LawCare Nigeria

Nigeria Legal Information & Law Reports

National Industrial Court

Mrs. Talatu Esther Isah -VS- West Africa Examination Council

admin 0

IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE MINNA JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT MINNA

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HONOURABLE JUSTICE K. D. DAMULAK

ON THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019

 

SUIT NO. NICN/MN/03/2018

 

BETWEEN:

TALATU ESTHER ISAH                                    …………………………. CLAIMANT

AND

WEST AFRICAN EXAMINATION COUNCIL (WAEC)             ………. DEFENDANT

 

REPRESENTATIONS:

S.O. Ogbeche Esq. for the claimant

  1. G. Haruna Esq. with A. Y. Zubairu Esq. for the defendant.

 

JUDGMENT

1.0  INTRODUCTION

This judgment borders on claimant’s challenge of her dismissal. The case was commenced via a complaint dated 5/6/2018 and filed on 6/6/2018, together with a statement of facts, list of witnesses, witness statement on oath, list of documents to be relied upon and copies thereof.

The claimant seeks the following reliefs:

  1.  AN ORDER of Court declaring the allegation of examination malpractice against the Claimant as baseless, as well as null and void as same was brought in bad faith (mala fide) and also based on misrepresentation.
  2. AN ORDER of Court setting aside the proceedings and decision of the investigative panel that sat and decided the case of the Claimant for being unconstitutional, irregular and lacking competence.
  3. ORDER of Court quashing/setting aside the dismissal of the Claimant from the service of the Defendant.
  4.  AN ORDER of Court reinstating the Claimant back to her job with the Defendant.
  5. ORDER of Court that the Defendant pays the Claimant her full and complete salary from November, 2017, to the date of her reinstatement and compliance with the Orders of this Court, to wit;
  6. N831, 234. 00 (Eight Hundred and Thirty-One Thousand, Two Hundred and Thirty-Four Naira), as the specific and accumulated sum of the Claimant’s salary from November, 2017, to June, 2018 (that is, as at the time of filing this complaint).
  7. N110, 831. 20 plus all due allowances from July, 2018, to the date of the Judgment of this Court.
  8. 10 o/o interest after each month from the date of the Judgment and or Orders of this Honorable Court to the date of the Claimant’s reinstatement and or compliance by the Defendant with the Orders of this Court. 
  9. General damages in the sum of N5, 000, 000.00 (five Million Naira).
  10. N1, 000, 000. 00 (One Million Naira) as cost of Litigation.

The defendant filed a memorandum of appearance and a statement of defence in line with the Rules of this Court on 7/8/2018 and the claimant filed a reply on 20/3/2019.

  1. FACTS OF THE CASE

The claimant was employed by the defendant in 2011. Promoted in 2014 with salary increment and denied promotion in 2017 on the basis of defect in her WAEC result. She registered and sat for the 2018 WASSCE Exams and completed same on 23/9/2019. Weeks after the exams, on 18/10/2019, she was queried for exams malpractice and she answered the query. She faced a disciplinary panel, she was suspended on the 6th day of November, 2017, recalled on the 16th day of November, 2017 and dismissed on the 20th day of November, 2017. She has now sued the defendant, seeking to set aside the findings of the investigative panel as well as her dismissal and to reinstate her.

  1. CASE OF THE CLAIMANT

The claimant testified on 12/4/2019 as CW1 in line with the statement of facts as summarized below;

I am the Claimant in this case, a hitherto staff of the Defendant, Minna Branch Office, as Assistant Examination Officer II (ECSS 5/2). The Defendant in 2011 engaged my services. I was recommended in June, 2014 for promotion to the position of Assistant Officer II (CSD) and my salary upgraded to N110, 831. 20 per month, plus Nl44, 990.83 (that is 41% of N353, 636. 16 which is my current Annual Basic Salary), as annual medical allowance, plus another N35, 363. 616 as annual productivity allowance. The said promotion letter is dated the 1st day of June, 2014.

In the same 2014, I registered for and took the Nov/Dec WASSCE 2014, examinations. In 2017, I was due for another promotion but I was not promoted. I was told that I was not promoted because I was a Grade II Certificate holder. I decided to write to my employer forwarding the 2014 examination result. The Defendant wrote me a letter and required that I acquire certain grades in certain subjects. I accordingly registered again for the WASSCE for Private Candidates, 2017, as a Staff Examinee. In August 2017, I officially sought the permission of the Defendant to allow me go and sit for my examinations in September, 2011 and it was granted. I successfully rounded up my examinations on the 23rd day of September, 20l7 and returned fully to my duties at the Minna Branch Office of the Defendant.

On the 18th day of October, 2017, in Minna, Niger State, I was served a query letter from the Ag. Zonal Coordinator of the Defendant by my branch comptroller calling on me to explain within 24 hours why disciplinary action should not be taken against me for being caught with a Government Key Point. I was never at any point whatsoever involved in any form of examination malpractice.

During the examination, the staff supervisor had after a certain examination (may be Government) once said to me “the key point is in your bag”. On that day, I arrived the examination venue about 5-8 minutes late. I immediately dropped my hand bag on the table at the entrance of the hall, went in and took a vacant seat in the hall and was waiting for my examination materials. The said supervisor brought the examination materials but instead went and cleared the table we all dropped our bags on, placed the examination materials there and ordered me to go and take that seat. I complied. At the end of the examination for that day, the Supervisor said to me; “the key point is in your bag”. I had a key point I was studying before the examination and which I carried with me in my bag.

I articulated everything as stated above in my reply to the query and served same on the Defendant through the same channel the next day being 19th October, 2017. On that same 19th October, 2017, I was asked to be in Abuja the next day before 9am to face the panel investigating my case. I did, and it was a 3 (Three) man panel made up of Mr. Bobai, Mr. Victor and Mr. Sam.

At the Panel, I discovered that the said Supervisor has a malpractice report form with pages of a key point attached to it and a statement by the supervisor reads that I refused to sign the malpractice form. There were differences in the characters (font size) between my own key point and the attached pages of the key point alleged to have been used by me. The panel also found that all the pages of my own key point were intact. The topic on page 77 the supervisor attached did not correspond with mine.

On the 6th day of November, 2017, I was interdicted (suspended from work). On the 16th day of the same November, 2017, I was recalled from the said interdiction.

The Defendant dismissed me from her service on the 20th day of November, 2017. No examination malpractice form was ever issued or given to me let alone me filling or signing one in line with the Defendant’s guidelines on reporting examination malpractice. And as a result of the said Dismissal, I was paid only half salary for the month of November, 2017.

There are several other procedural irregularities apparent in the entire process that culminated in my dismissal, ranging from the composition of the body of panelist that sat and decided my fate, to lack of fair hearing, and non compliance with the Rules and procedures for disciplining an erring staff of the Defendant.

After my dismissal from the service of the Defendant, I made several applications to the Defendant to furnish me a copy of the record of proceedings of the panel that sat over and decided my fate in order to enable me appeal to the council ( a higher authority within the Defendant as laid down in the WAEC ACT) and also in pursuance of my right under the Freedom of Information Act 2011, but all to no avail.

The claimant tendered 12 documents in evidence and they were admitted and marked as exhibits TEI 1 to TEI 12.Reference will be made to any specific document as need arise.

Under cross examination, CW1 testified that she joined the defendant in 2011, was promoted in 2014 but was not promoted in 2017.There was allegation against her during the 2017 WAEC examinations that relates to malpractice. She was queried.

WITNESS ON SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM

One Iliya G. Maisuda, Defendant’s principal examination officer came on a subpoena duces tecum and tendered 5 documents which were admitted and marked as follows;

  1. Panel committee report dated 25/10/2017  – Exhibit FEIG 13.
  2. Transcribed oral presentation by Mrs. Smith A.S dated 20/10/2017 – Exhibit FEIG 14.
  3. Transcribed oral presentation by Yakubu Salihu dated 20/10/2017 – Exhibit FEIG 15.
  4. Query to Mrs. Smith A.S (Staff Supervisor) dated 23/10/2017. – Exhibit FEIG 16.
  5. Response to query by Smith A.S dated 23/10/2017.-Exhibit FEID 17.

WITNESSES ON DUCES TECUM AD TESTIFICANDUM

Three other witnesses were brought to Court by the claimant via subpoena duces tecum ad testificandum. They were Mr. Bobai N., Mr. Sani I.O, and Mr. Ogbebor O.V. who served as Chairman, secretary and member respective of the Pane that investigate the allegation of examinations malpractice against the claimant. Upon signing of the subpoena duces tecum ad testificandum by this Court, claimant counsel, on 7/5/2019 wrote letters to each of the witnesses titled NOTICE TO FILE AND SERVE YOUR WITNESS STATEMENT ON OATH BEFORE THIS HONORABLE COURT BEFORE FRIDAY THE 24TH DAY OF MAY, 2019 giving the witnesses three options in doing so, to wit;

  1. Prepare the witness statement through defendant counsel and file same.
  2. Prepare the witness statement through claimant counsel in the witnesses’ office and file same.
  3. Prepare the witness statement through claimant counsel in his office and file same.

The witnesses all deposed to their witness statements on oath and filed same on 20/5/2019, obviously through one of the options given by the claimant counsel.

CW2: SANI ISAKA OLORUNJEDA

On 30/5/2019, the claimant counsel had this witness put in the witness box and led him to adopt his witness statement on oath.

The evidence of this witness is as follows;

I am an employee of the Defendant and occupy the position of senior examinations Officer in Abuja Zonal Office of the Defendant. I depose to this Statement in compliance with Subpoena ad testificandum served on me in respect of this case. The Claimant was served a query letter dated 18th October, 2017 in respect of alleged involvement in Examination malpractice in the WASSCE for private candidate, 2017. The Claimant replied to the query issued to her on the 18th day of October, 2017. A 3 man Panel was set up to investigate the alleged involvement of some staff examinees, including the Claimant, of the Abuja Zone in Examination malpractice during the conduct of the WASSCE for private candidate, 2017. I served as Secretary of 3 Man Panel which investigated the alleged involvement of some staff examinees, including the claimant. The Panel Committee prepared its report at the end of the assignment and forwarded same to the appropriate authority. Upon the report of the investigative panel, the Claimant was interdicted with effect from 7th November, 2017.  The Panel Committee recommended that the Claimant be dismissed from the service of the Council and should have her Government result cancelled. The Claimant was dismissed from the service of the Defendant on the 20th day of November, 2017 by the management of the Defendant at its meeting held on 15th November, 2017 based on the report of the panel. Claimant’s dismissal was in accordance with the Conditions of Service for National Staff of the Council in Nigeria (2005 Edition), applicable to the Claimant.

After his testimony, the claimant counsel who led him in evidence applied to cross examine him under section 233 of the Evidence Act 2011 on the ground that the witness did not depose to facts relevant to properly guide this Court in the just determination of this matter. The defendant’s counsel objected. This Court upheld the objection and held that a witness cannot be declared hostile in the circumstance where counsel saw, read the witness deposition and still decided to let him adopt his witness statement.

CW3; BOBAY NATTY LAAH

On 27/6/2019, the claimant counsel had this witness put in the witness box and led him to adopt his witness statement on oath. This witness was the chairman of the investigative committee.

The evidence of this witness is the same as that of CW2 and need not be reproduced herein. Claimant counsel did not ask to cross examine this witness and he also applied to with draw and strike out the witness statement of Mr. Ogbobor O.V which application was granted.

  1. CASE OF THE DEFENDANT

One Mrs. Smith Abiola Saratu, a higher examination officer of the defendant, testified for the defendant on 27th June, 2019 as DW1 in line with the statement of defence as follows;

I served as Staff Supervisor at Staff examinee Center No 5029999 during the WASSCE for Private Candidate, 2017, at Gwagwalada Zonal Office of the Defendant. I caught the Claimant with Government key Point on her laps during the conduct of Government paper 2 on the 19th of September. 2017 while she was copying from the key point. The Claimant did not successfully round up her examination as she was alleged to be involved in examination malpractice which led to her dismissal from the service of the Defendant and resulted to this case. Claimant was served a query letter dated 18th October, 2017 in respect of alleged involvement in Examination malpractice. The Claimant replied to the query issued to her on the 18th day of October, 2017.

At no time during the examination in issue did I say to the Claimant “the key point is in your bag” or had anything to do with the Claimant’s bag as such bags are usually kept outside the examination hall. The key point in issue was found on the Claimant’s laps by me during conduct of Government paper 2 on the 19th day of September, 2017 while she was copying from the key point. Having found the Claimant with key point and copying from it, I completed examination malpractice form to that effect with pages of the key point attached to it and with a statement therein that the Claimant refused to sign the form as a true reflection of what happened. At the material time the Claimant was caught with the key point, it was  only myself that was in the examination hall with four (4) staff examinees including the Claimant. In order not to disrupt the examination I allowed the Claimant and other examinees, four in number, to finish the examination for the day while I made statement on the examination malpractice form regarding the Claimant’s refusal to sign the form and submitted to the management.

A 3 man panel was set up to investigate the alleged involvement of some staff examinees, including the Claimant, of the Abuja Zone in Examination malpractice during the conduct of the WASSCE for private candidate, 2017. The Claimant had and was afforded opportunity to cross-examine me and other witness during the Investigation Committee Panel’s sitting. Upon the report of the investigative panel, the Claimant was interdicted with effect from 7th November, 2017. There is no conventional period interdiction would last. The Defendant recalled the claimant from interdiction by its letter of 16th day of November, 2017. The Claimant was dismissed from the service of the Defendant on the 20th day of November, 2017 by the management of the Defendant at its meeting held on 15th November, 2017 based on the report of the panel which investigated her involvement in the alleged examination malpractice. The Claimant’s dismissal was in accordance with the Conditions of Service for National Staff of the Council in Nigeria (2005 Edition), applicable to the Claimant.

Testifying under cross examination, the DW1 said, among other things, at the material time when the examinations in question were going on, there were no staffs in the office of the Zonal coordinator. Salihu Yakubu testified before the investigative panel as a witness for WAEC. I did not submit the examinations malpractice form to any superior that day. I did not do so the next day. Initially we were called one after the other and later we were called together with the people I was accusing for answer and questions. The panel member asked questions. They asked the claimant if she had any question for me or if I had any question for her. I also testified during the 2nd session.

 

  1. DEFENDANT COUNSEL FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESS

The learned Haruna I.G Esq. of counsel for the defendant formulated a lone issue thus;

Whether the state of pleadings and evidence before the Court, the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought.

In his arguments, learned counsel submitted that the appointment of the Claimant with the Defendant was governed by the Defendant’s Conditions of Service and accordingly, the contract of employment which existed between the Claimant and the Defendant was an ordinary contract of master and servant. Where the contract of employment is mere master and servant relationship and the master has an unfettered right to terminate or even dismiss the servant from employment at any time and for any reason or for no reason at all, provided the terms of the contract of service between them are complied with. COMP. GEN., CUSTOMS V, GUSAU (2017) 18 NWLR (PT.1598)8 353: SC.; OFORISHE V, N.G.C. LTD (2018) 2 NWLR (PT. 1602) 15. SC. ; DUDUSOLA ‘V, N.G. CO. LTD (2013) 10 NWLR (PT.1363) 423, SC.

Counsel submitted that the claimant was dismissed by the Defendant because of her involvement in alleged examination malpractice as staff examinee. Chapter 10 paragraph 10.03 Exhibit SAS 5 (condition of service) provides as follows;

“Any staff examinee who is involved in any form of examination malpractice shall be dismissed from the service of the Council”

The CW2 and CW3 are Claimant’s witnesses. Their evidence is consistent and supports the Defendant’s case on pleaded material facts. It is the law that a party is bound by the evidence of his own witnesses. Simi1arly, where the evidence of a witness who is called by a party supports the case of the opponent, the evidence serves as a solemn admission in favour of the opponent. Accordingly, the Claimant is bound by the evidence of CW2 and CW3 and the evidence serves as admission of the material facts in favour of the Defendant. See· ABIDOYE V, F.R.N (2014) 5 NWLR (PT, 1399) 30 SC; IKENI V EFAMO (1996)5 NWLR (PT. 446) 65 CA.

Counsel submitted that in view of the undisputed facts and the Exhibits, the Defendant validly and effectively dismissed the Claimant from its services, having complied with the terms of the Conditions of Service (Exhibit SAS 5)·

Counsel submitted further that in this case, one Mr Iliya G. Maigida, a Principal Examination officer, a staff of the Defendant, on the 30th day of May, 2019 produced documents which were admitted in evidence and marked as Exhibits TEIG 13, TEIG 14, TEIG 15, TEIG 16 and TEIG 17. The Exhibits were produced and admitted in evidence at the instance of the Claimant. The Claimant’s pleadings and evidences are silent on the relevant aspect of her case that the. Exhibits relate to. Accordingly, we submit that Exhibits TEIG 13, TEIG 14, TEIG 15, TEIG 16 and TEIG 17 are not tied to any aspect of the claimant’s case, they were dumped on the Court. We urge the Court to discountenance the Exhibits.

Counsel also submitted that in law, facts deposed to in pleadings must be substantiated and proved by evidence, in the absence of which the averments are deemed abandoned. In this case, the Claimant filed reply to the Defendant’s statement of Defence. The reply is dated 15th day of October, 2018 and filed on 20th day of March, 2019. The Claimant did not file any statement on Oath or gave any additional evidence in support of the facts averred in the said reply. Accordingly we submit that the averments in the Claimant’s reply without supporting evidence are deemed abandoned, in the instant case, Claimant is deemed to have admitted the material averments in the Defendant’s Statement of Defence which the Reply relates to. See AREGBESOLA V. OYINLOLA (2011) 9 NWLR (PT.1253) 458 CA.

Counsel also submitted that the Claimant has failed to discharge the onus of proof placed on her to place before the Court the terms of contract of employment and to prove in what manner the terms were breached by the Defendant. The Claimant did not plead in her Statement of facts, the terms or Conditions of   Service nor adduced any evidence during trial on the Defendant’s noncompliance with the terms or Conditions of Service, in relation to her dismissal from service.

On fair hearing, Counsel also submitted that Claimant was given fair hearing before her dismissal by the Defendant from its services. In law, when an employer accuses an employee of misconduct by way of query and allows the employee answers the query before the employer takes a decision on the employee, that satisfied the requirement of fair hearing. See IMONIKHE V. UNITY BANK (2011) 12 NWLR (PT 1262) 624 SC.

  1. CLAIMANT COUNSEL FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESS

In his final written address, learned Ogbeche Solomon Esq. of counsel to the claimant formulated four issues for determination and argued them as follows;

ISSUE1; Whether from the available evidence before this honorable Court, there is any proof of examination malpractice against the Claimant?

On this issue, learned counsel submitted that from the available evidence before this honorable Court, there is no single proof of examination malpractice against the Claimant and as such there was no basis at all for the disciplinary action of dismissal meted out against the Claimant in the first place. There must be an offence in the form of a misconduct or serious  misconduct and which must also be proved against the erring staff before disciplinary action of any of the category can be invoked and meted out against such an erring staff/employee. In the instant case, the Claimant has not committed any offence while in the service of the Defendant and there is no evidence at all whatsoever before this Honorable Court showing that the Claimant was in breach any of its Laws/Rules or that she was guilty of any misconduct.

That the Claimant was never informed of any examination malpractice case or allegation against her until about a month after the conclusion of the examinations and what that simply means is that the Claimant was never involved in any examination malpractice in the first place.  DW 1 in exhibit TEIG 14 which is “The Transcribed Oral Presentation at Panel by Smith, A.S. DW 1, states,  “I picked the key points from the floor, tore four pages from it and kept the leftover in her bag”. The Court itself can see for itself there are actually eight (8) Pages (not four) of key point attached to exhibit SAS 3. Secondly, as stated above, DW 1 in one breath said she “… kept the left over in her bag”. In another breath, the same DW 1 in paragraph 15 of her Witness Statement on oath said  ”that at no time during the examination in issue, I said to the Claimant “the key Point is in your bag” or had anything to do with the claimant’s bag as such bags are usually kept  outside the examination hall”.

As a matter of fact, at page 6, item 6 ( titled “LOOPHOLES”) paragraph 1 of the said exhibit SAS 2, the panel members states that there was lack of viable witnesses to corroborate reports of the staff supervisors. These clearly show how dishonest, false, inconsistent and unreliable the testimonies of DW1 are.

ISSUE 2; Whether the Claimant was given fair hearing by the Defendant before she was dismissed from the Defendant’s service?

On this issue, learned claimant’s counsel submitted that Claimant was not given fair hearing by the Defendant before she was dismissed from the Defendant’s service contrary to the provisions of Section 36 (1) and (3) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. By the provisions of Chapter 10, paragraph 10.15 (a) and (c) of THE WEST AFRICAN EXAMINATI0NS COUNCIL CONDITIONS OF SERVICE FOR NATIONAL STAFF OF COUNCIL IN NIGERIA 2005 (Exhibit SA.S 5); ‘’If an employee is accused of any offence the following procedures SHALL be followed”;(a) The employee shall be notified in writing of his offence and he shall be given a full opportunity to defend himself. (c) If witnesses are called to give evidence the employee shall be entitled to be present and to put questions to them”. Firstly, it is on record that DW 1 under cross examination admitted to have testified privately before the investigative panel in the absence of the Claimant.  DW 1 did not testify in the presence of Claimant and the Claimant never had the opportunity of cross examining her accuser. Chapter 10, paragraph 10.15, sub paragraph(d)  of exhibit SAS 5 provides; “no documentary evidence shall be used against the employee unless he had been previously supplied with a copy thereof or given access thereto” . It is clear from Exhibit SAS 2 and all the other exhibits before this honorable Court that what DW l used to secure the indictment and dismissal of the Claimant when she (DW 1) testified before the investigative panel is exhibit “SAS 3” and the pages of the key point attached thereto. Neither the said exhibit “SAS 3” nor the pages of the key point so attached were furnished the Claimant prior to the panel sitting of 20th October, 2017, to enable the Claimant adequately prepare for her defense.

ISSUE 3; Whether the investigative panel that sat, tried, indicted and recommended the dismissal of the Claimant was competent? And if the answer is in the negative, whether any decision arising from the said panel can be valid?

Counsel submitted that the investigative panel that sat, tried, indicted and recommended the dismissal of the Claimant was not competent. And as such, no decision arising from the said panel can be valid. By provisions of Section 22 (1) and (2) of the WEST AFRICAN EXAMINATIONS COUNCILS ACT (CAP W4) LFN 2004 Provides that (1) Whether or not a prosecution is brought under section 20 or 21 of this Act, the Council may, within sixty days after the conclusion of an examination,  … constitute a committee to investigate the matter. (2) Every committee set up in pursuance of subsection (1) shall consist of – (a) a chairman who shall be a legal practitioner of not less than seven years standing; and (b) two other persons, each being a person with wide experience in educational matters.

CW3, Natty Laah Bobai, during Examination in Chief on Thursday the 27th day of June, 2019, said that he holds a Bachelor in Industrial Education (B. Sc.) In Industrial Education), meaning that he is not even a lawyer let alone having seven (7) years post call experience. Also, there is nothing on record to show that the remaining other two members of the panel have wide experience in educational matters in line with the above provisions. In the circumstance, since it has been abundantly shown that the panel that sat, deliberated and recommended the dismissal of the Claimant is not competent to sit and do what they did in the first place, there is no way any decision arising from the same incompetent panel can be valid in law. NEPA v. OSOSANYA & ORS. (2004) 1 S.C. (pt. 1) 159 at 169.

ISSUE 4; Whether from the answers to the Three (3) issues formulated above, visa-viz the available evidence before this honorable Court, the Claimant is not entitled to all the reliefs sought?

Submitting on this issue, learned claimant’s counsel said the Claimant is entitled to all the reliefs sought because the Claimant have placed sufficient materials both in fact and in law before this honorable Court to show that she is entitled to a1l the reliefs sought.

Responding to some issues argued by the defendant counsel claimant counsel submitted that the Defendant, West African Examinations Council, is a creation of statute/law. See Sections 1, 2,3 and 4 of the WAEC ACT (CAP W4) LFN 2004.  The conditions for appointment and termination of the contract between the parries is governed by an enabling statute. See exhibit SAS 5 (which was made pursuant to the WAEC ACT [CAP W4] LFN 2004, FEDERAL PUBLIC SERVICE RULES;· Sections 4 and 5 of the WAEC ACT. That the contractual relationship between the parties in the instant case is employment with statutory flavor.

That a subpoenaed witness is not any of the parties witness but that of the Court.  That the “Witnesses Statement on Oath” under reference was indeed not only prepared but was also filed by the same Defendant’s counsel on behalf of the Defendant, and not the Claimant or her counsel. That the claimant related the said exhibits TEIG 13, TEIG 14, TEIG 15. TEIG 16 and TEIG 17 to her case in  paragraphs 13,14 16, 17, 18, 19, 23, 25 and 26 of the claimant’s witness Statement on Oath.

That the Claimant filed the said “Reply” without an “Additional witness Statement on Oath 1, because by the provisions of Order 33 Rule 1 of the Rules of this Court 2017, it is not required. 2, because there is already sufficiently adequate evidence in the Claimant’s witness Statement on Oath to support some of the further averments contained in the said Reply, and3, the claimant counsel elicit further evidence in support of the said Reply and in proof of her entire case from DW1. That if the said Reply is discountenanced, it does not change even a single thing in the entire case.

That the claimant had established earlier on that the contract of employment that existed between her and the Defendant is with statutory flavor, she therefore need not plead any terms and conditions here as it is an elementary principle of law that laws are not usually pleaded before they can be relied on or invoked in a Court of Law in Nigeria.

  1. DEFENDANT COUNSEL REPLY ON POINT OF LAW

Replying on point of law, learned defendant’s counsel submitted that Order 33 Rule 1 of the Rules of this Court does not rule out the requirement of Additional Statement Oath by the claimant in support of her reply to the Defendants Statement of Defence.

On Sections 5 of WAEC Act 2004 and chapter 10 of exhibit SS5, counsel submitted that the Federal Republic of Nigeria Public Service Rules do not apply to the circumstances of this case, that by the provisions of Section 318 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), a staff of West African Examinations Council is not a Public officer to whom Public Service Rules applies.

On qualification of the panel members, counsel submitted that the provision of Section 22(1) and (2) of the West African Examinations council Act (cap. W4) LFN 2004 do not apply to the circumstances of this case. This case relates to internal discipline of staff examinee involved in examination malpractice. That the Committee that investigated the Claimant along with other staff examinees was not set up in pursuance of section 22 of the African Examinations Council Act but in pursuance of Staff Conditions of Service.

  1. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

The defendant counsel submitted a lone issue thus;

Whether the state of pleadings and evidence before the Court, the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought.

The claimant counsel submitted four issues thus;

  1. Whether from the available evidence before this honorable Court, there is any proof of examination malpractice against the Claimant?
  2. Whether the Claimant was given fair hearing by the Defendant before she was dismissed from the Defendant’s service?
  3. Whether the investigative panel that sat, tried, indicted and recommended the dismissal the Claimant was competent? And if the answer is in the negative, whether any decision arising from the said panel can be valid?

 

  1. Whether from the answers to the Three (3) issues formulated above , visa-viz the available evidence before this honorable Court, the Claimant is not entitled to all the reliefs sought?

The  lone issue formulated by defendant’s counsel and issue 4 by claimants counsel are the same and can dispose of all the questions raised in this case. The issue for determination accordingly is;

  1. Whether by law, the state of pleadings and evidence before the Court, the Claimant is entitled to any or all the reliefs sought.

 

  1. COURT DECISION

I have read the pleadings and evidence, both oral and documentary, as well as written submissions of both counsels and summarized same above before coming to the issue for determination. In considering the issue for determination, the court shall approach the issue based on the submissions of counsels by answering the following questions;

  1. Whether the claimant’s reply has been abandoned.
  2. Whether the employment of the claimant enjoys statutory flavor.
  3. Whether there is any proof of examination malpractice against the Claimant before the panel and whether she was granted fair hearing.
  4. Whether the decision of the said panel is valid?
  5. Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought.

 

  1. Whether the claimant’s reply has been abandoned.

The defendant’s counsel has contended that in this case, the Claimant filed a reply to the Defendant’s statement of defence dated 15th day of October, 2018 and filed on 20th day of March, 2019. The Claimant did not file any statement on Oath or gave any additional evidence in support of the facts averred in the said reply. Accordingly, the averments in the Claimant’s reply without supporting evidence are deemed abandoned.

This submission misses the point as Iliya G. Maisuda, a witness on subpoena duces tecum, CW2 and CW3 had no place testifying if not based on the said reply. The reply is not abandoned and the facts in the statement of defence are not deemed admitted. In any event, the facts in the statement of defence which are at variance with the statement of facts are only paragraphs 9, 12, 14, 17 and 20 of the statement of defence and I find them to be in response to paragraphs 16, 19 and 24 of the statement of facts so the claimant cannot be held to have admitted any averments by the defendant.

  1. Whether the employment of the claimant enjoys statutory flavor.

The claimant has asked for reinstatement and payment of her salaries and allowances from the date of her termination to the date of judgment. Whether or not an order for reinstatement and payment of salaries during the period of termination can be ordered depends on whether or not the employment of the claimant has statutory flavor. See DAVIDSON OBIANWUNA v. NATIONAL ELECTRIC POWER AUTHORITY (2016) LPELR-40935(CA); MR. KUNLE OSISANYA V. AFRIBANK NIGERIA PLC (2007) LPELR-2809(SC); (2007) 6 NWLR (Pt.1031) 565

The defendant’s counsel has contended that the employment of the claimant with the defendant is not covered with statutory flavor as it was regulated by exhibit SAS 5, defendant’s terms and condition of work. The claimant’s counsel argued the contrary relying on WAEC Act 2004 and arguing that the said exhibit SAS 5, defendant’s terms and condition of work, was made pursuant to the WAEC ACT 2004.

An   employment with statutory flavor was defined by the Court of Appeal in the case of N.E.P.A. v. EDEGBERO (2000) 14 NWLR (Pt.688)615; (2000) LPELR-6884(CA) relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in IMOLOAME V. WA.E.C. (1992) 11/12 SCNJ 121 at 135; (1992) 9 NWLR (Pt. 265) 303  thus;

 

What in effect is an employment with statutory flavour.
The Supreme Court had in the case of Imoloame v. WA.E.C. (1992) 11/12 SCNJ 121 at 135; (1992) 9 NWLR (Pt. 265) 303 defined it as:
“Where the contract of service is governed by the provisions of a 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”.:
In ADEDAYO SUNDAY JOSEPH & ORS v. KWARA STATE POLYTECHNIC & ORS(2013) LPELR-21398(CA),  the Court held;  
 

 

The law is settled that in determining disputes arising from the determination of contract of employment, the court must confine itself to the plain words and meaning of the terms of contract of service between the parties which provides for their right and obligations.
It is the relevant conditions stated in the employee’s letter of appointment and the staff Regulations and conditions of service that must be construed and nothing else. See Imoloame v. WAEC (1992) 9 NWLR (pt. 265) 303 at 317. 

The conditions for determination of the contract of employment are clearly set out in these Exhibits which the Appellants signed and accepted. There is nothing in these letters that suggests that the Appellants’ appointments enjoy statutory flavor. Learned counsel for the Appellants has forcefully argued that the Appellants’ employment by a statutory body enjoy appointments with statutory flavor. The Supreme Court in the case of Fakuade v. O.A.U.T.H (supra) paragraphs C – F which was cited and relied upon by the Respondents, the Apex Court did resolve that issue in the following words:-
“The fact that the Respondent is the creation of statute does not elevate all its employees to that status or that the status of master and servant is no longer existent or that their employment or determination of their appointment must necessarily have a statutory flavor…
In the instant case the contract between the parties is clear and unequivocal; Appellants have contracts of service with Respondent. The contract also contains the provisions for its determination.
The court must in construing the relationship of the parties confine itself to the plain words and meaning which can be derived from the rights and obligations provided thereunder.”
See Adegbite v. College of Medicine University of Lagos (1973) 5 SC 149, Nigerian Produce Marketing Board v. Adewunmi (1972) 1 All NLR (pt. 2) 433, Sule v. Nigerian Cotton Board (1985) 6 SC 62, (1985) 2 NWLR (pt. 9) 17.
Exhibits 5, 22 and 37 together with the Regulations Governing Conditions of Service for both Senior and Junior Staff and the Scheme of service for the Kwara State Polytechnic Ilorin Revised in 2007 which was admitted in evidence as Exhibit 6 have clearly provided for the mode of terminating the Appellants’ appointments. It is provided in Exhibits 5, 22 and 37, that the appointment of each of the Appellant is determinable by three months’ notice by any of the parties or payment of three months’ salary in lieu of notice. 

This legal point as canvassed in this case arose in the case of IMOLOAME v. WAEC (1992) 9 NWLR (pt. 265) 303 at 317. The trial High Court held that the employment of the plaintiff/appellant with the defendant respondent had statutory flavor, the Court of appeal held that it did not have statutory flavor and the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal. This is what the Supreme Court said;

Learned Counsel to the plaintiffs has argued that the provisions of ”EXH M’’ of the conditions of service of the defendant council made under and by virtue of section 4( 3) of the West African Examination Council Act 1973 enjoys the same status.

I do not think the contention is right. The protection enjoyed by the Professors in Olaniyan’ s case is derived from their appointment and the status created by the appointment which is governed by the provisions of the University of Lagos Act.

The instant case is clearly different. …the defendant council exercised power to dismiss in Exhibit M. It is not correct to argue that because Exhibit M was made pursuant to section 4(3) of the West African Examination Councils Act 1973. The tenure of all appointments which enjoy the condition of service are protected by statute.  This is clearly not the intention of the Act.

 Section 4(3) enables Council to determine the remuneration, tenure of office and conditions of service of the Registrar and other officers and servants of the Council. It appears obvious from the Act that there is no special statutory protection of the tenure of any staff of the defendant Council. Section 6 of the Act relied upon by learned Counsel to plaintiff only make applicable the Pensions Act. The question of discipline is left to the Council by section 5.

The facts of the instant case do not justify that the status be accorded to the plaintiff. The Court below was right to hold as it did that plaintiff’s appointment with the defendant Council does not enjoy statutory flavour. 

See also DR. S.A.O. ADEGOKE v. OSUN STATE COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
 (2010) LPELR-3601(CA)

The submissions in the case of IMOLUAME V WAEC supra are the same as in the instant case. The provisions of the WAEC Act, 2004 relevant to this case still remain the same as the WAEC Act, 1973.

All the terms of employment of the claimant are as contained in the condition of service, exhibit SAS 5 and not in the WEAC Act, 2004. The employment therefore is one of master/servant relationship.

This may sound harsh in today’s labour jurisprudence and may not stand if international best practice in industrial or labour relations under Section 19(d) of NICA 2006 and Section 254C(1) (a) (f), (g), (h) of the 1999 Constitution is applied but the claimant has not invoked any such practice and provision before the court and so the common law position must unfortunately apply.

I find and hold that the employment of the claimant with the defendant does not enjoy statutory flavour.

3.Whether there is any proof of examination malpractice against the Claimant before the panel and whether she was granted fair hearing.

The first prayer of the claimant is for AN ORDER of Court declaring the allegation of examination malpractice against the Claimant as baseless, as well as null and void as same was brought in bad faith (mala fide) and also based on misrepresentation.

In paragraphs 13, 14, 16, 19, 23, and 24 of the claim, claimant avers that –

  1. She completed her exams on 23/9/2017 and returned to her duty post.

The defendant avers that she did not complete the exams because she was alleged to be involved in examination malpractice.

The evidence before the court however is that the accusation of examination malpractice on 19/9/2019 was only reported on 17/10/2019 and brought to her notice on 18/10/2019 after the whole examinations ended on 4/10//2019. The version of claimant’s story is more probable, it is believed and taken as proven.

  1. On 18/10/2017, she was issued a query for examination malpractice. This has not been denied in any way but admitted.
  2. She was never at any time involved in examination malpractice. She dropped her hand bag on a table at the entrance of the hall where others dropped theirs and she went and took her seat. She had a key point she was studying before the examination and which she carried with her in her bag. DW1 cleared the table and asked her to move to that table. She can only remember the supervisor, DW1 saying to her, “the key point is in your bag”.

In response, the DW1 said at no time during the  examination in issue, I said to the Claimant “the key point is in your bag” or had anything to do with the Claimant’s bag as such bags are usually kept outside the examination hall. However, in exhibit TEID 14, her evidence before the disciplinary panel, she said, I picked the key points from the floor, tore four pages from it(she however submitted 8 pages in exhibit SAS3) and kept the left over in her bag.

This shows that she had something to do with claimant’s bag during the exams and having admitted keeping something in bag, it is much probable that she could have said to the claimant, “the key point is in your bag”. In the circumstance, the claimant’s story in paragraph16 appears more probable and reliable and is believed and taken as proven.

  1. The panel did a great job by calling for clarification of lots of grey areas in the said supervisor’s testimony like –
  2. the differences in the characters (font size) between the Claimant’s own key point and the attached pages of the key point alleged to have been used by the Claimant.
  3. The panel also found that all the pages of the Claimant’s own key point were intact.
  4. The topic on page 77 the supervisor attached did not correspond with that of the Claimant,
  5. and a whole lot of other inconsistencies were uncovered by the panel.

These particular and specific averments in paragraph 19 of the claim have not been denied by paragraph 12 of the statement of defence responding to same in line with the rules of pleadings and the defendant did not state its own side of the story. These averments therefore remain admitted. This is more so that the defendant was put on notice and also subpoenaed to produce the proceedings of the panel but failed to do so. The presumption that if it was produced, it would be  unfavourable of the defendant is hereby invoked against the defendant in line with section 149(e) of the evidence Act, 2011 which provides as follows;

  1.        Court may presume existence of certain facts.

The court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case, and in particular the court may presume –

 

(d)         that evidence which could be and is not produced would, if produced, be unfavourable to the person who withholds it;

 

 

  1. No examination malpractice form was ever given to the Claimant let alone filling and signing one by the Claimant in line with the Defendant’s guidelines for reporting examination malpractice.
  2. If she had refused to sign any examination malpractice form, there were many other staff on inspection and invigilators on duty who would have seen, heard or be aware of the case to testify. E.g(a). Abuja Zonal coordinator. (b) Assistant Registrar in charge of examinations and securities ( c) Staff who were not involved in the conduct of the examination and (d) Watchmen and Police personnel.

In spite of the denial by the defendant through DW1 and alleging that she filled an examination malpractice form for the claimant which she refused to sign and that there was no any other person in the hole besides herself and the staff examinee, there was contrary evidence before the panel. Salihu Yakubu, an eye witness and the only witness who was not a staff examinee, testified before the panel in exhibit TEIG 15 thus;

“During Government Paper, The supervisor (smith) picked something from Esther (staff examinee) table and put it inside Esther’s Bag and she did not fill malpractice form for her during the conduct of the exams.

 

In summary, the evidence before the panel was as follows;

  1. Claimant brought her key point and bag into the hall, claimed she dropped it on the table provided for them and denied using the key point.( Page 3 of exhibit TEIG 13, panel’s report)
  2.  DW1 picked the said key point from claimant’s table and put it inside claimant’s Bag, Exhibit TEIG 15.
  3.  DW1 did not fill malpractice form for claimant during the conduct of the exams, Exhibit TEIG 15.
  4.  The staff supervisor, (DW1 and accuser) allegedly caught the claimant on 19/9/2017, the examination ended on 4/10/2017 but she only reported the incidence to the zonal coordinator on 17/10/2017,(exhibit SAS 3) 2 weeks after the conduct of the examinations, ( Page 3 of exhibit TEIG 13, panel’s report) for which she was queried in exhibit TEIG 16 for submitting same “after the examination was concluded and malpractice reports had been forwarded to PED, Ogba, Lagos”.
  5. Based on claimants uncontradicted evidence, the panel also found as follows;
  6. There were differences in the characters (font size) between the Claimant’s own key point and the attached pages of the key point alleged to have been used by the Claimant.
  7. The panel also found that all the pages of the Claimant’s own key point were intact.
  8. The panel also found that the topic on page 77  the supervisor attached did not correspond with that of the Claimant.
  9. The staff supervisor, DW1, said in exhibit TEIG 14 that she tore 4 pages from claimant’s key point and returned the rest into her bag but she submitted 8 pages of government key point in exhibit SAS 3.

 

  1. The panel itself had this to say at page 6 of exhibit TEIG 13 paragraph 6 as follows;
  2. LOOPHOLES
  3. Lack of viable witnesses to corroborate reports of the staff supervisors.
  4. Inadequate evidence to confirm the allegation of candidates caught with mobile phones.
  5. The onus of proving the indicted staff examinees guilty rested heavily, and sometimes solely, on the staff supervisors due to the absence of an invigilator /inspector.

 

Going by the above facts, findings and report of the panel, it is left to be wondered, what persuaded the panel to find the claimant guilty for examination malpractice which attracts the highest punishment of dismissal.

I agree with the claimant’s counsel and hold that there is no proof of examination malpractice against the Claimant before the panel to warrant a recommendation of her dismissal. The conclusion and recommendation of the panel was perverse. The action of the examination supervisor, DW1 and the panel of investigation is outrageous malice and cruelty against the claimant.

The claimant alleged that she was not given fair hearing and she asked for an opportunity to cross examine her accuser, DW1, but she was not granted.

The submission of learned claimant counsel on this relying on the condition of service and the WAEC Act has been summarized above.

The defendant’s counsel submitted that claimants employment with the defendant is a master/servant relationship and in law, when an employer accuses an employee of misconduct by way of query and allows the employee answers the query before the employer takes a decision on the employee, that satisfied the requirement of fair hearing.

This is indeed the position of the law where the employer did not set up a panel of investigation not where the condition of service provides for a panel to be set up  and it was so set up, the defendant must observe the provisions for fair hearing once it decides to set up a panel of investigation.

I have considered  the evidence of both parties it is clear that the claimant was not given fair hearing.

  1. Whether the decision of the said panel is valid?

 

The claimant counsel contended that the committee was not properly constituted as required by section 22 of the WAEC Act. Section 22(2) of the Act provides thus;

(2)  Every committee set up in pursuance of subsection (1) of this section, shall consist of—

       (a)  a chairman who shall be a legal practitioner of not less than seven years standing; and

       (b)  two other persons, each being a person with wide experience in educational matters.

Learned defendant’s counsel submitted that the provision of Section 22(1) and (2) of the West African Examinations council Act (CAP. W4) LFN 2004 does not apply to the circumstances of this case. That the Committee that investigated the Claimant along with other staff examinees was not set up in pursuance of section 22 of the African Examinations Council Act 2004 but in pursuance of Staff Conditions of Service.

This submission of counsel is tantamount to saying that the defendant can jettison the Act where the Rules are at variance with the Act. I think the reverse is the case.

 

  1. Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought

Having found that the dismissal was wrongful and being that this is a master/servant relationship; and being the case that reinstatement cannot be ordered, the claimant is entitled to an order of remittal of the dismissal to termination.

This Court hereby remits the dismissal of the claimant to termination with effect from the date of dismissal. Consequently, the claimant is entitled to payment of any applicable terminal benefits in line with the contract of employment, and it is so ordered. See Section 14 of the National Industrial Court Act, 2006.

Having found that the employment of the claimant does not enjoy statutory flavor, under common law, she is entitled to damages which  is what the claimant would have earned during the period of notice of termination.

According to exhibit TEI1, the appointment may be terminated by one month’s notice or one month’s salary in lieu of notice. According to the claimant, because of the dismissal, she was only given half month salary for November, 2017. I hold that the claimant is entitled to the sum of N110, 831.20 as one month salary in lieu of notice.

However, ending the matter here will be mere judgment without justice. Labour jurisprudence has shifted away from the harshness of common law. In the situation of this case where the claimant was unjustly accused and unjustly dismissed, she is entitled to heavy or punitive damages. See KABO AIR LTD V. MOHAMMED (2014) LPELR-23614 (CA), (2015) 5 NWLR PT. 1451, PG.38 (CA) where the court held: “Punitive damages which are also referred to as exemplary damages are intended to punish and deter blame worthy conduct and thereby prevent the occurrence of the same act in the future. They are awarded whenever the conduct of the defendant is sufficiently outrageous to merit punishment as where, for instance, it discloses malice, fraud, cruelty, insolence or flagrant disregard of the law.

The malice and cruelty of the defendants staff leading to the dismissal of the claimant entitles the claimant to damages which the court hereby assesses in the sum of N5,000,000.00 (Five Million Naira) only.

  1. COURT ORDER

For the avoidance of doubt, the case of the claimant succeeds in part and the Court hereby declares and orders as follows;

  1. It is herby declared that the dismissal of the claimant was wrongful.
  2. It is herby ordered that the dismissal of the claimant is converted to termination from the date of dismissal.
  3. The defendant is hereby ordered to pay to the claimant the sum of N110, 831.20 (one hundred and ten thousand, eight hundred and thirty one naira twenty kobo) as one month salary in lieu of notice.
  4. The defendant is hereby ordered to pay damages of N5,000,000.00 (Five Million Naira) only to the claimant.
  5. The court hereby award cost of N200,000.00 (Two hundred thousand naira) only in favour of the claimant.
  6. The defendant is to pay all judgment sum and cost within 30 days of this judgment failure upon which the judgment sum and cost shall attract 10 % interest per annum until liquidated.

This is the judgment of the Court and it is entered accordingly.

 

…………………………………………….

HONOURABLE JUSTICE K.D.DAMULAK

PRESIDING JUDGE, NICN, MINNA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE MINNA JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT MINNA

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HONOURABLE JUSTICE K. D. DAMULAK

ON THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019

SUIT NO. NICN/MN/03/2018

 

BETWEEN:

TALATU ESTHER ISAH                                    …………………………. CLAIMANT

AND

WEST AFRICAN EXAMINATION COUNCIL (WAEC)             ………. DEFENDANT

 

JUDGMENT ORDER

WHEREAS claimant took out a complaint on the 25th of October, 2018 against the defendant seeking the following reliefs:

  1. AN ORDER of Court declaring the allegation of examination malpractice against the Claimant as baseless, as well as null and void as same was brought in bad faith (mala fide) and also based on misrepresentation.
  2. AN ORDER of Court setting aside the proceedings and decision of the investigative panel that sat and decided the case of the Claimant for being unconstitutional, irregular and lacking competence.
  3. ORDER of Court quashing/setting aside the dismissal of the Claimant from the service of the Defendant.
  4.  AN ORDER of Court reinstating the Claimant back to her job with the Defendant.
  5. ORDER of Court that the Defendant pays the Claimant her full and complete salary from November, 2017, to the date of her reinstatement and compliance with the Orders of this Court, to wit;
  6. N831, 234. 00 (Eight Hundred and Thirty-One Thousand, Two Hundred and Thirty-Four Naira), as the specific and accumulated sum of the Claimant’s salary from November, 2017, to June, 2018 (that is, as at the time of filing this complaint).
  7. N110, 831. 20 plus all due allowances from July, 2018, to the date of the Judgment of this Court.
  8. 10 o/o interest after each month from the date of the Judgment and or Orders of this Honorable Court to the date of the Claimant’s reinstatement and or compliance by the Defendant with the Orders of this Court. 
  9. General damages in the sum of N5, 000, 000.00 (five Million Naira).
  10. N1, 000, 000. 00 (One Million Naira) as cost of Litigation.

AND after hearing the evidence of both parties and the address of S.O. Ogbeche Esq. for the claimant and I. G. Haruna Esq. with A. Y. Zubairu Esq. for the defendant, it is held that the case of the claimant succeeds in partand it is hereby ordered as follows;

COURT ORDER

  1. It is herby declared that the dismissal of the claimant was wrongful.
  2. It is herby ordered that the dismissal of the claimant is converted to termination from the date of dismissal.
  3. The defendant is hereby ordered to pay to the claimant the sum of N110, 831.20 (one hundred and ten thousand, eight hundred and thirty one naira twenty kobo) as one month salary in lieu of notice.
  4. The defendant is hereby ordered to pay damages of N5,000,000.00 (Five Million Naira) only to the claimant.
  5. The court hereby awards cost of N200,000.00 (Two hundred thousand naira) only in favour of the claimant.
  6. The defendant is to pay all judgment sum and cost within 30 days of this judgment failure upon which the judgment sum and cost shall attract 10 % interest per annum until liquidated.

 

GIVEN UNDER THE SEAL OF THE COURT AND THE HAND

OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE,  HON.  JUSTICE K. D. DAMULAK

THIS 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019.

 

 

 

 

…………………………….                                    

HON. JUSTICE K. D. DAMULAK

JUDGE

 

admin

Website:

Related Story