MAMMUD ABDUL AZEEZ -VS- THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL, NIGERIAN

IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE AKURE JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT AKURE

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: HON. JUSTICE A. A. ADEWEMIMO

DATED: 16^TH SEPTEMBER, 2019

SUIT NO: NICN/BEN/27/2018

BETWEEN

MAMMUD ABDUL AZEEZ

CLAIMANT

AND

1.THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL, NIGERIAN PRISONS
THE ASSISTANT COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF NIGERIAN PRISONS IN CHARGE OF ZONE G HEADQUARTER BENIN CITY
THE CONTROLLER OF PRISONS, EDO STATE COMMAND
ACIP PHILIP IKHANAZE

DEFENDANTS

REPRESENTATION:

A.O. AKINTOMIDE FOR THE CLAIMANT.

B. ELEJA (MRS) FOR THE DEFENDANTS

JUDGMENT

The Claimant by a Complaint before this Court on the 11^th September, 2018 initiated this suit against the Defendants and claims as follows:

A DECLARATION that the purported dismissal of the Claimant from the services of the Nigerian Prisons Service without a fair hearing which dismissal was communicated to the Claimant verbally by the 4^th Defendant on the 7^th day of July, 2018 was wrong in law, null and void and of no effect.

AN ORDER directing the Defendants to re-instate the Claimant to his position in the Nigerian Prisons Services before the wrongful dismissal with all necessary entitlements that would have accrued to him since his wrongful dismissal.

A PERPETUAL INJUNCTION restraining the 4^th Defendant from denying the Claimant entrance to his office.

THE SUM OF N5,000,000.00 (FIVE MILLION NAIRA) as exemplary damages against the Defendants for the inconveniences and the embarrassment suffered by the Claimant as a result of his wrongful dismissal from the services of the Nigerian Prisons Services.

The Claimant filed along with the Complaint all the accompanying processes, i.e. the statement of facts, deposition on oath, list of witness and documents to be relied on, while the defendants filed their memorandum of appearance and Joint Statement of Defence on the 26^th November, 2018 along with other accompanying processes.

The claimant was an officer of the Nigerian Prisons Service and was appointed vide a letter dated 2^nd January, 2009 as a Prison Assistant I (PA1), his appointment was confirmed and he later rose to the rank of Chief Prisons Assistant (CPA) as at 1^st of January, 2017.

The claimant’s case is that sometimes in February 2017, he fell sick while he was on one (1) week off duty, and had not fully recovered by the time his off duty was over, hence he notified the 4^th Defendant who was his superior officer, who told him to report for duty when he has fully recovered. Upon his resumption, the 4^th defendant demanded for a medical report which he was unable to produce as he was treated by an herbalist who was unable to issue medical reports. The 4^th defendant, on hearing this, threatened to deal with him. He averred that he later became aware that an orderly room trial was conducted against him in absentia and it was recommended that he should forfeit his salary for thirteen days. He averred emphatically that he was neither informed about the orderly room trial and the outcome. Later on the 7^th of July, 2018, the 4^th Defendant verbally informed him of his dismissal from the service while he was attending a lecture at the Edo State Prison Command Headquarters. This he averred came as a surprise to him as he was not issued with a formal letter of dismissal. The claimant stated that his monthly salary for June 2018, was thereafter not paid and he was denied access to his office since 7^th of July, 2018.

The claimant pleaded that he suffered untold hardship as a result of the action of the defendants and his dismissal was wrongful.

WHEREOF the claims against the defendants as stated above.

The defendants in their joint statement of defence, admitted paragraphs 1- 11 of the claimant’s Statement of Facts and denied paragraphs 12 -36 of same.

The defendants’ case is that, the claimant without permission absented himself from his duty post for twenty (20) days, and this was what led to the issuance of a query to him. The claimant responded to the query claiming that he was ill during the period, and he was asked to produce a medical report. The defendants averred that it was the failure of the claimant to produce the report that led to the query that was issued. The defendants averred further that the claimant’s response to the query was unsatisfactory, hence the orderly room trial and the resultant recommendation that the claimant should forfeit his salary for the period he was absent from work. The 1^st defendant however directed that the claimant be dismissed from the service on receiving the report of the orderly room trial.

The defendants in their defence admitted that the claimant was not served with the notice of the orderly room trial, on the ground that he was nowhere to be found. The defendants further admitted that no formal letter of dismissal was issued to the claimant, but the Edo State Command of the 1^st defendant was notified about his dismissal, hence the stoppage of his salary. The defendants averred that the 4^th defendant was aware of the dismissal of the claimant and duly informed him on the 7^th of July, 2018 when he saw the claimant at a lecture at the Edo State Headquarters of the Prison Service.

The defendants stated that the dismissal of the claimant was not wrongful and urged the court to dismiss the case of the claimant as frivolous.

Trial commenced in this suit on the 4^th March, 2019 with the claimant testifying for himself as CW1, he adopted his witness statement on oath and tendered several exhibits which were admitted and marked as Exhibits MA1 – MA4, he was thereafter cross examined and he closed his case.

On the 8^th April, 2019, the defendants opened their defence by calling their sole witness Samson Emmanuel a Principal Inspector of Prison II (PIP II) as DW1, he adopted his witness statement on oath and tendered one Exhibit which was admitted without objection and marked as Exhibit PS1, he was cross examined and the defence closed their case. The case was thereafter adjourned for the adoption of final written addresses. Parties adopted their addresses on the 17^th of June, 2019 and the case was adjourned for judgment.

Saliu Ali Garba Esq. of counsel for the defendants in his final written address filed on the 22^nd May, 2019 formulated two issues for determination to wit:

Whether the dismissal of the claimant from the service of Nigeria Prison was lawful.
Whether the claimant’s right to fair hearing was violated.

On issue one, counsel submitted that the dismissal of the claimant by the defendants was lawful and done in accordance with the extant guidelines (revised edition of July, 2013) for appointment, promotions discipline and General purposes applicable to Nigeria Prisons Service. He referred the court to part V Paragraphs III and IV of the said guidelines.

The counsel referred the court to the query given to the claimant and his unsatisfactory response to the query that necessitated the conduct of orderly room trial and its recommendation. He argued that failure of the claimant to produce a medical report or any evidence on his illness left the 1^stdefendant with no option than to direct his dismissal from the service.

Learned counsel further submitted that the principle of natural justice and fair hearing was satisfied in the case as the claimant was given an opportunity to respond to the query and the response was found unsatisfactory, hence his dismissal. He cited KOTOYE Vs C.B.N (1989) 1NWLR (PT 419) at 44.

The defence counsel argued that in an action for unlawful or wrongful termination or dismissal, what an employer needs to prove to justify its action is that, the allegation was disclosed to the employee and that the employer finds him culpable after considering his response. The duty of the employee is to prove that the termination was wrongful or illegal, while that of the court is to determine the guilt or otherwise of the employee. He cited BANGBOYE Vs UNIVERSITY OF ILORIN [1999] 6 SCNJ 295 and submitted that the query issued to the claimant was on a specific allegation to which he responded.

Counsel reiterated that a cursory look at the case of the claimant revealed that it is anchored on the alleged violation of his right to fair hearing rather than wrongful dismissal, and so the claimant cannot succeed on the strength of alleged breach of his right to fair hearing when the facts and evidence reveals that he was given an opportunity to make his representation.

Learned counsel added that failure to give notice of the orderly room trial cannot in itself vitiate the proceeding, although a non-judicial panel is expected to observe the principles of natural justice where a person’s civil right and obligations are involved, citing ADENIYI Vs GOVERNING COUNCIL, YABA TECH [1993] SCNJ 304, he posited that in the instant case, the claimant was afforded an opportunity to defend himself in his response to the query and is deemed so.

Finally, the defence counsel urged this court to dismiss the suit of the claimant.

O. Isenalumhe Esq. of counsel for the claimant in his final written address filed on the 17^thof June, 2019 formulated two issues for determination to wit:
Whether in the circumstances of this case, the dismissal of the claimant from the employment of Nigerian Prisons Service by the Defendants is not wrongful, null and void and of no effect.

Whether the Claimant is entitled to general damages for the act of the Defendants.

On issue one, counsel submitted that the dismissal of the claimant from the Service is wrongful, null and void and of no effect, in view of the breach of the claimant’s right to fair hearing. He maintained that the facts that led to the claimant’s wrongful dismissal are eloquently pleaded in the Statement of Facts and his testimony before the court.

Learned counsel argued that an orderly room trial is a quasi-judicial or administrative enquiry. He further submitted that when a party charged with an offence is deprived of his right to fair hearing by a Court or Tribunal, any decision reached thereon will amount to nullity, citing S. 36 of the 1999 Constitution of the FRN as amended, he also cited Newswatch Communication Limited vs. Atta (2006) All FWLR (Pt. 318) pg 580, to buttress his point.

Counsel submitted that all judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative panels are under constitutional obligations to observe the principle of fair hearing and any administrative proceedings conducted in breach of fair hearing cannot be allowed to stand, citing Jubrin Vs. NEPA (2003) FWLR (Pt. 178) Pg 1092 @ Pg 1105.

Learned Counsel referred to the claimant’s testimony and that of DW1 that he was not given any notice of the Orderly room trial; neither was he issued with any query prior to the trial; the report and recommendation of the orderly room panel was also not communicated to him; and he was not given any formal letter of dismissal but was verbally informed of his dismissal. These facts, he stated, were all admitted by the defendant and runs against the principles of fair hearing enshrined in Section 36(1) of the 1999 CFRN as amended.

On Exhibit PS1 which is the proceedings of the orderly room trial, tendered by DW1, the claimant’s counsel submitted that this is liable to be set aside, the defendants having breached the claimant’s right to fair hearing in initiating the proceedings. Learned Counsel urged the court to resolve this issue in favour of the claimant.

On issue two, counsel submitted that the claimant is entitled to general damages in the circumstances of this case. He pointed out that the claimant gave evidence that after his wrongful dismissal from the Service, his monthly salary from the month of June 2018 was stopped and the 4^th defendant prevented him from entering his office on the ground of the said dismissal. These facts according to counsel were never disputed by the defendants and had placed the claimant in a difficult and stressful situation for which general damages should be awarded to him. He cited the cases of Atobatele Vs. Lekki Concession Company Ltd &Anor. (2017) LPELR – 43041 (CA); Alade vs. Abiona (2003) FWLR (Pt. 139) Pg 1634 @ 1637

He finally urged the court to hold that the claimant has proved his case based on the preponderance of evidence as required by law and he is entitled to the reliefs sought by him in this suit.

I have thoroughly read all the processes filed by counsel to both parties in this suit and I have come up with the following issues which will best determine this suit to wit;

Whether or not the dismissal of the claimant from the service of the Nigeria Prison Service was unlawful.
Whether or not the claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought.

However, before delving into the issues for determination, I find that the record of court reveals that this court on the 8^th of April, 2019 admitted Exhibit PS1, tendered through DW1 without objection, and parties were directed to address the court on the admissibility of the Exhibit at the final written address stage. The counsel for both parties however failed to address this issue in their final addresses. This court however owe it a duty to examine all the evidence and documents tendered before it in the course of trial in its adjudicatory duty, consequently, I find it necessary to examine the document in question as regards its admissibility. A careful look at Exhibit PS1 reveals that it is an uncertified photocopy of a public document tendered in its secondary form by the defendants. It is also not disputable that Section 102 of the Evidence Act, 2011 provides for the circumstances upon which secondary evidence of a public document can be tendered. In the instant suit, Exhibit PS1 which is a photocopy of the proceedings and final recommendation of the orderly room trial dated 16^th of March 2017, is relevant to this suit. The pertinent question however is can a photocopy of an uncertified public document even though relevant be admissible in law? I answer this in the negative.

In Baban-Lungu & Anor v. Zarewa&Ors [2013] LPELR-20726 (CA) the Court of Appeal per Abiru, J.C.A held thus:

“Similarly, the fact that a public document is relevant does not make a photocopy of the public document admissible; it must be a certified true copy- Orlu vs. Gogo-Abite (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt 1196) 307, House of Representatives Vs. Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria (2010) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1205) 213. Thus, the fact that a document is relevant is not always a ground for admissibility; there are other criteria to be considered. The point was ably captured by Oguntade, JCA (as he then was) in Fawehinmi Vs Inspector General of Police [2000] 7 NWLR (Pt 665) 481, at 524 to 525 G-B thus: “I think the lower court was wrong in its approach. There was no doubt that Exhibits GF1 to GF3 were public documents. Section 97(1) (a) – (h) of the Evidence Act, Cap. 112 permits the use in any civil proceedings of secondary evidence. However, section 97 (2) (c) provides that the only secondary evidence admissible is a “certified copy of the document, but no other kind of secondary evidence is admissible”

In Delta State House of Assembly & Anor v. DPP &Ors. [2014] LPELR-22808 (CA), the Court of Appeal per Ogunwumiju, J.C.A held thus;

“……….These documents are public documents within the meaning of the Evidence Act (as amended) and as such only certified copies of them are admissible and can be countenanced. In the absence of any certification, the documents are hereby declared inadmissible”.

It is premised on the above that I find that Exhibit PS1 is inadmissible in law having not been duly certified in accordance with the Evidence Act, and is hereby expunged from the record of this court.

On issue one formulated above, it is on record that the claimant led evidence that he was not given any notice of the Orderly room trial neither was he issued any query before the purported trial, and as a result his right to fair hearing was breached in the proceedings that led to his dismissal and thus unlawful. The defendants on the other hand contended that the unsatisfactory response of the claimant to the query issued to him necessitated the conduct of the orderly room trial in his absence and although, the recommendation was for the claimant to forfeit his salary for the period he was absent from work, it was the 1^st defendant that directed that the claimant be dismissed from the service.

It is settled law as decided by a number cases, that an employee alleging unlawful dismissal must place certain things before the court in proof thereof.

In F.M.C Ido-Ekiti V. Alabi (2012) 2 NWLR (Pt.1285) 411 CA, the court of Appeal held;

“In a claim for wrongful termination of appointment, the onus is always on the employee:

(a) To place before the court the terms of contract of employment; and

(b) To prove in what manner the terms were breached by the employer”

It is trite that the contract of service is the bedrock upon which an aggrieved employee must found his case. He succeeds or fails upon the terms thereof, it is also not in contention that the employment of the claimant is statutorily flavoured. A statutory employment has been defined in a variety of authorities as an employment guided by statute or where the conditions of service are contained in regulations derived from statutory provisions, see AUCHI POLYTECHNIC V. OKUOGHAE (2005) 10 NWLR (PT. 933) 279, OLANIYAN V. UNIVERSITY OF LAGOS (1985) 2 NWLR (PT. 9) 599.

It is worthy of note that the employment relationship between the Claimant and the Defendants in this suit is statutory, in IGWILLO V. CBN 2007 14 NWLR Pt 105 @393 a statutory employment was defined as follows;

“An employment is said to have a 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. Any other employment outside that category is governed by the terms under which the parties agreed to be master and servant”.

The relevant statute in this regard is the Public Service Rules 2008(PSR), as provided in the conditions of service for the appointment of the claimant i.e. Exhibit MA1. A careful reading of Exhibit MA1 reveals that the provisions of the Federal PSR shall apply to the claimant’s employment, thus the defendants are bound to follow the PSR in the dismissal of the claimant as this was what formed the contract of service between the parties and any breach of same renders the dismissal a nullity.

Now, it is a famous fact that the twin pillars of fair hearing and natural justice as enshrined in Section 36 of the CFRN 1999 is audi alteram patem and nemo judex in causa sua. The principle have been long settled in a long line of cases see Anidiobi v. Anidiobi [2007] 2 NWLR (Pt.1017) Pg.1; Orugbo v. Una [2002] LPELR-2778 (SC).

The position of the law where these two basic principles are flouted is that whatever act(s) is premised on this infraction will be declared unconstitutional, null and void. In Imonikhe v. Unity Bank Plc. [2011] LPELR-1503 (SC), the Supreme Court per Rhodes-Vivour J.S.C explained the doctrine of Audi Alteram Partem thus

“Audi Alteram Partem is a maxim denoting basic fairness. It is a canon of natural justice that has its root in the Old Testament. The Good Lord heard Adam before he passed sentence. It simply means hear the other side. See F.C.S.C v. Laoye [1989] 2 NWLR Pt.106 p,652; Akande v. state [1988] 3 NWLR Pt. 85 p.851. Accusing an employee of misconduct, etc by way of a query and allowing the employee to answer the query, and the employee answers it before a decision is taken satisfies the requirement of fair hearing or natural justice.”

Under cross-examination CW1 said-

– I was issued with a Query to which I responded. I was issued with one query.

The law is trite that admitted facts need no further proof. See Section 123 Evidence Act, 2011.

In this case, it is the contention of the defendants that the claimant’s absence from duty without permission is the reason for his dismissal.

Rule 030402 of the PSR provides that serious acts of misconduct includes, absence from duty without leave while the disciplinary procedure for misconduct and serious misconduct are set out in Rules 030302 – 030307 of the PSR. The procedure is im pari materia with the procedure stated in Part V of the Guidelines for Appointment, Promotion, Discipline and General Purposes 2013 of the 1^st Defendant (The Guidelines). The provisions of Rule 030307 of the PSR is hereby restated as follows:

(i) The officer shall be notified in writing of the grounds on which it is proposed to discipline him/her. The query should be precise and to the point. It must relate the circumstances of the offence, the rule and regulation which the officer has broken and the likely penalty. In serious cases which are likely to result in dismissal, the officer should be given access to any such document(s) or report(s) used against him/her and he/she should be asked to state in his/her defence that he/she has been given access to documents. The officer shall be called upon to state in writing, within the period specified in the query any grounds upon which he/she relies to exculpate himself/herself;

– (ii) If the officer submits his/her representations and the Federal Civil Service Commission is not satisfied that he/she has exculpated himself/herself, and considers that the officer should be dismissed, it shall take such action accordingly.

– Where necessary, the Commission may set up a board of inquiry which shall consist of not less than three persons one of whom shall be appointed chairman by the Commission. The members of the board shall be selected with due regard to the status of the officer involved in the disciplinary case and to the nature of the complaint which is the subject of inquiry. The head of the officer’s department shall not be a member of the board.

– (iii) The officer shall be informed that, on a specific day, the question of his/her dismissal shall be brought before the board and he/she shall be required to appear before it to defend himself/herself and shall be entitled to call witnesses. His/her failure to appear shall not invalidate the proceedings of the board;

– (iv) Where witnesses are called by the board to give evidence before it, the officer shall be entitled to put questions to the witnesses and no documentary evidence shall be used against the officer unless he/she has previously been supplied with a copy thereof or given access thereto;

– (v) The board having inquired into the matter shall make a report to the Commission. If the Commission considers that the report should be amplified in any respect or that furtherinquiry is desirable, it may refer any matter back to the board for further inquiry or report. The Commission shall not itself hear witnesses. If upon considering the report of the board together with the evidence and all material documents relating to the case, the Commission is of the opinion that the officer should be dismissed, such action shall immediately be taken;

(Underlining mine for emphasis)

In the instant case, it is settled that the claimant was issued a query and he responded, the defendants contention however, is that the response was unsatisfactory, and this was what led to his orderly room trial.

It is also in evidence that no notice of the orderly room trial was given to the claimant because he was nowhere to be found, hence he was tried in absentia.

From a critical examination of Rule 030307 (iii) of the PSR the following facts can be deduced;

The officer in question must be given notice to appear before the board on a specified date where the issue of his dismissal will be discussed. he is required to appear and also at liberty to call witnesses to defend himself.
Should the person upon being notified, fail to appear, his absence will not invalidate the proceedings of the board.

Simply put, a notice must be given to a person who is to be dismissed by the board in other for him to defend himself. Failure to give him notice will invalidate the board proceedings.

DW1 from his testimony stated thus;

“…..no notice of the orderly room trial was given to the Claimant because he was nowhere to be found hence he was tried in absentia.”

The law is trite that he who asserts must prove see Section 131 of the Evidence Act 2011.

The defendants in this suit have not placed any evidence before this court to show that the claimant was indeed nowhere to be found, when an orderly room trial was instituted against him. What is more confusing is that the defendants admitted that the claimant was given a query and he responded. How were they able to serve him a query but unable to serve him a notice for the orderly room trial?

The defendants did not deem it proper to adduce evidence to shed more light on this and this court is precluded from going on a voyage of discovery fishing for facts and evidence for parties.

In Abubakar v. Yar’Adua [2009] All FWLR (Pt.457)1, the Supreme Court held;

“a court of law can only pronounce judgment in the light of evidence presented and proved before it. A Court of law cannot go outside the evidence presented and proved before it by embarking on a voyage of discovery in search of other evidence in favour of the parties…”

There is neither need nor necessity for a court to set up for parties a case different from the one set up by the parties themselves in the pleadings and their evidence, it is not the duty of the court to fish around for evidence. The type of evidence a court can act on is the evidence which was canvassed in the court, no more……”

In OKORIE GRACE OBIAGELI V. F.C.E ZARIA & ORS 2014 LPELR 24010, CA, it was held per Aji, J.C.A as follows;

“It is now trite that it is not every failure to follow laid down procedure or rules that will automatically affect the decision of any court or tribunal or body exercising judicial or quasi judicial function, in this case the Respondents. Therefore any mere irregularity that does not affect a party’s fundamental right to be heard or that has not resulted to substantial injustice against a party will not be disturbed, not even on appeal. However, where the right of a party before any court or body empowered to exercise judicial or quasi judicial function is fundamentally affected by the failure to follow the stipulated procedure or rules and or that failure has occasioned miscarriage of justice against a party this court will surely set aside the proceeding and the decision arrived at”.

The claimant hinged his case on the fact that his right to fair hearing was breached as the orderly room trial was conducted without any notice to him and this is totally against the tenets of fair hearing, which prescribed that an accused person must be present in the course of the determination of an allegation against him. Thus, he ought to have been put on notice and given the particulars of the allegation against him to enable him prepare his defence, this principle is well captured in Rule 030307 (iii) of the PSR. Also, see PROF DUPE OLATUNBOSUN V. NISER SC 1988 3 NWLR Pt 80 25, Oputa, JSC held as follows;

“one of the essential elements of fair hearing is that the body investigating the charge in the case of misconduct must not receive evidence or representation behind the back of the person being investigated. This was our decision in Garba V. University of Maiduguri 1986 1 NWLR 550 @ Pg 618. In that case the court also added that the court will not inquire whether such evidence or representation did work to the prejudice of the person being investigated. It is sufficient that it might, the risk of it is enough”

The court went further to hold;

“The Appellants right to a fair hearing before dismissal for misconduct is founded mainly and solely on the rules of natural justice or as Lord Campbell would like to call them – “the principles of eternal justice”- see Ex parteRamshay 1852 18 W.B. 173at p.190.The right to be heard is such an important, radical and protective right that the court strain every nerve to uphold it and even to imply it, where a statutory form of protection would be more effective if it did not carry with it the right to be heard”

The following basic principles to ensure fair hearing in employment cases are;

The employee must know the allegation against him.
He must be present when every evidence against him is tendered.
He must be given full opportunity to correct or contradict such evidence

See OBONGANWAN MARY NTEWO V. UNICAL TEACHING HOSPITAL & 1 OR [2013] LPELR 20332

The implication of a decision reached in the absence of fair hearing, is that such must be declared to be a nullity and set aside. See NDUKAUBA V. KOLOMO & ANOR 2005 ALLFWLR PT 248 1602@1614 where it was held;

“It is not in doubt that a court faced with an allegation of breach of fair hearing does not have to concern itself with the correctness or otherwise of the decision reached in breach of the principle of fair hearing.”

It is premised on the above, that I find that the claimant’s right to fair hearing was breached as he was not given notice of the orderly room trial. The proceedings and recommendation of the panel is hereby set aside. I so hold.

It is the position of the law that where the procedure laid down by the statute regulating the employment is breached any decision affecting the right of an employee is to be declared null and void, see the case of Jide Osisanya V. Afribank Nig PLC 2007 1-2 SC 317 per Oguntade JSC;

“When an office or employment has a statutory flavour in the sense that its conditions of service are provided for and protected by statute or regulations there under, any person holding that office or in that employment enjoys a special status over and above the ordinary master and servant relationship. In the matter of disciplining of such a person, the procedure laid down by the applicable statute or regulations must be fully complied with. If materially contravened any decision affecting the right or tenure of office of that person may be declared null and void in an appropriate proceedings.”

it is also the position of the Law that the only way to terminate a statutory employment is to comply strictly with the procedure laid down in the statute guiding the employment relationship, See OLANIYAN V. UNIVERSITY OF LAGOS (No 2) 1985 2NWLR Pt 9 599; SHITTA BEY V.FEDERAL PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION 1988 1 SC 41 @56

In the instant suit, having held that the claimant’s right to fair hearing was breached because the defendants did not follow the laid down procedure applicable by the statute, any orderly room trial conducted was void ab initio and whatever decision was taken thereon amounts to a nullity. The dismissal of the claimant from the Nigerian Prison Services by the defendant is hereby declared unlawful null and void. I so hold.

On issue two, whether or not the claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought. The reliefs will here be treated seriatim as follows;

Relief one is for a declaration that the purported dismissal of the Claimant from the services of the Nigerian Prisons Service was wrong in law, null and void and of no effect. I have held earlier in this judgment that the claimant was not given a fair hearing thence his dismissal is unlawful. This claim therefore succeeds. I so hold.

Relief two is for an order directing the Defendants to re-instate the Claimant to his position in the Nigerian Prisons Services before the wrongful dismissal with all necessary entitlements that would have accrued to him since his wrongful dismissal.

The position of the law is that where the dismissal of an employee in a statutory employment is declared unlawful, he is entitled to reinstatement.

See Ex CAPTAIN CHARLES C. EKEAGWU V. THE NIGERIAN ARMY & ANOR 2010 16 NWLR 49 where the court held as follows;

“I am however unmindful of the fact that where a plaintiff seeks the relief of reinstatement which relief is granted, the issue of measure of damages for wrongful termination/dismissal/retirement becomes irrelevant because upon reinstatement the plaintiff/party is entitled to be paid all his arrears of salaries/ emoluments including fringe benefits up to the point/ time of reinstatement and thereafter as and when due and payable”

Also in CBN &ANOR V. IGWILLO supra, Akintan JSC stated on the same issue as follows;

“Where an employee’ service is protected by statute and his employment is wrongfully terminated, he would be entitled to re-instatement in his office and in addition, damages representing his salaries during the period of the purported dismissal”

This relief therefore succeeds; the defendants are to reinstate the claimant to his rank in the Nigeria Prison Service with all his accrued salaries and entitlements to be paid to him from June, 2018 when his salary was stopped till he is finally reinstated. I so hold.

Relief three is for a perpetual injunction restraining the 4^th Defendant from denying the Claimant entrance to his office. It is the position of the law that once declaratory orders are made, the consequential orders flowing from such orders will follow. This court having ordered the reinstatement of the claimant, the grant of a perpetual injunction in this instance is merely academic. I so hold. See ENUGU STATE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION V. GEOFREY 2006 18 NWLR PT 1011 per Bada J.C.A

Claim four is for the sum OF N5,000,000.00 (FIVE MILLION NAIRA) as exemplary damages against the Defendants for the inconveniences and the embarrassment suffered by the Claimant as a result of his wrongful dismissal from the services of the Nigerian Prisons Services.

It is the position of the law that the measure of damages available to an employee in employment cases is the accrued rights and salaries under the contract of employment. See Ezeuduka v. ANMMCO &Ors [2016] N.L.L.R Part 225, Pg 123 NIC @ 142. Having awarded the Claimant his arrears of salaries and granted an order for the defendants to reinstate the Claimant, he is adequately compensated for his unlawful dismissal. I find no basis for the grant of Exemplary damages in this case. I so hold.

Finally, I find and hold that the Claimants case succeeds in part and for the avoidance of doubt I hereby order and declare as follows;

The dismissal of the Claimant from the services of the Nigerian Prison Service is unlawful, null and void.
The defendants are hereby ordered to reinstate the claimant to his last rank and position in the Nigerian Prison Service and pay all his accrued salaries and entitlements from June, 2018, till he is finally reinstated
Relief 4 fails.

I make no order as to cost.

Judgment is accordingly entered.

Hon. Justice A. A. Adewemimo

Judge