LawCare Nigeria

Nigeria Legal Information & Law Reports

National Industrial Court

Mr. Wasiu Ademola Adeniyi -VS- Broadcasting Corporation of Oyo

admin 0

IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE IBADAN JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT IBADAN

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HONOURABLE JUSTICE F. I. KOLA-OLALERE

 

Date: November  19, 2019  Suit No: NICN/IB/99/2014

Between:

Mr. Wasiu Ademola Adeniyi                     —————————————Claimant

And

Broadcasting Corporation of Oyo State        —————————————         Defendant

Representation:

Ayo Faleti for the Claimant;with him are Adebayo Oseni and A.A. Faleti.

BayoLawalwith M. O. Aderonmu for the Defendant.

 

COURT’S JUDGMENT

  1. On July 11, 2014 the claimant sued the defendant in this Court for the following reliefs:
  2. Declaration that the purported compulsory retirement/termination of the claimant’s employment from the Public Service of the Oyo State vide the defendant’s letter of 15thJuly, 2013 is wrongful, illegal and of no effect whatsoever.
  3. Declaration that the claimant is still a lawful employee and still in the service of the Public Service of Oyo State as the defendant’s Assistant Director of Programmes on Grade Level 14 (Step 11) notwithstanding the defendant’s letter of compulsory retirement from the Public Service of Oyo State vide the defendant’s letter of 15thJuly, 2013.

iii.         An Order of the Court restoring the claimant to his post and office as the Assistant Director of Programmes with the defendant on Grade Level 14 (Step 11) and to all his rights and privileges attaching thereto.

  1. An Order directing the defendant to pay to the claimant all his arrears of salary, allowances and other emoluments/entitlements due to the claimant as a level 14 (Step 11) from July 2013 till the date of reinstatement by the court and thereafter full salary, allowances and other entitlements due to the claimant as a Grade Level 14 (Step 11) with the defendant on monthly basis.

Other initiating processes were filed along with the complaint in line with the Rules of this Court. In response, the defendant entered appearance through her counsel and filed in compliance with the Rules of this Court, her statement of defense together with other processes.

  1. CLAIMANT’S CASE AS PLEADED

The case of the claimant is that he was a Broadcaster who joined the services of the defendant as a Temporary Producer II. He went on that after his appointment was regularized and confirmed, he rose through the ranks to the post of Assistant Director of Programmes and that in June 2007,he was deployed to the office of the Executive Governor of Oyo State as Assistant Director (Protocol) effective from June 15, 2007 till September 5, 2011 when he was re-deployed to the Defendant. He continued that subsequently, he was compulsorily retired from the public service of Oyo State through a letter signed by the Defendant’s CEO Mr. YanjuAdegbite; contrary to the provisions of Oyo State Civil Service Commission Regulation of 1978 as reproduced in Vol. VI of the Laws of Oyo State and also the Oyo State Public Service Rules.

  1. DEFENDANT’S CASE AS PLEADED

The case of the defendant on the other hand is that, after the claimant joined the services of the defendant and his appointment was regularized and confirmed, he was deployed to the office of the Executive Governor of Oyo State as Assistant Director (Protocol). That upon the re-deployment of the claimant to the Defendant, the Management of the defendant had introduced new innovations into the Broadcasting Industry and was fully convinced that the Claimant, who left the services of the defendant for over 4years would no longer be relevant, hence the claimant was not re-absorbed and was returned to the office of the Executive Governor of Oyo Stateand thereafter, the claimant was compulsorily retired from the public service of Oyo State through a letter from the office of the Head of Service.The BCOS – defendant’s Director of Finance and Supplies was advised to compute the claimant’s final entitlements.

During hearing of the case, the claimant testified as CW1and tendered 18 Exhibits,while the defendant called one witness; Mr. James OlugbengaAfolabi as (DW1), who also tender 3 Exhibits in evidence. In line with the Rules of this court, Counsel were directed to file their final written addresses and they complied.

  1. DEFENDANT’S WRITTEN ARGUMENTS

In his final written address, counsel to the defendant raised issues for determination this way:

  1. Whether the compulsory retirement of the Claimant is not justified even when his contract of employment enjoyed statutory flavour.
  2. Whether the Claimant ought not join the Attorney General of Oyo State as a necessary party in view of Exhibits C5, C6, C8, D2 and D3.

  1. Arguing the first issue; counsel referred the court to the Offer of Appointment dated 21/2/1992 admitted as Exhibit C1, the letter of temporary assumption of duty dated 29/10/1991 (Exhibit C2), the claimant’s regularization of temporary appointment letter dated 9th March, 1992 (Exhibit C2(a)), Confirmation of Appointment dated 24/06/1994 (Exhibit C3) and Section 24(2) of the Broadcasting Corporation of Oyo State Law Cap 19 Laws of Oyo State 2000. He submitted that Exhibit C1 is the bedrock of the agreement regulating the employment relationship between the parties in this suit. He also referred the court to paragraphs 10 and 11 of the Statement of Facts and paragraphs 10 and 11 of the Claimant’s Statement on Oath.

Counsel argued further that the Claimant breached the agreement he entered into with the defendant by leaving the Corporation for over 4 years between 2007 and 2011, contrary to Exhibit C1; citing Olojav. Governor of Benue State [2016] 3 NWLR (Pt. 1499) 217 at 224 particularly at 242 – 243. He continued that during the trial, the claimant also admitted during cross examination that he left the public service of the Defendant in 2007 to take a civil service position of Assistant Director of Protocol in the office of the Executive Governor of Oyo State. To counsel, this is an admission that he left his position vacant with the defendant. He went that DW1(Mr. James OlugbengaAfolabi) gave evidence that in 2011 when the claimant was redeployed back to the defendant, the claimant was rejected by the defendant’s Management because his services was no more needed at the Corporation.

  1. Counsel contended that the provisions of the Oyo State Civil Service Commission Regulation 1978 (Exhibit C9) is not applicable to the case of the claimant since the cause of the action is against the defendant, in view of Section 27(1) of the Broadcasting Corporation of Oyo State Cap 19 Laws of Oyo State 2000, which gives the defendant the power of retrenchment or compulsory retirement of any staff whose services is no longer needed; relying on the cases of  Kannikev. Fayomi [2005] 9 W.R.N 179 at 184 particularly at 205; Jeremiah v. Ziregbe[1996] 2 NWLR (Pt. 460) 346 at 356 andNNPC v. Evwori [2007] 9 WRN 160 at 168 – 169 particularly at 178.

  1. Arguing issue two of whether the claimant ought not to have joined the Attorney General of Oyo State as a defendant in this case, counsel submitted that failure of the claimant to join the Oyo State Government or the Attorney-General of Oyo State in this suit is fundamental and that the cause of action is liable to be defeated; because, Exhibits C5 and C6 on the Claimant’s deployment from the defendant, originated from the office of the Executive Governor of Oyo State. He referred the court to the case of Hassan v. Ajanyi [2003] 21 WRN 107 at 114 particularly at 131-132. He urged the Court to so hold.

  1. CLAIMANT’S WRITTEN ARGUMENTS

In the claimant’s final written address, his counsel submitted by way of preliminary point that Mr. James OlugbengaAfolabi was not the witness listed by the Defendant’s Counsel as witness to the Defendant and that no leave of court was obtained in line with the provision of Order 37 Rule 17(2) of the Rules of this Court before bringing D.W.1 to testify for the defendant. Counsel contended that the implication of this is that the defendant did not call any witness in this case and that where there is no evidence in support of a party’s pleadings, such pleadings are deemed abandoned. He urged the court to so hold. To counsel, the Rules of Court are not mere rules but that they are in the form of subsidiary legislation and so, they are bound to be obeyed by the parties; citing Hajaigv. Hajaig[2013] All FWLR (Pt. 679) 1047;Orakine v. Chukwumeka[2012] All FWLR (Pt. 612) 689; Ape v. Olomo[2013] All FWLR (Pt. 668) 895 and Oyegun v. Nzeribe[2010] All FWLR (Pt. 516) 425.

  1. Then, counsel further formulated a sole issue for the determination of the court as:

Whether the compulsory retirement of the Claimant by the Defendant vides letter of 15th July, 2013; Exhibits D2 and D3 was valid/proper and not in violation of the Claimant’s condition of service.

Arguing the said issue, counsel submitted that reliefs I & II on the General Form of Complaint with which this action was commenced as well as paragraphs 35(i) & (ii) of the Claimant’s Statement of Fact; both dated July 11, 2014 contained declaratory reliefs and that by this reason thereof, the claimant can only succeed on the strength of his evidence and not on any perceived weakness in the case of the defendant. He referred the court to the cases of Congress for Progressive Change v. INEC [2012] All FWLR (Pt. 617) pg. 605; Nwokidu v. Okanu [2010] All FWLR (Pt. 522) 1633; Dada v. Dosumu [2006] All FWLR (Pt. 343) 1605 and Anukamv. Anukam [2008] All FWLR (Pt. 413) 1255. To counsel, the Claimant has discharged the burden placed upon him by law; as he has supplied sufficient evidence to prove that he is entitled to the declaration and urged the Court to so hold.

  1. Not only that, counsel maintained that the claimant has also proved that he is entitled to the two reliefs 3 & 4as prayed as they are consequentialand that they flowfrom the two declaratory reliefs 1 & 2 of his claim. He argued that the law is settled that where a claim or relief flows from a declaratory relief sought and the declaratory relief is granted;then the consequential reliefs, which derivetheir lives from the declaratory reliefs, must also be granted.

Counsel continued that it is an established principle of law that where an employee complains that his employment has been wrongfully terminated or that he was wrongfully dismissed, such an employee has the burden of placing before the court, not only the terms and conditions of his employment but must also show the manner in which the terms were breached by the employer. He referred to the cases of Ogundipe v. Nig. Telecoms Ltd [2016] All FWLR (Pt. 817) 613;Katto v. CBN [1999] 5 S.C. (Pt. II) 21;Morounfola v. Kwara State College of Tech [1990] 4 NWLR (Pt. 145) 306;Okoebor v. Police Council [2003] 5 S.C. (Pt. II) at 341; Psychiatric Hospital Management Board v. Eyitaga[2000] 6 S.C. (Pt. II) 1;Power Holding Co. Ltd v. Offoello[2013] All FWLR (pt 664) 1 andOdomboye v. NNPC [2003] 1 SC (Pt.I) 40.

  1. To counsel, in paragraphs 19, 27 and 28 of the Statement of fact and in paragraphs 20, 28 and 29 of his Statement on Oath, the Claimant pleaded uncontrovertibly that the Oyo State Civil Service Commission Regulation (Exhibit C.9) and the Oyo State Public Service Rules (Exhibit C.10) govern his employment. He went on that there is no evidence before the court to contradict or controvert this fact from the Claimantand that where a party pleads a fact and the other who has the opportunity to controvert the fact fails and/or neglect to do so, such a fact is no longer in issue and the alleging party is relieved of the burden of proof; citingNwarata v. Egboka[2006] All FWLR (Pt. 338) 768 at 7772  that even though the Defendant in paragraph 19 of its statement of defence made a general denial of paragraphs 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30 of the  Statement of Fact;it is trite that such general denial is not sufficient to show or prove that the Claimant’s employment is not regulated by the Oyo State Civil Service Regulation and the Oyo State Public Service Rules, which the Claimant specifically pleaded, as regulating his employment with the defendants and supported same with Exhibits C.9 and C.10. As it is legally now,a defendant must sufficiently and conclusively deny and traverse averments contained in the statement of claims/facts; citing UITHMB v. Ajide[2006] All FWLR (Pt. 326) 282 at 304 (paragraphs F-G).

  1. Counsel went on that the Claimant’s employment enjoys statutory flavour in view of the un-contradicted facts that the said employment is governed by Oyo State Civil Service Regulations and Public Service Rules of Oyo State.To counsel; therefore, the termination of the claimant’s employment must be in the way and manner prescribed in Exhibits C.9 and C.10 and that any other manner of termination, inconsistent with the provisions of Oyo State Public Service Rules and Oyo State Civil Service Regulations is null and void and of no effect whatsoever; relying onFederal Medical Centre, Ido-Ekiti v. Kolawole[2012] All FWLR (Pt. 653) 1999 at 2011;Alhassan v. ABU Zaria[2010] All FWLR (Pt. 538) 962 at 992 andIderima v. Rivers State Civil Service Commission [2005] All FWLR (Pt. 285) 431.
  2. Furthermore, counsel referred the Court to Rule 020810 (i) of the Public Service Rules of Oyo State (Exhibit C.10)and contended that the claimant was only sent on special duty to the office of the Executive Governor of Oyo State vide Exhibit C.5 while he was redeployed back to the defendant; his place of primary, duty vide Exhibit C.6; nevertheless,the claimant was turned down by the C.E.O. of the defendant. Counsel contended again that there is no evidence before the Court that the defendant followed the procedure laid down in Section 35(a) of (Part 6) of the Civil Service Commission Regulations of Oyo State (Exhibit C.9) before terminating the claimant’s employment prematurely, citingAlhassan v. ABU Zaria [2010] All FWLR (Pt. 538) 962 at 1002-1003; PHCN v. Offoelo[2003] All FWLR (Pt. 664) 1 at 34 – 35 andPsychiatric Hospital Management Board v. E.O Ejitagha[2000] FWLR (Pt. 9) 1510.In addition, counsel argued thatthe preparation of any final entitlement of the claimant will not absolve or avail the defendant of its wrongful act. Even where the claimant has collected the final entitlements; that also will not stop the claimant from seeking redress in Court for the wrongful termination of his employment, citing Adeniyi v. Governor Council of Yaba College Technology (1993) 6 NWLR (Pt. 300) 426 andPHCN v. Offoelo[2003]All FWLR (Pt. 664) 1 Per Peter-Odili JSC’s holding at 34 – 35.

  1. On reliefs 3 and 4 of the claimant, counsel submitted that they are necessary and consequential orders required in the circumstances of this case.He maintained that the claimant is not asking for reinstatement; and so,he is entitled to payment of his salary for the period he was prematurely sent out of work by compulsory retirement; since the said retirementis deemed not to have occurred at all in the first place. He referred the Court to the cases ofEferakorho v. Delta State Judicial Service Comm. [2015] All FWLR (Pt. 779) 1184 at 1204-1205; Kwara State Civil Service Comm. v. Abiodun[2009] All FWLR (Pt. 493) 1315 at 1357 and Federal Medical Center Ido-Ekiti v. Kolawole[2012] All FWLR (Pt. 653) 1999 at 2014. Finally, counsel urged the Court to grant Reliefs 3 and 4 of the Claimant.

 

  1. Counsel to the defendant filed Reply on point of law and in respect of the preliminary issue of the claimant’s counsel that the defendant did not seek for leave of the Court before substituting its witness; he submitted that by provision of Order 5 Rules (1), (2) (i) and (6)(iii) of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017; the Court has the discretionary power to treat the its error of filing additional list of witnesses and of calling Mr. James OlughengaAfolabi as its witness without seeking the leave of the court as a mere irregularity that can be excused in the interest of substantial justice, citingM & B Electrical Company Ltd v. the Government of Cross Rivers State & 2 others [2005] 6 WRN 71 at 81 andUTC (Nig.) Ltd v. Pamotei [1989] 2 NWLR (Pt. 103) 244 at 296. He contended that the claimant has even waived his right to challenge the error because he has taken steps after realizing the error before challenging it.To counsel, the claimant cannot challenge the error at this stage and urged the Court to so hold.

Responding to the main arguments of the claimant, counsel to the defendant went on to reargue his case and so, this part of the defendant’s reply on points of law is accordingly discountenanced because it is contrary to law.

  1. COURT’S DECISION

I have gone through the facts of this case and the written arguments of the parties as presented by their counsel. From all of this, I am of the considered view that the following issues need to be resolved between the parties by the Court:

  1. Whether or not the Claimant ought to join the Attorney-General of Oyo State as a necessary party in view of Documents C.5, C.6, C.8, D.2 and D.3.
  2. Whether or not the compulsory retirement of the Claimant is justified.

17.However, before going to the merit of this case, let me resolve the preliminary issue raised by the claimant’s counsel in respect of the status of the defendant’s evidence before the Court. It paragraphs 4.0 to 4.6 of the claimant’s final written address at page 255 of the record, his counsel submitted that the defendant’s witness, Mr. James OlugbengaAfolabi was not the one listed as the Defendant’s witness in its defence processes and that no Leave of Court was obtained before putting him in as its witness in line with the provision of Order 37 Rule 17(2) of the Rules of this Court. To counsel, the implication of this is that the Defendant did not call any witness in this case and that where there is no evidence in support of a party’s pleadings such pleadings is deemed abandoned. He urged the court to so hold as the Rules of Court are meant to be obeyedsince they are in the form of subsidiary legislation and are bindingon the parties.

Responding to the above, counsel to the defendant in paragraphs 2.04 to 2.08 of his Reply on Point of Law relied on Order 5 Rules (1), (2) and (6) (3) of the Rules of this Court and submitted that this court has the discretionary powers to treat the mentioned error of the defendant as a mere irregularity. More so, that the claimant has waived his right of challenging same by taking steps to act on the error after noticing it and so, the claimant cannot raise the issue at this stage of the proceedings; he urged the Court to so hold.

  1. With the defendant’s line of arguments on this issue, it shows that counsel agreed that he made this error. I also agree with the claimant’s counsel that the defendant made a serious error by not obtaining the leave of Court before putting his additional witness in evidence, because the act was contrary to the Rules of this Court,which are meant to be obeyed by litigants.However, in view of the provisions of Order 5of the NICN (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017; I am inclined to treat the error as an irregularity and I am further inclined to excuse the irregularity in the interest of doing substantial justice in this case, more so that there is no known miscarriage of justice on the claimant as a result of the error. In the circumstance, I hold that the error of the defendant of not obtaining the leave of Court before putting D.W.1, Mr. James OlughengaAfolabi in evidence does not vitiate the Corporation’s defence as the non-compliance with the Court’s Rulesis hereby excused by this Court so as to ensure that substantial justice is done in this case.
  2. Whether the Attorney General of Oyo State Is A Necessary Party In This Case

The point in issue here is whether the Attorney General of Oyo State is a necessary party in this case; in view of the content of Documents C.5, C.6, C.8, D.2 and D.3. Document C.5 is the letter of Deployment of the claimant from the Corporation/defendant to the office of the Executive Governor of Oyo State and it is signed for the Deputy Governor. It is with Ref No: SP/C.205/3/ Vol. IX/5 and dated June 15, 2007; see page 29 of the record.Document C.6 is the letter titled:‘Re: Deployment of the claimant back to the Corporation’. It is with Ref. No: HS.389/Vol.11/40 dated September 16, 2011 and signed for the Head of Service, seepage 30 of the record. Document C.8 is the Letter of Compulsory Retirement of the claimant from the Public Service of Oyo State, signed by the CEO of the Corporation.It is with Ref No: SPF. 518/360 and dated July 15, 2013; see page 32 of the record. Document D.2 is the letter of Oyo State Government to the CEO of the Corporation, directing the defendant to inform the claimant that he has been compulsorily retired; it is signed for the Head of Service. It is with Ref No: HS.526/18 dated July15, 2013; seepage 189 of the record. Document D.3 is the defendant’s copy of Document C.8; the claimant’s Letter of Compulsory Retirement from the Public Service of Oyo State with Ref No: SPF.518/360 of July 15, 2013;see page 190 of the record. In my firm view, it is the authors of these documents that informed the defendant’s contention that the Attorney-General of Oyo State is a necessary party in this case.

  1. In the circumstances, it is apt to give a brief history of this case. On September 6, 2013 the claimant filed a Complaint at NICN Ibadan Division against the following four defendants: a. Oyo State Government, b. Attorney-General of Oyo State, c. Mr. YanjuAdegbite and d. the Broadcasting Corporation of Oyo State; that case is with Suit No: NICN/IB/83/2013. By his amended statement of facts in that case, the claimant sought for same reliefs as the ones in the instant case against those defendants. Then, the Corporation raised Preliminary Objection that the suit was filed againstit prematurely as the claimant did not give the Corporation pre-action notice. The claimant’s counsel conceded and applied to withdraw that case against the Corporation; hence, the Corporation’s name was struck out as a party in that case.Judgment was eventually delivered on that case on June 13, 2018 in Ibadan. After giving the required notice to the Corporation, the claimant instituted this instant actionwith Suit No: NICN/IB/99/2014 against the Corporation separately.

  1. The claimant again made another attempt to consolidate this instant case with the earlier onewith Suit No: NICN/IB/83/2013 but this Court refused that application by a considered Ruling delivered on December 15, 2015 on the case.In this peculiar situation, can we now say that the non-joinder of the Attorney-General of Oyo State to this suit is fatal? Counsel to defendant answered this question in the affirmative while the claimant’s counsel answered it in the negative.

 

The fact that the Attorney-General of Oyo State was a party in the case with Suit No: NICN/IB/83/2013, which the claimant instituted based on the same facts and on which the Court has delivered its judgmentmeans that, it would have been an abuse of Court’s process if the Attorney-General of Oyo State is also a party in this case and I so find. This is because; the Court can effectually and completely adjudicate on and settle all the questions involved in this case without the said Attorney General.Consequently, I hold that the Attorney-General of Oyo State is not a necessary party in this case.

  1. OnWhether The Compulsory Retirement of The Claimant Is Justified

In paragraphs 4.06 to 4.22 of his written address, counsel to the defendant contended that the employer of the claimant was the defendant and so, it is the Oyo State Broadcasting Corporation Law that is applicable to this case. He argued further that when the claimant was seconded to the office of Executive Governor, the claimant left his service with the defendant, which was a public service employment to pick up the civil service employment. To the defendant’s counsel, the claimant cannot come back to the defendant and he urged the Court to so hold.

Issues of the nature of the claimant’s employment, his employer and the legal status of his compulsory retirement were all settled in the Judgment of this Court, delivered on June 13, 2018 in the above referred unreported case with Suit No: NICN/IB/83/2013 between the claimant in the instant case, WasiuAdemolaAdeniyi v. a. Oyo State Government, b. Attorney-General of Oyo State and c. Mr. YanjuAdegbite. A certified copy of this judgment is at page 295 to page 310 of the record.

  1. At page 11 paragraph two of the said judgment at 305 of the record; the court held thus:

In the instant case, the claimant started and continued his working career with the Broadcasting Corporation of Oyo State for a major part of the period of service. See the contents of Documents C.1 to C. 4 (v), C.7 and C.8 before the Court. However, none of the defendants contested the fact that the claimant was a Public Officer in Oyo State, which in my firm view was the reason why the claimant was deployed from the Broadcasting Corporation to the office of the Oyo State Executive Governor as Assistant Director (Protocol) in June 2007 in the first place. See also the contents of Document C.5 at page 27 of the record and the claimant’s letter of re-deployment in September 2011 in Document C.6 at page 28 of the record. Unlike when the claimant started his working career purely with the Corporation; he later became a public servant with the Oyo State Government (the 1st defendant) under, which the Broadcasting Corporation is now a Parastatal and I so find and hold. I further hold that been a Public Officer/Servant in Oyo State, the employer of the claimant from then on was the Oyo State Government and not merely the Broadcasting Corporation.—.

  1. Also, in paragraph two of page 12 of the same judgment, this Court held that because the claimant was a Public Officer in Oyo State,the provisions ofthe Civil Service Commission Regulations of Oyo State and the Oyo State Government Public Service Rules of 2013 are applicable to that case.

Again in paragraphs three and four of page 14 of that judgment, this Court held thus on the legal status of the compulsory retirement of the claimant:

For a Public Servant in Oyo State to be compulsorily retired from Public Service of the State, he shall be 60years old or that he has put in 35years of pensionable service; whichever is earlier. Apparently, neither of these ages is applicable to the claimant in the instant case; as there is no pleading on this neither is there any evidence before the Court that at the time of his compulsory retirement, the claimant was either 60years of age or that he had rendered to Oyo State Government 35years of pensionable service. This not being the case, it is mandatory for the defendants to follow the procedure stated in Regulation 35 (a) of the Civil Service Commission Regulations of Oyo State in compulsorily retiring the claimant.

There is no provision under the Civil Service Commission Regulations of Oyo State and under the Oyo State Government Public Service Rules of 2013 that allows the 3rd defendant, Chief Executive Officer of the Broadcasting Corporation of Oyo State to compulsorily retire a level 14 Public Officer from Oyo State Public Service without following due process and without recourse to the Civil Service Commission of Oyo State. What the 3rd defendant and the Broadcasting Corporation ought to have done when they realized that the claimant did not fit into the Corporation system again at the point he was re-deployed back to the Corporation was to make a report on that to the Civil Service Commission of Oyo State and then await further directive from the Commission, but the defendants failed to do that. Rather, they unilaterally retired the claimant compulsorily from Oyo State Public Service in deviance to the provisions of Regulation 35 (a) of the Civil Service Commission Regulations of Oyo State. Consequently, I find and hold that the compulsory retirement of the claimant by the defendants was illegal, null and void and of no effect.

  1. The defendant’s counsel in the instant case was also the defendants’ counsel in the case with Suit No: NICN/IB/83/2013 and he is aware of this judgment, which was based on the same facts with the instant case. I wander whether the defendant’s counsel wants the Court to overrule itself or to set the earlier judgment on NICN/IB/83/2013 aside without any cause at all as it is not the contention of the defendant in the instant case that it is not a Parastatal under Oyo State Government. It is also not in dispute that the claimant was deployed and re-deployed by Oyo State Government,see Documents C.5 & C.6. Document D2, which directed the defendant to compulsorily retire the claimant was authored by the same Oyo State Government.

Consequently, I hereby reiterate my judgment in NICN/IB/83/2013 by holding that the claimant was a Public Officer with Oyo State Government and that his employment was governed by the provisions ofthe Civil Service Commission Regulations of Oyo State and the Oyo State Government Public Service Rules, 2013.I further hold that since the defendant, who eventually issued the claimant’s letter of compulsory retirement as directed by the Oyo State Government, contrary to the provisions of the Civil Service Regulations and the Public Service Rules; both of Oyo State, the said compulsory retirement of the claimant is a nullity ab initio and it is accordingly set aside.

26.On the whole, I declare and order as follows:

i.        I hold that the Attorney-General of Oyo State is not a necessary party in this case.

ii.     I declare and hold that the compulsory retirement of the claimant’s employment by the defendant on the direction of Oyo State Government on July 15, 2013 is wrongful, illegal and of no effect whatsoever and it is accordingly set aside.

 

Judgment is entered accordingly. I make no order as to cost.

Hon. Justice F. I. Kola-Olalere

Presiding Judge

admin

Website:

Related Story