IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA
Suit No: NICN/LA/328/2013
Petitioner: Julius Akinwunmi Akomolafe
Respondent: Federal Civil Service Commission
Date Delivered: 2017-03-02
Judge(s): HON. JUSTICE J. D. PETERS
Judgment Delivered
REPRESENTATION
Taiwo Kupolati with S. O. Awolonu Dapo Obe for the Claimant.
- Isah for the 1st Defendant
A.A. Iriogbe Jerome Okoro for the 2nd Defendant.
JUDGMENT
- Introduction Claims the Claimant approached this Court by his General Form of Complaint dated 21/6/13 and sought the following reliefs –
- A declaration that the 2ndDefendant’s letter with reference number FC 3418/S. 56/Vol.II/7977 entitled ‘DISENGAGEMENT FROM PUBLIC SERVICE RE: PUBLIC SERVICE REFORMS RIGHTSIZING EXERCISE 2ND PHASE OF STAFF SEVERANCE ‘purportedly terminating the plaintiff’s employment with the 2nddefendant is null, void and of no effect whatsoever.
- A declaration that the plaintiff’s employment with the 2nd defendant remains extant and valid.
- An order directing the 2nddefendant to reinstate the plaintiff to his position as the Principal Executive Officer 1 in compliance with the directive of the 1st defendant as stated in his letter dated 31stJuly, 2006.
- An Order directing the 1stand 2nd defendants to pay to the plaintiff all allowances, benefits, remuneration and entitlements due to the plaintiff from 1st December 2006 till judgment is delivered.
- Interest at the rate of 21% per annum on the judgment sum from the date judgment is given till the final liquidation thereof.
- The costs of the action. Claimant filed along with his Form 1 his statement
of facts, witness written deposition as well as list and copies of the documents to be relied on at trial.
While 1st Defendant did not file any denfece to this case, the 2nd Defendant entered an appearance and filed its statement of defence together with requisite frontloaded processes. On 25/3/14, the Claimant filed a reply to the statement of defence filed by the 2nd Defendant.
- Case of the Claimant the hearing of this case commenced on 13/7/15 when the Claimant testified as CW1, adopted his witness deposition dated 21/6/13 as his evidence in chief and tendered 14 documents as exhibits.
The documents were admitted in evidence and marked as Exh. C1 – Exh. C14.
The case of the Claimant as pleaded by him is that he was employed as a
messenger on Grade Level 02 by the 2nd Defendant (Federal Inland Revenue Service) sometime on 6 July 1974 and rose all through the years to the position of a Principal Executive Officer at Grade Level 12 before his employment with the 2nd Defendant was severed in 2006;
that in the course of his employment with the 2nd Defendant he enhanced his
credentials, sat for, passed the General Certificate Education (GCE) Ordinary Level Examination and was promoted to the rank of a Clerical cadre;
that he subsequently rose in the course of employment;
that however, sometime in 2006, the 2nd Defendant wrongfully and abruptly terminated his appointment on grounds of an alleged Federal Government Rightsizing Exercise, wherein the 2nd Defendant alleged that there was a directive from the Federal Government to terminate the employments of all civil servants who did not possess the requisite qualification for their respective grades or position and that as a result he was purportedly found not to possess the requisite qualification for his position as a Principal Executive Officer, in consequence of which his appointment was disengaged via letter dated 31 July 2006.
Claimant further averred that his appointment having been determined, he wrote a Letter of Appeal dated 10/10/06 to the 1st Defendant (Federal Civil Service Commission); that the 1st Defendant having gone through his Letter of Appeal and having found the Claimant’s appointment to be regular, wrote a letter dated 31/7/06, directing the 2nd Defendant to re-instate the Claimant, the Claimant’s
appointment having been found to be substantially regular; that in spite of the
directive of the 1st Defendant, which was the body responsible for appointment, promotion, and discipline of Civil Servants as at the time of the event that the 2nd Defendant should re-instate the Claimant, the 2nd Defendant willfully persistently and neglectfully refused to re-instate the claimant; that aggrieved with the refusal of the 2nd Defendant to follow the directive of the 1st Defendant the Claimant instituted an action at the Federal High Court in 2007 against the Defendants, and upon the amendment of the Constitution, which vested jurisdiction on the National
Industrial Court to sit on all matters including trade, labour and employment, the matter was transferred to the National Industrial Court on 11/10/13.
Under cross examination by the 1st Defendant witness, the witness testified that he was discharged from service on 31/7/06; that 1st Defendant paid him terminal benefit; that he was prevented by 2nd Defendant from paying back the money
which was a condition for reinstatement and that as at 2006 when he was disengaged he was not a Degree holder. While being cross examined by the learned Counsel to the 2nd Defendant, witness stated that his appointment was severe in 2006; that he was paid a severance package; that 2nd Defendant prevented him from refunding the money when he wanted to; that he went to the Broad street office of 2nd Defendant where they requested him to bring his letter of reinstatement and that of absorption; that he did not and still do not have;
that since 2006 he has not been doing anything; that 2nd Defendant refused to reinstate him; that he was promoted to Level 12 with the certificate he held which was G.C.E O Level; that he wrote a letter to the National Assembly on this matter and that he was not at the National Assembly on the day of hearing because he did not receive notice of hearing.
