MARCUS JATAU BAZA -VS- FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY

THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT ABUJA

Before His Lordship:-

HON. JUSTICE E.D. E ISELE – JUDGE

DATE: 5th OCTOBER, 2018 – NICN/ABJ/257/2016

BETWEEN:

MARCUS JATAU BAZA – CLAIMANT

AND

FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY
ADMINISTRATION
THE HONOURABLE MINISTER – DEFENDANTS
FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY
ADMINISTRATION

REPRESENTATION: Claimant present. Defendants absent. Both counsel absent.

JUDGMENT

By the Writ of Complaint filed on the 8^th of July, 2016 the Claimant seeks the following:

A Declaration that the Claimant’s employment with the Defendant is still valid and subsisting until the Claimant attained the age of 35 years of service or attained the age of 60 years.
A Declaration that the purported retirement of the Claimant from the service of the 1^st Defendant with effect from 14^th July, 2016 is null and void of no effect.
An Order of Court that the Claimant’s employment with the 1^st Defendant which is due to terminate on the 14^th day of July, 2016 is still valid and subsisting until the Claimant attained 35 years of service or attained the age of 60 years.
An Order of Court setting aside the Notice of Retirement dated the 9^th day of November, 2015 to take effect from 14^th July, 2016 as null and void being contrary to the letter of offer of Pensionable Appointment dated 28^th of March, 1985.
An Order of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants, their agents, servants, privies or any person acting for them or on their behalf from further interfering with the Claimants term of employment until the Claimant attained the 35 years of service or attained the age of 60 years.

Or in the alternative:

An Order for the payment of all salaries, allowances and emoluments of the Claimant from 14^th August, 2016 till 28^th of March, 2020 when the Claimant will be due for retirement.
The sum of ₦10,000,000 (Ten Million naira) as damages for unlawful interference with the Claimant’s contract of employment.

This case first came up before this Court on the 13^th of July, 2016. On that date the Court had upon the ex-parte application made by the Claimant/Applicant filed on the 8^th of July, 2016 issued an interim injunction against the Defendant/Respondent from compelling the Claimant/Applicant to proceed on compulsory retirement which commenced on the 14^th day of July, 2016 pending the determination of the motion on notice which was filed along the Writ of Complaint filed on the same 8^th of July, 2016. The Defendants/Respondents did not make or enter appearance over several dates in which the matter came up; 22^nd August, 2016, 26^th September, 2016, 6^th October, 2016, until the 14^th October, 2016 when Counsel appeared for the Defendant/Respondent who informed the Court that he had not entered appearance as he had not been served with copies of the originating processes.

Now, from the proceedings, the motion on notice filed along with the motion ex-parte and originating process was not heard,but it shall be daealt with in the course of this judgment.

THE CASE OF THE CLAIMANT

The Claimant avers that he was offered admission into the School of Nursing FCT, Abuja as a student nurse in 1981 and graduated in 1984 and tendered Exhibit A1, the School of Nursing testimonial No 039 dated November, 1984. He maintains that he was born on the 25^th December, 1961 in Kwali and obtained his birth certificate from Suleja Local Government of Niger state and tendered the birth certificate in Exhibit A. That he was employed by Exhibit B on the 28^th March, 1985 as a pensionable staff Nurse. That he accepted the terms and conditions contained in the letter of appointment by filing and signing the agreement form attached to the letter of employment pensionable appointment.

It is his case that he applied for release and sponsorship for a degree in Nursing science (B.NSC) programme in Madonna University which was a pre – condition for his release by the 1^st Defendant. That he was surprised when a confirmation of appointment letter was served on him to take effect from 14^th of July, 1982 retrospectively in Exhibit B1 dated 7^th May, 2010. That letter of confirmation from the 1^st Defendant reads:

“CONFIRMATION OF APPOINTMENT

I have the pleasure to inform you that in recognition of your good service records and medical report, the Federal Capital Territory Administration has approved the confirmation of your appointment with effect from 14^th July, 1982 retrospectively.

Necessary action is therefore being taken to amend your record of service accordingly . . .”

The Claimant also averred that he was served with a Notice of Retirement dated 9^th day of November, 2015 to take effect from 14^th July, 2016 in Exhibit B2. He avers that he applied for a letter which he put the Defendants on notice to produce the letter titled:

Enrolment of FCT Employees due for Retirement in 2016 for which he applied and was given a photocopy tendered as Exhibit C6 of October 21, 2015.

It is also the case of the Claimant that he has not attained the mandatory years of service attained the age or retirement. That he wrote letters of complaints to the management of the 1^st Defendant about his premature retirement, but the 1^st Defendant did not respond to the letter in Exhibit B4 dated 12^th May, 2016 written by the Claimants. That he was never given an opportunity to express his grievances about his premature retirement from service.

He maintained that the management of the 1^st Defendant instructed him to officially apply for retirement or his salary for July, 2016 would not be paid. And that he was further instructed that he was going to forfeit all his entitlements except he proceeds on pre-retirement leave which commenced on the 14^th of May, 2016. He avers that he complied by the Notice of Retirement dated 9^th November, 2015 to take effect from 14^th July, 2016. And as a result he got his lawyer to write Exhibit C dated 12^th May, 2016 to the Defendants for a review of his terms of employment as contained in his letter of employment and the process leading to his disengagement from service.

THE CASE OF THE DEFENDANTS

The Defendants denied the Claimant was still its employee and maintained that the Claimant was employed by the Defendant as a student nurse on grade level 04/1 by a letter of offer of pensionable appointment dated 14^th July, 1981. A CTC of this letter was tendered as Exhibit DB. And that the Claimant rose through promotion to the rank of Chief Nurse Tutor on salary grade level 14 with effect from 1^st January, 2003.

THE CLAIMANT’S REPLY

The Claimant filed a reply to the Defendants joint Statement of Defence and averred that the letter in Exhibit DB was forged for the purpose of dismissing the Claimant from the service of the Defendant. That the reference number used by the Defendants in relation to any document with reference to the Claimant from the day of appointment to the purported day of retirement always bears the reference number: PF/846. The Claimant tendered his payslip as exhibit E1 for June, 2016 and the letter of invitation from the Defendants dated 11^th April, 2016 in Exhibit D.

The Claimant maintained further that the letter in Exhibit DB of offer of pensionable appointment dated 14^th July, 1981 was procured to mislead the Court on the following grounds:

The letter of appointment is unilateral without any acceptance from the Claimant.
There is not letter of acceptance by the Claimant as indicated in paragraph 2 (viii) of the letter of offer of pensionable appointment dated 14^th July, 1981.

iii. The letter is not on the Defendants letter headed paper.

The date which appeared on the letter dated 14^th July, 1981 is in conflict with paragraph 3 of the same letter of offer of pensionable appointment dated 14^th July, 1981 whereas the Defendant claimed to be deducting the sum of ₦45.00 from June, 1981.
The Reference No: PF 80 as contained in the letter of offer of pensionable appointment dated 14^th July, 1981 pleaded in paragraph 3 of the Defendants’ joint Statement of Defence is totally different from the Claimant’s reference No: MFCT/PF/846 which appeared in most of the correspondence between the Defendant and the Claimant.

The Claimant’s pleaded particulars of forgery:

The names of the Defendant are not on the letter of appointment as the makers of the document.
The letter was never signed or acknowledged by the Claimant as required by paragraph 2 (viii) of the letter of appointment.

iii. The Claimant reference no: MFCT/PF/846 which is different from PF80 never appeared on the Claimant’s documents.

The Defendants were already deriving benefit even before the date the letter of appointment was made.

THE CROSS EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES

Now, the Claimant had maintained in the reply to the joint Statement of Defence at paragraph 10 and 11 and at paragraph 11 and 12 of his Witness Statement on Oath in reply to the joint Statement of Defence that:

He was never issued any letter of Confirmation since he started work with the Defendants and it is the duty of the Defendants to issue confirmation of appointment in accordance with the Public Service Rules.

That the letter of confirmation became an issue when the Claimant applied for release and sponsorship for Nursing Science (B. NSC) programme at Madonna University.

In the cross examination of the Claimant he was asked

Q: You applied for confirmation of your appointment with the 1^st Defendant on 15^th December, 2010?

ANS: Yes.

Q: You signed the application you made for confirmation?

ANS: Yes, with my file number on it.

Q: Do you have a copy of the application in Court?

ANS: It is tendered.

Q: The application for confirmation is in custody of the Defendant

ANS: Yes.

Q: Look at Exhibit B your letter of appointment, who signed it?

ANS: The maker.

Q: Exhibit B is not signed for the Defendant.

ANS: For the Defendant.

Q: Who signed it? What name?

ANS: No name, but this is a common signature.

The cross examination of the Claimant ended and there was no re -examination. The Defendant’s witness Akpan Akan James an Administrative officer in the Health and Human Services Secretariat of the 1^st Defendant was cross examined and the following question and answers ensued:

Q: In Exhibit DA4 (letter of confirmation dated 7^th May, 2010) you specifically made reference to an amended record of service.

The witness read paragraph 2 of the Exhibit DA4 which stated: “Necessary action is therefore being taken to amend your Record of Service accordingly.

Q: Will I be right to say that there is an amended record of service in view that paragraph 2.

ANS: Yes.

Q: Look at Exhibit DB the offer of Pensionable appointment where is the reference number?

ANS: PF 80.

Q: Look at that on Exhibit B, what is the number?

ANS: PF 846.

Q: Exhibit DB has it any heading as to who issued the letter? Who is the maker of DB?

ANS: Musa Umar.

Q: The 1^st and 2^nd Defendants are not the maker of that document.

ANS: Witness did not comprehend.

Q: In paragraph 8 of your Statement on Oath you also referred to a letter of provisional admission after he submitted the letter, Exhibit DA that he had an admission you required that he should produce his.

ANS: Yes, he was confirmed after 2 years.

Q: You were not having the letters of confirmation, you now asked him to produce it.

ANS: Yes.

Q: In Exhibit DA3 dated 25^th January, 2012 what is the reference number there?

ANS: PF/846.

Q: In Exhibit B is it the same reference there?

ANS: Yes PF 846.

THE WRITTEN ADDRESS OF THE PARTIES

In the written address of the Defendants two issues were formulated for determination:

1) Whether the Claimant on the preponderance of evidence before this Honourable Court is entitled to any relief or reliefs claimed in this suit against the Defendants.

2) Whether this suit is statute barred by virtue of section 2 (a) of the Public Officers Protection Act, CAP 14, LFN 2004.

The Claimant in response formulated four issues for determination:

1) Whether the Claimant is entitled to his reliefs in view of the facts and documents tendered in evidence before the Honourable Court.

2) Whether the Defendants can raise the issue of Section 2 (a) of the Public Officers Protection Act, CAP P14 Vol. 14 LFN, 2004 contrary to their pleadings.

3) Whether Exhibit B2 the Notice of Retirement dated 9^th November, 2015 was made in compliance with the Public Service Rules and the contract of employment given to the Claimant.

4) Whether Exhibit DB offer of pensionable appointment dated 14^th July, 1981 is a valid contract of employment with regards to the Public service rules.

In determining the issues, I shall consider issues two both raised by the parties on limitation out of the provisions of the Public Officers Protection Act.

In the opening argument of the Defendant at paragraph 5.01 it was stated that a claim that a suit is statute barred is usually premised on the fact that the suit was commenced outside the statutorily provided period. That to determine the limitation period of an action, one has to look at the writ of summons and the Statement of Claim so as to verify when the alleged wrong giving rise to the suit was committed, and compare same to the date the action was instituted, if the time of the writ is beyond the period allowed by the statute, then the action is statute barred citing HASSAN V. ALIYU (2010) 17 NWLR (PT. 1223), 547 at 549 ratio 7 and OFILI V. C.S.C (2008) 2 NWLR (PT. 1071), 238 at 241. The Defendants argued that in this case, the Statement of Claim in paragraphs 10 and 17 and the reliefs sought in the suit, are to the effect that the wrong complained of is that the Claimant was served with a notice of retirement dated 9^th day of November, 2015 by the Defendants. That the Claimant had become aware of the Public Officers Protection Act, while the act complained of had happened on the 9^th of November, 2015 when the Claimant was served with the notice of retirement dated 9^th day of November, 2015 by the Defendants, the writ of summons was only filed on the 8^th of July, 2016 and the suit was filed outside the 3 (three) months period provided in section 2 (a) of the Public Officers Protection Act citing HASSAN V. ALIYU (2010) 17 NWLR (PT. 1223) 547 and 549 ratio 1 and 7.

In response, the Claimant submitted at paragraph 4.2.1 that parties are bound by their pleadings that no party will be allowed to set up a case other than that which is captured in his Statement of Claim or Defence, parties must stick to the averments in their pleadings citing the case of SOGUNRO V. YEKI (2017) VOL. LRNC 165 at 188 U – EE where the Supreme Court held:

“As this Court had once explained, the rationale behind this principle of law is that by our adversary system of Civil Procedure in the High Court, facts are first erected on pleadings before the trial of the case. This is to foreclose the likelihood of springing surprises at the trial and to circumscribe the compass or breadth of divergences. This inviolable or sacrosanct rule is only subject to the fairly liberal rules appertaining to the amendment of pleadings.”

It was argued that the Defendant’s joint Statement of Defence filed in Court on 31^st October, 2016 contained 26 paragraphs; the issue of section 2 (a) of the Public officers Protection Act, CAP P14 Vol. 14 LFN 2004 was never raised in the Defendants joint Statement of Defence. That a party who intends to rely on special defences such as the Public Officers Protection Law and Statute of Limitation must expressly plead such defences in its Statement of Defence citing the case of KANO V OYELAKIN (1993) 3 SCNJ 65 where at page 72 the Supreme Court held

“With all respect to learned Counsel for the Defendant/Appellant, that all arguments by him based on the provisions of the limitation law of Oyo state do not amount to much as it was not part of the defence raised in the amended Statement of Defence that the Plaintiff’s action or any part of it is statute barred under the limitation law. That defence being a special defence and available to the Defendant at the time of the action must have been specifically pleaded and not having been pleaded by him he could not now raise it even in this Court”

Counsel also relied on N.I.I.A V. AYANFALU (2007) 2 NWLR (PT 1018) 246 at 263 paragraphs D – G, where the Court held that the Public Officers Protection Act is a limitation of statute. That it is a special defence like fraud, estoppels, res judicata and as such like these defences; it must be specifically pleaded by a Defendant before he can rely on it in any proceedings.

Now, Counsel for the Claimant at paragraph 4.2.8 referred to Exhibit B2, the letter of Notice of Retirement dated 9^th November, 2015 which speaks for itself at paragraph 2, it stated:

“I am directed to inform you that you will be due for retirement from the services of the Federal Capital Territory Administration (FCTA) with effect from 14^th July, 2016. This based on your years of service”

That notwithstanding, the date on Exhibit B2, the effective date is 14^th July, 2016 and that the writ of summons is dated 4^th July, 2016 which is before the effective date of 14^th July, 2016.

I must state her, that I am wholly persuaded by the entirety of the Claimant on this second issue for determination. The Defendants as it were did not respond any further to the arguments and submissions of the Claimant on the issue by way of a reply on points of law. It is not however the reason for determining the issue against the Defendants. I hold that the issue whether the action is statute barred on the facts and the law are wholly stalked against the Defendants as lucidly marshalled in the Claimant’s arguments. For the avoidance of any doubt, in the case of UDEAGBUNAM V. FCDA (2002) NNLR 236 at 246 cited by the Claimant, the Court of Appeal held that:

“The termination of an appointment by letter must necessarily take effect from the date of the letter or the date the appointee receives the termination letter or the date in future mentioned in the letter.”

I hold that the holding of the Court of Appeal applies to this case.

In this case, the issue of statute of limitation does not arise at all on the facts as shown in the content of Exhibit B2 and I do so hold.

Regarding the first issue formulated by the Defendants whether on the preponderance of evidence before the Honourable Court the Claimant is entitled to any of the reliefs claimed in this suit against the Defendant. Here the Defendants submitted that the Claimant’s reliefs number 1 and 2 are declaratory in nature and the onus is on him to succeed on the strength of his case and not on the weakness of the Defendant’s case citing SMAB INTER – TRADE LTD V. BUKAR ALI BULANGU (2013) LPELR – 2141 (C4).

Counsel stated that in 4.04 that it is the evidence of the Claimant that he was employed as a pensionable staff nurse on the 28^th of March, 1985 citing Exhibit B the letter of Pensionable appointment. That it was the evidence of the Claimant under cross examination that Exhibit B was not signed for the Defendants.

Counsel contended that for a letter of any appointment into the pUblic office to be valid, it must be issued on the authority of the Federal Civil service Commission through Permanent Secretaries/Heads of Extra – Ministerial offices by virtue of the provision of rule 020101 (b) of the Public Service Rules, it provides:

“Appointment to public offices in the Federal Civil Service are made on the authority of the Federal Civil Service Commission. These are appointments made either:

a) . . .
b)By formal agreement between the officer and the Federal Government or its appointed agents subject to Rules 020205, 020206 and 020207, Permanent secretaries/heads of extra ministerial offices are authorised to appoint eligible candidates to posts in respect of which powers of appointment have been delegated to them.

Here, Counsel at paragraph 4.07 stated for the Defendants that a careful examination of the Claimant’s Exhibit B will reveal that the Exhibit was not signed by or an authority of the Permanent Secretary or any officer of the Defendants. That it is also undisputable that Exhibit B was not issued under the instructions and directives of the Permanent secretary of the Defendants or any officer in his authority as provided by Rule 020101 (b) of the Public Service Rules, 2008. It was submitted for the Defendants that from the testimony of the Claimant’s witness, there is nothing in his testimony to show that Exhibit B was made on the authority of the Defendants or its appointed agents through Permanent secretary/head of any department of the Defendant or any officer on the authority of the Permanent secretary of the Defendants. That all through the evidence the Claimant did not show that his appointment was made by the Permanent secretary or head of department or any other officer of the Defendants and the Court was urged to so hold.

The Defendants argued that it is their case through the DW1 that the Claimant was employed by the Defendants as a student Nurse on grade level 04/1 on 14^th July, 1981 by Exhibit DB its offer of pensionable appointment. The Defence also listed out the other Exhibits tendered in the defence of the suit. And stated that the law is settled that where a party decides to rely on documents to prove his case, there must be a link between the documents and the specific area of claim citing the Supreme Court in UCHA V. ELECHI (2012) 13 NWLR (PT. 1317) page 330 at 338 ration 6.

It was submitted by the Defendants that the Claimant had admitted in paragraph 13 of his reply to the joint Statement of Defence that the Claimant wrote the application for confirmation of appointment dated 15^th December, 2010 in Exhibit DB 10.

By way of response the Claimant formulated issues 1 and 4. At issue 1, the Claimant in his legal argument stated that the burden of proof in a civil case is discharged on the balance of probabilities or preponderance of evidence, which means that in civil proceedings, judgment is given to the party with the greater weight or stronger evidence citing section 134 of the Evidence Act, 2011 and the case of SOKWO V. KPONGBO AND ORS (2008) VOL. 159 LRCN 1 at 22 paras K – U.

It was submitted for the Claimant that from the oral testimony and the evidence and the evidence before the Court there are several features to show that Exhibit B was made on the authority of the Defendants:

– That it was written on the Defendants letter headed paper.

– Overleaf of Exhibit B is the contractual agreement entered into by the Claimant and the Defendant; that is the representative of the department of the Claimant in the rank of Deputy Secretary signed for the Defendant.

– Exhibit B contained the Claimant’s official file number PF 846 which the Defendants issued on appointment as a staff nurse which the Claimant has been using till the purported premature retirement.

Contrasting Exhibit B with DB the Claimant at 4.1.18 of his written address stated that the Claimant had maintained at paragraphs 3 – 6 of his reply to the joint Statement of Defence that Exhibit DB was forged for the sole purpose of dismissing the Claimant from service and further gave particulars of the forgery. That the evidence of the Claimant was never challenged or contradicted.

Regarding the Defendants’ charge that the Claimant admitted writing Exhibit DB10. The Claimant contended that the Defendants cannot rely on the admission between the parties to displace the burden of proof provided in Section 131 (1) and (2) of the Evidence Act, 2011. That the letter of offer of pensionable appointment pleaded in paragraph 3 of the Defendants’ Statement of Defence admitted in evidence as Exhibit DB and paragraph 5 of the Defendants’ joint Witness Statement on Oath is in conflict with the entire pleadings of the parties. That DW1 in cross examination had admitted all the paragraphs of forgery relating to Exhibit DB citing REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF APOSTOLIC CHURCH ILESHA AREA, NIGERIA V. A.G OF MID – WESTERN STATE AND 2 ORS (1992) NSCC 247 at 252 and the case of SEISMOGRAPH SERVICE (NIG) LTD V. EYUAFE (1976) 10 NSCC 434 at 439 and submitted that the Honourable Court is not bound by any admission by the parties but the justice of the case which it requires the Court to take a chronological analysis of facts and documents before the Court.

Now, the Defendants did not file a reply on points of law to the Claimant’s written address. In determining the issue, whether on the preponderance of evidence before the Honourable Court the Claimant is entitled to any of the reliefs claimed against the Defendant. It is necessary to note as Counsel have submitted, that the standard of proof in civil cases to state that civil cases are determined on the preponderance of evidence and balance of probabilities. See ELIAS V. OMO – BAKE (1982) 5 S.C 2.

In MOGAJI V. ODOFIN (1979) 4 S.C 91 the Supreme Court held that a party is not bound to lead evidence in proof of all the averments in his pleadings provided he has led enough evidence to sustain his claim or defence. That civil cases are decided on balance of probabilities and if one party adduced credible evidence which outweighs the evidence of the other party, the former is entitled to judgment.

In the present case, I have looked at and weighed the evidence put before the Court by both parties and I find that the justice of this case lies in which of the letters of offer of pensionable appointment should be believed over the other, is it Exhibit B or DB? The Defendants have emphasised the credibility of Exhibit DB and have also insisted that the Claimant wrote Exhibit DB10 which the Claimant admitted writing in the reply to the joint Statement of Defence in the following words:

The Claimant admits paragraph 8 of the Statement of Defence only to the extent that the Claimant wrote the application for confirmation of appointment dated 15^th of December, 2010 on the condition that without the letter he promised to frustrate his nursing science (B. NSC) programme at Madonna University.

The letter referred to above is Exhibit DB10 dated 15^th November, 2010, it is headed and reads as follows:

“APPLICATION FOR CONFIRMATION OF APPOINTMENT

I wish to apply for confirmation of my appointment with the establishment.

I was offered pensionable appointment as a student Nurse on salary grade level 04/1 on 14^th July 1981 by the Ministry of the Federal Capital Territory Administration . . .

Attached are my Annual Performance Evaluation Report (APER) forms for two years, duly completed and appropriately endorsed, a recent medical certificate of fitness and other documents for your perusal and further necessary action please . . .”

It was signed by the Claimant who he stated was likely coerced by his boss to write the above letter. On this point of coercion, the Claimant was not cross examined by the Defendants as the records showed of his cross examination that went on. The Defendants rather went on to lay emphasis on who signed Exhibit B and has sought to impeach the credibility of the Claimant’s case that Exhibit B was not signed for the Defendants like in Exhibit DB which is signed by one Musa Usman Gumel for the Permanent secretary. Now, I find this is about all the Defendants are relying on to sustain a defence against the claim of the Claimant together with the Claimant’s admission that he wrote Exhibit DB10 under some form of coercion over which the Defendants had not cross examined the Claimant. The Defendants had tendered Exhibit DB3 dated 25^th January, 2012 it was written to the Claimant by the Defendants headed: APPROVAL FOR STUDY LEAVE WITH PAY the Defendants reference thereon is “Our Ref: PF/846/VOL. 11/19 Exhibit B which the Claimant relies as the offer letter by which he was employed by the Defendants bears the reference number MFCT/PF/846. Now MFCT ostensibly means Ministry of the Federal Capital Territory and PF/846 is the Claimant’s personal reference number which the Defendants themselves have quoted in a subsequent letter in Exhibit DB3 of 25^th January, 2012 after the Defendants had written the letter of confirmation to the Claimant in Exhibit B1 dated 7^th May, 2010 which is reproduced earlier in this judgment. There, at the last line, the Defendant wrote

“Necessary action is being taken to amend your records of service accordingly.

The above was written and backdated after the Claimant had been made by the Defendants to apply for a letter of confirmation in the bid to be released to pursue a degree course in Nursing. I find here and do hold that the mere fact that the Defendants had to resort to such means such as asking the employee to apply for his letter of confirmation did not help its case for a letter which ought to be granted/or given to the employee within 2 years of being appointed on probation, Rule 020301 of the Public Service Rules, 2008 provides:

“Officers on probation will be required to serve for two years before being confirmed by the service.”

I also find and do hold that Exhibit DB sought to be relied on by the Defendants did also not have a heading of the Defendants’ title as in Exhibit B where the Ministry for Federal Capital Territory, Abuja is clearly present, and is also stated in the acronym MFC in referencing the Claimant’s file reference. Now, I find and oddly too, that the Exhibit DB carries a different reference number PF 80 and the date of employment stated therein, which the Defendants are relying on to compulsorily place the Claimant on retirement is 14^th July, 1981 whereas the Claimant in Exhibit B insist on the date thereon 28^th March, 1985 as the date he was employed. I have examined both documents and I find that Exhibit B is to be preferred given the evidence before me as the more reliable of the two documents. Exhibit DB does not have a reverse page showing the Claimant’s acceptance and agreement thereto and the declaration thereof “overleaf” as required in paragraph (viii) of the Exhibit B.

I do not therefor see Exhibit DB as one that this Court can rely on, and if it were such, then the joint Defendants could have quoted its stated reference no of PF 80 on it referenced communications with the Claimant which it did not do.

In the premises of the above reasoning and the evidence before me, I find that the totality of the evidence adduced by the Claimant in the present case outweighs those or that of the Defendants. Consequently, I find and do hold that the Claimant’s case is proved on this preponderance of evidence and judgment is hereby entered in his favour and is entered accordingly as per the 1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd, 4^th and 5^th heads of claim.

And having granted all the claims in the first instance, the 6^th and 7^th alternate claims are concomitantly refused. And the motion on notice for interlocutory injunction filed on the 8^th of July, 2016 is equally struck out having not been moved or heard.

Finally, the Defendants are to comply with the judgment order within 21 days of this judgment. Judgment is entered accordingly.

_____________________________

HON. JUSTICE E. D. E. ISELE

JUDGE