1 the result sheet for the promotional interview examination for 2005. That the claimant claimed that he scored more than the candidate on No. 24 of the list and yet the candidate was promoted while he was not. The defendants explained that what is recorded against the name of claimant was 58.73% then additional 2 marks was added to the mark which makes it 60.73%. For the candidate on No. 24, the total score entered for him was 59.54% additional 2 marks was added this makes it up to 61.54% which was higher than 60.73% the claimant scored. He contended the candidates were promoted on merit. Having listened to both parties, the question is has the claimant been able to prove by credible evidence before the court to show that any of the fifteen candidates promoted scored lower than the claimant, even if there were contradictions in the number of vacancies declared by the defendants. This he has not been able to do. The claimant claims that he scored more than the candidate in No. 24 of the score sheet for 2005 promotional interview examination, this is not correct as the candidate on No. 24 scored 61.54% against the claimant who scored 60.73%. It has not been established that the claimant was denied his promotion unjustly he has not just been fortunate to fall within the vacancies declared by his Ministry. It is a notable fact that certain criteria are taking into consideration before candidates are promoted in the Public Service, one of such criteria is declaration of vacancies. It is the responsibility of the claimant’s Ministry to declare vacancies and not the responsibility of the Federal Civil Service Commission. They have only the duty to conduct the examination to fill the vacancies. The master sheet the claimant claimed was shown to him that the Director of promotions Alhaji Musa Saleh was not tendered. The claimant made serious criminal allegations against some official of the Federal Civil Service Commission. However, he did not prove the allegation. I must say that such allegation ought to be made to the appropriate authority for investigation since the claimant could send complaint to the Human Rights Commission he should do same in respect of the criminal allegation he made against the officials. Since the allegations have not been established they remain unproved allegations. The claimant has not proved any allegation of wrong doing against the defendants. It is however a fact that promotion interview into the other grade level is not automatic there are criteria to be met. The pray next time there would be enough vacancies and the claimant would make it. On the issue of damages for the sum of N5,000,000.00 (Five Million Naira) Only. See Olukolade V Ademilogo (2011) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1269) Pg. 72 at 101 – 105 Para H says:- General damages are presumed by law to be direct natural and probable consequence of the act complaint of and generally incapable of exact evaluation. Therefore in awarding damages, a trial court must make its own assessment of the quantum of such damages in the light of the evidence adduced and not base its award on speculative claim and scanty facts. From the careful perusal of the above decision, it is clear that general damages is not granted as a matter of course. The defendants must have been found liable of the acts complained of and that would be the bases on which the court would rest whatever damages the court thinks fit to grant to the claimant. In the instant case it has not been proved that the claimant was unlawfully denied his promotion by the defendants. For the reasons given above, the claimant case fails and is hereby dismissed. Judgment is entered accordingly. ________________________________ HON. JUSTICE O. A. SHOGBOLA JUDGE