Mr. Augustine Edem -VS- The Inspector General Of Police & 5 Ors

IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE CALABAR JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT CALABAR

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE M. N ESOWE

DATE: 4^TH FEBRUARY, 2020 SUIT NO: NICN/CA/83/2014

BETWEEN

MR AUGUSTINE EDEM …………………………………. CLAIMANT

AND

THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
THE ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

ZONE 6, POLICE HEADQUARTERS, CALABAR

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, AKWA IBOM STATE DEFENDANTS
THE NIGERIA POLICE COUNCIL
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION

AND MINISTER OF JUSTICE

THE POLICE SERVICE COMMISSION

REPRESENTATION

REBEKAH NKANTA Esq. for the Claimant

B.U UKO Esq. for the 5^th Defendant

JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

This suit which has a chequered history was first instituted at the Federal High Court. However, by an order of the presiding Judge, Honourable Justice I.I Ojukwu of the Federal High Court, Uyo Division, made on the 4^th of July, 2004, this matter was transferred to the National Industrial Court.

Thereafter, by a Complaint dated and filed 3^rd November, 2015, the Claimant seeks the following reliefs:

A DECLARATION that the suspension of the Claimant from office without pay with effect from 1/3/91 as contained in signal No: SH.6700/AIS/VOL.1/3 DTO: 121422/03/91 was unjust, irrational and unlawful in the circumstances and therefore the Defendants should rescind same as being unconstitutional, null and void and of no legal effect whatsoever

AN ORDER to the Defendants to withdraw the said notice of suspension accordingly and to reinstate the Claimant in his former position or the commensurate position he should have now attained if not for the said interdiction/suspension

iii. AN ORDER to the Defendants to restore the promotion rights, and pay all salaries, allowances and other entitlements due and payable to the Claimant with effect from 1/3/91 up to the date or period he is reinstated accordingly

AN ORDER of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants jointly and severally either by themselves, their agents, servants, privies or any person(s) howsoever acting for or on their behalf from further interdicting/suspending the Claimant in the manner complained about and or over the issues, circumstances or matter that shall have led to or given rise to the said interdiction/suspension of the Claimant

A DECLARATION that the query to the Claimant No: P.10863/ZPC.6/22 dated 25th July, 1991 issued and signed by one R.A Olowu, Deputy Commissioner of Police in the Directorate of Finance and Administration for the Assistant Inspector General of Police Zone 6, Calabar, or any such query that may have been so issued was in contravention of the Civil Service Rules, the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1979, the Police Act or any other rules or regulations in force in Nigeria for the discipline of police officers and therefore null and void and of no legal effect whatsoever

AN ORDER to the 2^nd Defendant to issue a corresponding letter of withdrawal of the said query of 25^th July, 1991 or any other that may have been so irregularly issued, same having been issued in contravention of the Civil Service Rules No: 04021 (1) quoted therein as well as the Police Act

vii. A DECLARATION that the 1^st Defendant’s letter No: P. 10863/SPOS^s/30 dated 11^th January, 1997 served on and or received by the Claimant’s Counsel on 26/2/97 as reply to the said Claimant’s Counsel letter of appeal of 3^rd April, 1996 against the wrongful suspension of the Claimant, cannot purport to operate as an effective dismissal letter of the Claimant from the Nigeria Police Force with effect from 7/9/93

viii. A DECLARATION that a dismissal of the Claimant by the 1^st Defendant whether by himself, his agents, assigns or representatives acting on his behalf in the circumstances of this case is wrongful, unconstitutional, null and void

A DECLARATION that the said 1^st Defendant’s letter No: P. 10863/SPDs/30 to the Claimant’s Counsel is liable to be set aside and nullified, same having come after Suit No: FHC/AK/M12/96 had commenced on 30/7/96 upon the facts only relating to the Claimant’s wrongful suspension

A DECLARATION that the Claimant should be reinstated into his formal rank with his promotional entitlements within the period of suspension and his full benefits accordingly paid to him as the case may be

AN ORDER of the Court setting aside 1^st Defendant’s letter of suspension, interdiction and dismissal to the Claimant respectively and accordingly reinstating the Claimant in the Nigerian Police Force

ALTERNATIVELY

The payment of N200,000,000.00 (Two Hundred Million Naira) or such reasonable damages by the Defendants jointly and severally to the Claimant for the wrongful dismissal of the Claimant, as the case may be.

SUMMARY OF FACTS

According to the Claimant, he was enlisted into the Nigeria Police Force in 1973. At the material time leading to this action, he had risen to the position of Deputy Superintendent and was Officer-in-charge of the Police Station at Ediene in Ikono Local Government Area of Akwa Ibom State. On the 26^th of January, 1991, a report of stealing of palm fruits was reported by one Chief Okon Udo Umoren, the village Head of Ikot Ayan-Ediene of Ikono Local Government Area, against some persons. In the course of investigation, the accused said they acted on the authority of a Court to harvest the palm fruits. When the two parties (that is the Complainant and the Accused) reported at the Police Station, one of the Accused showed the Claimant a copy of an injunctive order from the Customary Court whereas the Complainant showed the Claimant a copy of an injunctive order from the Magistrate Court, all touching on the farming/harvesting of the palm fruits in question. Claimant advised parties that since the Magistrate Court is superior to the Customary Court, the order of the Magistrate Court should be respected. This displeased the leader of the aggrieved party who was also member of the Customary Court. On the 1^st of March, 1991, the Leader of the aggrieved party came to the Police Station with some policemen whom, after searching his office, claimed they found N1000.00 (One Thousand Naira) which according to them, was the money corruptibly collected from the leader of the aggrieved party by the Claimant. Claimant was thereafter, on or about 13^th March, 1991, served with Signal No: SH.6700/AIS/VOL.1/3 from the office of the 3^rd Defendant purporting to interdict/suspend the Claimant. After the letter of suspension/interdiction, he was served with a query No: P.10863/ZPC.6/22 dated 25^th July, 1991 from the office of the 2^nd Defendant. Claimant replied the query. Furthermore, by a letter dated 8^th February, 1993, Claimant wrote to the 1^st Defendant appealing for the order of interdiction/suspension to be rescinded. All throughout the suspension/interdiction, Claimant was not paid any salary. Claimant also moved his lawyers, P. Anselem Eyo & Co to write the 1^st Defendant on the matter of his suspension/interdiction. While the matter was pending at the Court, a reply to Claimant’s lawyers’ letter was received. The said letter which was dated 11^th January, 1997 with the reference P.10863.SPOS/30, stated among other things that the Claimant had been since dismissed from the Nigeria Police Force.

The above circumstances have led to the nature of reliefs sought by the Claimant.

On the part of the 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd Defendants, they filed their Statement of Defence on the 17^th of January, 2016. In the said Statement of Defence, the 1^st – 3^rd Defendants, while denying the averments of the Claimant in paragraphs 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22 and 23 of Claimant’s Statement of Facts, stated that on about 26^th February, 1991, one Chief Okon Udo Umoren, the Village Head, reported a theft of palm fruits to the Claimant. At the same period, one Joe Akpan Uyanga also reported a case to the Claimant. The Claimant, rather than investigate the allegations demanded for bribe from the Complainants. When Joe Akpan refused to pay the bribe, Claimant threatened to turn the case against him and charge him to Court. Joe Akpan thereafter reported the conduct of the Claimant to the 2^nd Defendant. On the 1^st of March, 1991, Joe Akpan led a team of detectives from the office of the 2^nd Defendant to the Claimant’s station. The detectives were stationed at the counter when Joe Akpan went in and paid the bribe of N1000.00 (One Thousand Naira) demanded by the Claimant. Joe Akpan later came to the counter and let in the detectives into the office of the Claimant where he was searched and the money recovered. The Claimant was reported to the 2^nd Defendant and the 2^nd Defendant issued a query via a letter No: P.10863/ZPC.6/22, dated 25^th July, 1991 to the Claimant. Claimant replied to the query on 2^nd August, 1991. That Claimant was placed on interdiction/suspension before he was finally dismissed by the 6^th Defendant.

On the part of the 5^th Defendant, in their Statement of Defence dated 20^th February, 2017 and filed 22^nd February, 2017, Defendant while stating the general traverse in paragraph 1, went on to state in paragraphs 2 and 4 that she is in no position to admit or deny paragraphs 1, 7 – 25 of the Claimant’s Statement of Facts as same are facts within the knowledge of the Claimant and the 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd Defendants. In response to the reliefs sought by the Claimant, 5^th Defendant stated in paragraphs 5 and 6 of her Statement of Defence that the claim against the 5^th Defendant is frivolous and same should be dismissed against the 5^th Defendant.

The 4^th and 6^th Defendants never filed any process before this Honourable Court.

COMMENCEMENT OF HEARING

Hearing in this suit commenced on the 17^th of May, 2017 to which the Claimant testified as CW1, adopted his witness statement on oath, tendered documents admitted as Exhibits and was cross examined. Thereafter, Claimant closed their case on 28^th June, 2017.

After Claimant closed their case, there were several adjournments at the instance of the Defendants to enable them open their defence. Despite the fact that the Court repeatedly ordered hearing notice to be served on the Defendants at every adjourned date, they never appeared to open their defence. On 23^rd April, 2018, when this matter was called up and on the Defendants being absent as well as their Counsel, the Court made an order foreclosing the Defendants from opening their defence. Case was thereafter adjourned for filing, exchange and adoption of final written addresses.

CLAIMANT’S FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESS

In Claimant’s final written address dated and filed 14^th May, 2018, Learned Counsel to Claimant formulated a sole issue for determination:

Whether the Claimant was able to prove his claims against the Defendants and is therefore entitled to the reliefs sought

Learned Counsel to Claimant submitted that the Claimant has discharged the burden of proof laid on him by Section 131 – 134 of the Evidence Act 2011. He has been able to prove that his termination was wrongful. He referred Court to Bank of the North V. Oniyo (2002) 20 WRN Page 83 Ratio 7. Furthermore, the Defendants did not contest the allegations against them. This has minimized the standard of proof required by the Claimant. In Ifeta V. SPDC of Nig. Ltd (2006) All FWLR (Pt.314) Page 305 Ratio 1, the Supreme Court held:

Pleadings cannot constitute evidence and a Defendant as in the instant case, who does not give evidence in support of his pleadings or in challenge of the evidence of the Plaintiff, is deemed to have accepted and rested his case on the facts adduced by the Plaintiff not withstanding his general traverse.

It is the submission of the Claimant’s Counsel that the case of the Claimant is predicated on lack of fair hearing. That in A.S.N V. E.T.B (2001) WRN Page 123 Ratio B, it was held that the right to be heard before any action is taken against any person is so fundamental that it cannot be compromised.

Learned Counsel to Claimant concluded by saying that the Claimant has proved his case and therefore entitled to the reliefs sought.

5^TH DEFENDANT’S FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESS

In 5^th Defendant’s final written address dated 19^th June, 2018 and filed 21^st June, 2018, Learned Counsel on behalf of 5^th Defendant formulated two (2) issues for determination, that is:

Whether the Claimant has any reasonable cause of action against the 5^th Defendant who is a nominal party in this case, as per his Complaint dated 5^th November, 2015 and as per his Statement of Facts and particularly paragraph 26 (i – xi)

Whether in view of the overall evidence of the Claimant and that of the 5^th Defendant in this suit, the Claimant has proved his case against the 5^th Defendant.

ARGUMENTS

ON ISSUE 1: Whether the Claimant has any reasonable cause of action against the 5^th Defendant who is a nominal party in this case, as per his Complaint dated 5^th November, 2015 and as per his Statement of Facts and particularly paragraph 26 (i – xi)

Learned Counsel to 5^th Defendant submitted that from the Claimant’s Statement of Facts, the Claimant has not shown any circumstance or set of circumstances or a combination of facts that can entitle him to any positive decision against the 5^th Defendant. That as stated in Adenigba Afolayan V. Oba Joshua Ogunrinde & Ors (1990) 1 NWLR (Pt. 127) Pg. 394, a person against whom a Plaintiff has no cause of action need not be joined as a party.

Learned Counsel submitted further that in Ojukwu V. Yaradua (2009) Pt 1154 Pg. 50 @132, the Supreme Court, per Tabai JSC, held that when a Court comes to the conclusion that a Claimant has no cause of action against the Defendant, the Court should strike out the action against the Defendant.

ON ISSUE 2: Whether in view of the overall evidence of the Claimant and that of the 5^th Defendant in this suit, the Claimant has proved his case against the 5^th Defendant.

Learned Counsel to the 5^th Defendant submitted that the Claimant should prove his case through credible evidence and not rely on the weakness of the Defendant’s case even when the Defendant did not lead evidence. A Defendant is not duty bound to call evidence. He referred Court to Healthcare Product Nig. Ltd V. Bazza (2004) 3 NWLR (Pt 861) 582 @ 605, Para. H – D

Learned Counsel, in conclusion, urged the Court to dismiss this suit against the 5^th Defendant.

CLAIMANT’S REPLY ON POINT OF LAW TO 5^TH DEFENDANT’S FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESS.

On receipt of the 5^th Defendant’s final written address, Claimant filed a reply on point of law dated 25^th September, 2018 and filed same day.

On the 1^st issue formulated and addressed by the 5^th Defendant, Learned Counsel to Claimant contended that by virtue of the position of the 5^th Defendant as Attorney General of the Federation, he is a necessary party to whom in his absence, the case cannot be properly determined. That the 5^th Defendant is a necessary party whenever the executive action of the Federal Government or its agency, the Police Force as in this case, is being challenged.

Learned Counsel to Claimant submitted that in the circumstances of this case, the 5^th Defendant qualifies as a proper and necessary party. He referred Court to Ekpere V. Aforije (1972) All NLR Pg. 224 Ratio 1; Adisa V. Oyinwola (1999 – 2000) All NLR Pg. 453 Ratios 6 and 10;

On issue 2 formulated and addressed by the 5^th Defendant, Learned Counsel submitted that contrary to the position of the 5^th Defendant, the Claimant has proved his case to be entitled to the reliefs sought. That in Greif (V.L) Containers Plc V. O.P & Ind. Ltd (2015 All FWLR (Pt. 806) Page 247 Ratio 4, the Court held:

.. where there was evidence unchallenged, and which when placed in an imaginary scale, the pendulum swings in the direction of the Claimant, the issue will be resolved in the Claimant’s favour.

It is the submission of Learned Counsel to the Claimant that this action is undefended and as such, all the reliefs should be granted.

COURT

Having gone through the case of the Claimant, defence of the Defendants, evidence adduced at trial and the submissions of Counsel to the Claimant and Counsel to the 5^th Defendant, this Court has distilled a sole issue for determination, to wit:

Whether given the circumstances, the Claimant has proved his case to be entitled to the reliefs sought

The case of the Claimant herein is primarily on lack of fair hearing. According to the Claimant, on the allegation that he took a bribe of N1000.00 (One Thousand Naira) from one Joe Akpan Uyanga, he was suspended/interdicted before a query was served on him. The suspension/interdiction was without pay. Furthermore, his suspension which started in 1991 did not abate and on replying to the letter of his lawyers on this matter, he heard, for the first time, from the Defendants that he has since been dismissed. There is no document before me evidencing the alleged dismissal.

On fair hearing, the Court held in Olorutoba-Oju & 4Ors V. Abdul-Raheem & 3Ors (2009) 13 NWLR PT1157P.83where it was held @page103 as follows:

In order to justify the dismissal or termination of appointment of an employee, the employer must be in a position to prove to the Court’s satisfaction:

(a) That the allegation was disclosed to the employee

(b) That he was given a fair hearing

(c) That the employer believed that the employee committed
the offence after hearing witness

By the combined effect of the Public Service Rules and judicial authority, the procedure for fair hearing is as follows:

The accused is accused
He is given the opportunity to defend himself in person or through a legal practitioner.

iii. He is made to face his accuser or traducer, if any, and put questions across to this accuser or traducer to either substantiate or discredit the allegations against him

If found culpable, punishment is melted out and if not found guilty, he is left off the hook

For those who sit as judges or as quasi-judicial officers in any trial, the trite law is that they should be unbiased umpire. The test for being a biased or an unbiased umpire is seen from the reasonable man point of view.

From the facts of this case, what transpired is that Claimant was alleged to have taken bribe from one Mr. Akpan and subsequently, Claimant was suspended without given a fair hearing. What fair hearing would have entailed at that stage is that Claimant ought to have been given a query on the said allegation of bribery and if Defendants were not satisfied with his answer, they could proceed to suspend the Claimant to enable him step aside for proper investigation. They may also choose not to suspend the Claimant if they did not in any way feel that Claimant may be a clog in their investigation into the alleged crime. A suspension coming before a query is, to my mind, putting the cart before the horse, and I so hold. I must say that most of the botched criminal cases instituted by the Nigeria Police are as a result of lack of proper investigation before arrest and prosecution. The sequence ought to be investigation, arrest and then prosecution. However, for the Nigerian Police, the sequence is arrest, investigation and prosecution. It sometimes beats my imagination when a person is arrested and when you seek to bail the person, the Police will say they cannot release the person because investigation has not been concluded. If investigation had not been concluded, on what basis was the arrest in the first place. It is the same attitude that played out in the case of the Claimant herein in that instead of the Defendants to issue a query to the Claimant and if not satisfied place him on suspension pending investigation, they first placed him on suspension pending a query letter.

On suspension without pay, this Court wishes to state that suspension is not tantamount to termination or dismissal. A person placed on suspension is not out of his job. The trite law is that a person placed on suspension is entitled to half his salary during the period of suspension. If at the end he is found not guilty, the other half of his salary that was paid during the suspension is paid to him in full. Given this, the action of the Defendants in putting the Claimant on suspension without pay is reprehensive, condemnable, and I so hold. If an employee placed on suspension is not paid half his salary, it is like saying the mind of the employer is already made up on the fate of the employee. This should not be because it can never be that suspension is same thing as termination or dismissal.

On investigation ad infinitum, this Court wishes to state that investigation into an alleged offence may go on for years especially given the fact that there is no statute limiting the filing of criminal cases several years after the crime is committed. However, when there is a corresponding suspension pending investigation, there must be a time frame for such investigation because the longer such investigation takes the longer someone else’s job and means of livelihood suffers. Whenever a person is placed on suspension pending investigation, there must be a reasonable time to which investigation into the allegation leading to the suspension must start and end. A 1 month – 3 months suspension may be acceptable; a 3 month – 6 months suspension, though not acceptable may be reasonable given the circumstances. However, 6 months – 1 year suspension and still counting is not only unreasonable but unacceptable and I so hold. I have said it before and I will say it again – no man should use the instrument of suspension to terminate or dismiss an employee from his employment. Suspension from work is not dismissal or termination from work – they can never be the same because they are not. Whenever a suspension has foot-dragged from more than 6 months to one year and beyond, there is every tendency that the employer has used the suspension as termination or dismissal. When this is the case, there are always consequences. Such consequences attract huge damages in the realm of constructive dismissal and the Court will not hesitate to award same especially if the relationship of the Claimant and Defendant is a master-servant to which the Court cannot order reinstatement.

From the evidence adduced before me in this case, this Court finds and I so hold that the signal No: SH.6700/AIS/VOL.1/3 DTO: 121422/03/91 dated 3/1/91which purportedly placed the Claimant on suspension came before the query with Reference No: P.10863/ZPC.6/22 dated 25th July, 1991. From the sequence earlier analysed, this runs contrary to pre-trial procedure which ought to be query before investigation cum suspension.

Furthermore, from the evidence before me, there is no scintilla of evidence that the Claimant was dismissed from the services of the Nigerian Police Force at any time; no evidence that investigation was concluded and at the end of such investigation, there was orderly room trial or the Claimant; and/or that at the end of the orderly room trial, Claimant was found guilty and dismissed from the Police Force. Granted, the 1^st – 3^rd Defendants made a sweeping statement in their joint statement of defence that 2^nd Defendant issued a query via a letter No: P.10863/ZPC.6/22, dated 25^th July, 1991 to the Claimant; Claimant replied to the query on 2^nd August, 1991 and that Claimant was placed on interdiction/suspension before he was finally dismissed by the 6^th Defendant. The trite law is that pleadings is not tantamount to evidence. If the Court is to believe this, they must lead evidence of this in the manner outlined by the Court touching on trial of an accused person. Failure to lead evidence in support of this is fatal to their case, and I so hold. See generally IBWA Ltd V. ImanoNig Ltd (2001) FWLR (Pt.44) @444 Para A – B, where the Supreme Court held:

It is the law that pleadings cannot constitute and does not tantamount to evidence and a Defendant who does not give evidence in support of his pleadings or in challenge of the evidence of the Plaintiff ….is deemed to have accepted the facts in dispute as adduced in the evidence by the Plaintiff, notwithstanding the general traverse in his pleading.

See also the case M/V Gongola Hope V. Smurfit Cases Ltd (2007) All FWLR (388) 1005 1026, Para. D, Per Ogbuagu JSC where the Supreme Court held:

…….Where the evidence of a Plaintiff is unchallenged and uncontroverted and particularly where the opposite party on the other side had the opportunity to do so, it is always open to the trial Court seised of the matter to accept the act on such unchallenged and or uncontroverted evidence before it.

Given the facts and evidence adduced in this case, the conclusion the Court has come to is that there was never a time the Claimant was dismissed by the Defendants, and I so hold. Now having earlier held that the suspension of the Claimant was irregularly done, such suspension, for all intents and purposes, is liable to be set aside. Having also held that Claimant was at no time dismissed from the services of the Defendants, it therefore means that at all material time, Claimant is deemed in the eyes of the law to be in service and in employment of the Nigerian Police Force.

However, given the peculiarities of this case, it is not yet uhuru. This Court, as a labour Court, takes judicial notice of the fact that under the Public Service Rules, same being applicable to the Claimant herein, the retirement age is on attaining 60 years of age or on having put in 35 years of service, whichever comes first. From the face of the pleadings of the Claimant, it is evident that he was enlisted into the Nigerian Police force in 1973. From my calculation, by 2008, if not for the alleged suspension, he would have put in 35 years of service and retired accordingly. In this light, this Court as a Court of law, equity and justice cannot make any order beyond 2008 when the Claimant would have retired from active services.

In the circumstances, the Court can only commute the reliefs sought by the Claimant on reinstatement to retirement and I so hold.

On the position of the 5^th Defendant that this action does not disclose any reasonable cause of action against the 5^th Defendant, this Court wishes to state that I have painstakingly gone through the Statement of Facts of the Claimant and the reliefs sought thereat, there is nothing connecting the Office of the Attorney General (5^th Defendant) to the case of the Claimant. The Claimant in their reply submitted that the 5^th Defendant is a necessary and proper party. In all fairness to the Claimant, there is nothing in his pleading or reliefs capable of transforming the 5^th Defendant in this case to a proper and necessary party. At best, the 5^th Defendant is a nominal party whose presence in this case is nothing more than to ensure compliance if judgment is delivered against the other Defendants. The Claimant already has the Police Service Commission as a party and once judgment is delivered, once it is enforced against the Police Service Commission, it can be enforced against every other party, safe the 5^th Defendant, and I so hold. The Claimant herein, not having anything against the 5^th Defendant from the facts of this case cannot make the 5^thDefendant pay in any way for the food he never ordered for, and I so hold. As earlier stated, the 5^th Defendant is only a nominal party in this suit who can only see to it that the judgment of this Honourable Court is complied with but the judgment cannot be enforced against him, and I so hold.

From all that have been said above, the suit of the Claimant succeeds against the 1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd, 4^th and 6^th Defendants as follows:

CLAIM 1 Succeeds

CLAIM 2 Succeeds only to the extent that the Claimant’s long suspension having elapsed into his retirement, Defendants shall commute same to retirement and pay Claimant all his arrears of salary up till retirement.

CLAIM 3 Succeeds only to the extent that it is subsumed under Claim 2 above

CLAIM 4 Fails to the extent that it has already be overtaken by events

CLAIM 5 Succeeds

CLAIM 6 Fails to the extent that it has already be overtaken by events

CLAIM 7 Succeeds

CLAIM 8 Succeeds

CLAIM 9 Succeeds

CLAIM 10 Succeeds only to the extent that it is subsumed under Claim 2

CLAIM 11 Succeeds only to the extent that the purported suspension/interdiction and or dismissal of the Claimant is hereby ordered to be commuted to retirement

For the avoidance of doubt, the order/declaration(s) of the Court are as follows:

THE COURT HEREBY DECLARES that the suspension of the Claimant from office without pay with effect from 1/3/91 as contained in signal No: SH.6700/AIS/VOL.1/3 DTO: 121422/03/91 was unjust, irrational and unlawful in the circumstances and therefore the Defendants should rescind same as being unconstitutional, null and void and of no legal effect whatsoever

THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS the Defendants to commute Claimant’s long suspension to retirement and pay Claimant all his arrears of salary up till retirement.

THE COURT HEREBY DECLARES that the query to the Claimant No: P.10863/ZPC.6/22 dated 25th July, 1991 issued and signed by one R.A Olowu, Deputy Commissioner of Police in the Directorate of Finance and Administration for the Assistant Inspector General of Police Zone 6, Calabar, or any such query that may have been so issued was in contravention of the Civil Service Rules, the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1979, the Police Act or any other rules or regulations in force in Nigeria for the discipline of police officers and therefore null and void and of no legal effect whatsoever

THE COURT HEREBY DECLARESthat the 1^st Defendant’s letter No: P. 10863/SPOS^s/30 dated 11^th January, 1997 served on and or received by the Claimant’s Counsel on 26/2/97 as reply to the said Claimant’s Counsel letter of appeal of 3^rd April, 1996 against the wrongful suspension of the Claimant, cannot purport to operate as an effective dismissal letter of the Claimant from the Nigeria Police Force with effect from 7/9/93

THE COURT HEREBY DECLARESthat a dismissal of the Claimant by the 1^st Defendant whether by himself, his agents, assigns or representatives acting on his behalf in the circumstances of this case is wrongful, unconstitutional, null and void

THE COURT HEREBY DECLARESthat the said 1^st Defendant’s letter No: P. 10863/SPDs/30 to the Claimant’s Counsel is liable to be set aside and nullified, same having come after Suit No: FHC/AK/M12/96 had commenced on 30/7/96 upon the facts only relating to the Claimant’s wrongful suspension

THE COURT HEREBY MAKES AN ORDER setting aside 1^st Defendant’s letter of suspension, interdiction and any purported dismissal, howsoever and whatsoever of the Claimant by whomsoever, and same be commuted to retirement forthwith with full benefits.

Judgment entered accordingly.

…………………………………..

HON. JUSTICE M.N ESOWE

Presiding Judge