IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA
IN THE AKURE JUDICIAL DIVISION
HOLDEN IN AKURE
BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: HON. JUSTICE O. O. OYEWUMI
DATE: 21st MARCH, 2019
SUIT NO: NICN/AD/03/2016
BETWEEN
MRS. GRACE ABIKE OMAWAYE
CLAIMANT
AND
LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICE COMMISSION, EKITI STATE
DEFENDANT
REPRESENTATION
O. O. Ayenakin with him; Adeolu Ajayi, I. Kolade- Faseyi, O.O. Kunle- Morakinyo (Mrs), A. Adebayo, Kehinde Ojo, Dare-Daniels (Mrs), O.A Otetubi Esq, G.O.Akintuyi for the Claimant.
V. O. Adedara with him; Lamidi Tajudeen, Osamuyiwa Adeniyi for the Defendant
JUDGMENT
By an amended Writ of Summons, dated 17th March, 2017, the claimant claimed against the defendant the following reliefs via a General Form of Complaint:
A DECLARATION that the downward reversal of status and demotion of the claimant which was communicated to her vide a letter dated 17th of March, 2016 but which was received by the claimant on the 23rd of March, 2016 is wrongful.
AN ORDER setting aside the demotion and reversal of claimant’s harmonization of service which was communicated to her vide a letter dated 17th of March, 2016 but which was received by the claimant on the 23rd of March, 2016 same being wrongful.
AN ORDER directing the defendant to recognize and affirm the harmonization of service of the claimant and to set aside her demotion.
AN ORDER directing the defendant to effect or uphold the conversion and two outstanding promotions of the claimant from the post of Chief Community Development Inspector GL 14 of 1st January, 2007 to the post Deputy Director GL 15 with effect from 1st January, 2010 (after three years on GL 14 Statutorily required) and to the post of Director GL 16 with effect from 1st January, 2014 (after four years on GL 15 Statutorily required).
AN ORDER directing the defendant to recognize and affirm the thirty five years of service spent by the claimant at the time of her retirement on the 1st of August, 2015 instead of 21 years wrongfully computed by the defendant.
The sum of (N10, 000,000) Ten Million Naira being general damages for the unlawful, wrongful and unfair demotion meted on the claimant as a result of which she suffered severe career retrogression, degradation and psychological trauma.
It is the claimant’s case that she was a staff of the defendant until her retirement. She averred that she was employed as a Grade II teacher by the Ondo State Teaching Service Commission, Akure on the 1st of August, 1980 and rose to GL 09. That her appointment was confirmed in April, 1995. It is her testimony that she subsequently applied to the Ondo State Local Government Service Commission in December, 1994 where she was offered a temporary direct appointment on 15th December, 1994 as Assistant Community Development Inspector on GL07. That her employment is governed by the 1992 3rd Edition of the Unified Scheme of Service of Local Government Employees of Nigeria as at said 1994/1995 as well as the Local Government Law. That the said condition of service stipulated that the claimant could join the community development department by way of upgrading or harmonization or by transfer of service to the grade of Community Development Inspector I, GL09 in which she did by applying for regularization of her appointment in January, 1995 so that her previous experience, length of service and educational attainment could be regularized in to her new service. That by a letter dated 27th December, 1995 she was informed that her services was harmonized to the rank of Community Development Inspector Grade I on GL09 Step 6. She continued that she enjoyed necessary promotions uptil the position of Chief Community Development Inspector on GL 14. That sometimes in 2010 a complaint was made against her to the defendant, that the claimant who has no university certificate was placed over and above certain persons who were university graduates. That the defendant in flagrant violation of the principles of fair hearing reversed the harmonization of her employment as approved on the 27th of December, 1995 to June, 2010 and unfairly demoted her from GL 14 to GL12. Claimant went on that she was officially intimated of her demotion by the defendant vide a letter dated 23rd November, 2012 and also that she protested the letter thereof which made the defendant at its plenary meeting of October, 2014 cancel the demotion and upheld the harmonization of her employment with a promise to repay all financial obligation it has incurred in the course of time. But she was not given a letter of reversal of her demotion as directed by the Permanent Secretary of the Local Government Service Commission. That she made several complaints but she was asked to be patient that she would receive same. That the defendant’s Board was not constituted until January, 2016 consequent upon which she wrote to the defendant on the 25th of January, 2016 requesting for official communication of the decision of the plenary to her. That by a letter dated 17th of March, 2016 but delivered on the 23rd of March, 2016 the defendant affirmed her demotion and also by the same letter, she was informed that her retirement grade level is to be on GL13 instead of GL16 and that she had spent 21 years instead of 35years of service which will be used in the computation of her gratuity and pension. She contended that the action of the defendant is unfair, unjust and has made her to suffer severe career retrogression and psychological trauma.
The defendant on the other hand denying the averments of the claimant stated that the conditions of service of the Unified Local Government Employee is regulated by an approved Scheme of Service in 1994 and it provided that claimant could join the Community Development Inspector Cadre by way of upgrading, harmonization or by transfer of service to Assistant Community Development Inspector Grade level 07. That the claimant’s application for regularization of her appointment was improper in that her previous working experience and length of service does not qualify the Claimant as Assistant Community Development Inspector Grade Level 09. That her transfer from post primary school management Board to the defendant’s service in Ondo State was wrongly harmonized and was consequently corrected by a letter dated 27th of April, 1995. It stated that sequel to the misinformation, it reversed itself by causing a letter dated 8th of September, 1995 informing her that paragraph 2 of its letter dated 27th of April, 1995 misinformed her that her appointment was harmonized to the rank of Community Development Inspector 2 on grade level 08 with effect from 1st of December,1994 and that her appointment was harmonized to the rank of Assistant Community Development Inspector Grade level 07 with effect from 1st of December, 1994 and hence she was demoted from Grade level 09 Step 06 to Grade Level 07. It is the further position of the defendant that with the influence of the claimant’s husband it was misled to review the demotion of the claimant and upheld the claimant harmonization to Grade Level 09 step 06. That in August, 2012 vide the report of the three man panel set up, it recommended that the claimant should be reverted from GL 14 to GL 12 and that she should be promoted to GL 13 by 1st of January, 2010. It stated that the claimant was afforded fair hearing when it set up a committee headed by one late Chief Olu Ale wherein the report further affirmed the defendant’s decision on the claimant’s demotion and this was duly effected to her by its letter dated 17th of March, 2016. The defendant denied reversing the said demotion and did not promise her any money or reinstatement. It also denied that there was a plenary meeting during the tenure of E.O Abegunde the former Permanent Secretary. That with the claimant qualification her position, the Community Development Inspector Cadre terminates on Grade Level 14 and that her next promotion to the post of Chief Community Development Inspector Grade level 14 was effective from 1/1/2013 having considered justly and fairly her 35 years of service. That the demotion was in line with the provision of its approved scheme of service and that the claimant is eligible to retire on Grade Level 14. That her entitlement is subject to completion of her retirement documentations which she has not completed. It urged the Court to dismiss the claimant’s action for being frivolous.
During trial, the claimant testified for herself as CW1 and one Peter O. Omawaye who testified alongside as CW2. They adopted their sworn depositions which is in all fours with the facts captured above as their evidence in the case and frontloaded some documents which were admitted and marked as Exhibits GA-GA8. The defendant also testified through the sworn deposition of one Jegede Babatunde dated the 12th of June, 2017 as its evidence in the case. He tendered some documents which were admitted and marked as Exhibits JE-JE5.
At the conclusion of trial, Parties caused their written addresses to be filed in compliance with the rules of this Court; the Defendant filed its final written address on the 3rd October, 2018 and canvassed three issues for the determination of the Court; the claimant on the other hand filled her written address on the 9th of November, 2018 and distilled a lone issue. Relevant portions of their addresses would be referred to in the course of this judgment.
Upon a thorough and careful consideration of the processes filed by the parties and the supporting documents, their respective written submissions by learned counsel on both side, it is my humble view that the issue that would best determine this suit is:
Whether or not the claimant is entitled to her reliefs.
It is the claimant’s claim that the demotion of her grade level communicated to her by the defendant vide a letter dated 17th of March, 2016 is wrongful and should be set aside. It is her argument that vide her condition of service that is the Unified Scheme of Service of Local Government Employees of Nigeria provided at paragraphs 3.4.3 that she could join the community development department by upgrading, harmonization or by transfer of service to the grade of Community development Inspector Grade Level 09. That she rose through this department attaining several positions until when her grade level was unfairly reviewed or reversed downwards. The defendant admitting to this stated that by exhibit JE4 dated 27th of April, 1995 it harmonized the appointment of the claimant from the Post Primary Management Board, Akure to the Local Government Service Commission and to the rank of Community Development Inspector II GL08, however upon realizing its error, made another letter to the claimant dated 8th of September, 1995 to correct its mistake and placing the claimant on the rank of Assistant Community Development Inspector, GL 07. It stated that in August, 2012 vide the report of the three man panel set up, it recommended that the claimant should be reverted from GL 14 to GL 12 in line with the provision of its approved scheme of service and that the claimant is eligible to retire on Grade Level 14.
By the case of Misa v. Ahmad [2018] LPELR- 44247CA; declaratory reliefs are not granted as a matter of course and on a platter of gold. The claimant must succeed on the strength of her own case, and not the weakness of the defence. Claimant has to adduce credible evidence in prove of her case. The law is also settled that a declaratory relief is not granted even on admission by the defendant. See also the case of Nduul v. Wayo & Ors [2018] LPELR-45151 SC. It is incumbent upon the claimant to plead the material facts regarding her employment such as the nature of her employment, the terms and condition of her employment and the circumstances under which she was demoted after, she must also satisfy the Court with credible and convincing evidence that she is entitled to the reliefs sought, See the case of Ozomgbachi v. Amadi & Ors [2018] LPELR- 45152, SC; The apex Court held further in Ilori & Ors v. Ishola & Anor [2018] LPELR-44063SC; that a declaratory reliefs must be prove to the satisfaction of the Court notwithstanding lack/weakness of the defence. See also Dumez Nig. Ltd v. Nwokoba [2008] NWLR (Pt1119) 36 at 374. It is noteworthy from a cursory look at all the documents tendered in evidence that the claimant tendered in evidence exhibits GA (claimant’s offer of temporary of appointment dated 15th of December, 1994 and Confirmation of Appointment) dated 20th of April, 1995 backdating his appointment as a class Teacher effectively from 1st September, 1993, another letter dated 1st August 1980 as a class Teacher; exhibit GA1 the Approved Scheme of service for local Government Employees in Nigeria 1992. Parties equally agreed that exhibit JE3 Approved Scheme of Service for Local Government Employees in Nigeria, 2006 regulated their terms of contract.
It is clear from the circumstances of this case that the grouse of the claimant is predicated upon the downward reversal of her status and demotion from Grade level 14 to Grade Level 12. It is also the law that the burden of proof lies on the party that will fail where evidence is not tendered therein. See Section 135-137 of the Evidence Act, 2011 and the cases of Ilori & Ors v. Ishola & Anor, supra; Geneva v Afribank NigPlc [2013] LPELR 20662 SC; Onah v Okenwa&Ors [2010] LPELR 4781 CA; Ojo v ABT Associates Incorporated &Anor [2014] LPELR 22860 CA. Parties are in ad idem that the claimant’s employment was harmonized but the variance here is that, to the defendant it placed the claimant on GL07 and to the claimant the defendant on the 27th of April,1994 harmonized her employment and placed her on GL08. Exhibits GA1 and JE3 at paragraph 3 provides for the Mode of Entry and Advancement within the Cadre and by a community reading of exhibits GA1 at pages 49 and 50 and JE3 at pages 323 it provides that “Note –All promotions and transfers are subject to vacancy and satisfactory service record
“Paragraph 3.2 provides for the mode of appointment of Assistant Community Development Inspector Grade I, Grade level 07;
3.2.4. By direct appointment of a candidate possessing any of the qualifications specified in paragraph 3.1.1. above plus at least three years post qualification cognate experience;
3.2.5 By direct appointment of a candidate possessing the National Certificate of Education with specialization in social studies or equivalent qualification.
Paragraph 3.1.1 By direct appointment of a candidate possessing any of the following or equivalent qualification”
“Paragraph 3.3 provides for Community Development Inspector Grade II, Grade Level 08 thus;
3.3.1 By promotion of a confirmed and suitable Assistant Community Development Grade I.
3.3.2 By direct appointment of a candidate possessing a degree in any of the Social Sciences or related subject from a recognized University or equivalent qualifications.
3.3.3 By direct appointment of a candidate possessing any of the qualifications specified in paragraph 3.1.1 plus at least six years or in paragraph 3.2.5 above plus at least three years post qualification cognate experience”
It is plain from an indepth perusal of exhibit JE4, that the claimant’s service was on the 27th of April, 1995 transferred from the Post Primary Management Board Akure to the Local Government Service Commission with effect from 1st of August, 1980 and was harmonized to the rank of Community Development Inspector II GL08 with effect from 1st of December, 1994. The letter also stated that her salary GL 09 step 06 N17,568.00 as a Class teacher be made personal to her with effect from 1st of January, 1995. It is right to state that, exhibit JE4 dated 8th of September, 1995, the defendant also informed the claimant that it misinformed her that her appointment has been harmonized to the rank of Community Development Inspector II GL08 with effect from 1st of December, 1994. It stated that the correct position of the claimant’s appointment is harmonized to the rank of Assistant Community Development Inspector, GL 07 and not GL08 as it was stated in exhibit JE4 dated 27th of April, 1995. The claimant on the 15th of November, 1995 vide exhibit GA2 wrote to the defendant informing it to review her Grade level in view of her transfer of service. The defendants by the same exhibit GA2 dated 27th of December, 1995 informed the claimant that the Local Government Service Commission has approved the harmonization of her service to the rank of Community Development Inspector I on GL 09 step 6 with effect from 1st December, 1994, the letter made it clear that the letter supersedes its earlier letter dated 8th September, 1995. The claimant thereafter enjoyed series of promotion as seen on exhibit GA7 dated 8th of May, 2007 until when the defendant by exhibit JE demoted her from GL 14 to GL12. Now the question that comes to mind is, can an employer demote its employee without following the procedure? Before answering this question, it is imperative to state that demotion means to lower a person in rank, position, pay, or other status; it is an offer by an employer and the acceptance by an employee of a lower graded position with the same employer with the common consequence of a reduced wage or salary. Demotion is not a remedy that is freely available to employers to use as a disciplinary measure and Courts and tribunals have to be wary in ordering demotion. See the case of Dingoli v. Dr. Barau & Ors [2012] 27 NLLR (Pt.78) 332 CA. Demotion is part of discipline of employee on the grounds of misconduct. However, the power to demote an employee must be expressly stated in the conditions of service regulating the employment of the employee. I have examined exhibits GA1/JE3 the Approved Scheme of Service for Local Government Employees in Nigeria 1992, there is no other document before me empowering the defendant to demote its staff for whatever reason. To learned claimant’s counsel, claimant possesses the required cognate experience at the time of appointment to GL 08 and harmonization of her service. That her appointment and harmonization of same was in consonance with the defendant’s 1992 scheme of service. He adumbrated claimant’s qualification as well as her years of service and schedule of duty as home Economics teacher with an NCE in Social studies/Home Economics. I find this to be true of the claimant, in that she was a Teacher an NCE holder and have had the requisite experience which is similar/cognate to the position of Community development Inspector.
There is no evidence on record empowering the defendant to demote the claimant as it did. Claimant has by exhibits GA2 vide a letter dated 27th December, 1995 exhibit GA7 and JE4 proved that her employment was harmonized and she was promoted to GL 09 step 6 by the defendant. She has equally proven that the defendant has no power under the law to demote her for committing no offence. The defendant’s panel failed to invite her to the panel before it demoted her contrary to the long settled and sound doctrine of audi alteram partem. DW confirmed that claimant’s harmonization is a merger of her service with the Post Primary Management Board and same was harmonized in 1995. The defendant is by clause 4.1 of its scheme of service exhibits GA1/JE3 empowered to appoint any staff to any grade level by promotion or by transfer of service from any arm of the Public Service as is in this case, where the claimant’s appointment was harmonized as a result of her transfer from the Post Primary Management Board to the defendant. It is deducible from the record of Court before me that the defendant was approbating and reprobating, thereby toiling with the career/destiny of the claimant. This is in view of its letters dated 27th April, 1995; issuance of a counter letter dated 8th September, 1995, 5 months after the letter harmonizing her appointment to Community development Inspector 11 GL 08 with effect from 1st December, 1994 which according to the defendant, it supersedes her letter of appointment dated 15th December, 1994. The import of which is that claimant’s appointment with the defendant harmonized with her service as a Teacher under the Post Primary Board since 1980 is on GL 08. In December 27th 1995, the defendant issued another letter titled “ Harmonization of Service” wherein the defendant agreed to review their stand in their letter earlier dated 8th September, 1995 and “…approved the harmonization of your service to the rank of Community Development Inspector 1 on GL 09 step 6 with effect from 1st December, 1994” This situation remained the same and the claimant rose through the ranks to GL 14, however, in 2012 the defendant issued another letter demoting the claimant from GL 14 to GL 12 without any reason except that according to it, the plenary of the defendant met and considered a committee’s report consequent upon which she was demoted. It has therefore become plain to the Court that the defendant whose officers who are supposedly seasoned civil servants found it difficult to place the claimant appropriately alternatively, that they could not follow the scheme of service to its letter in harmonizing the claimant appropriately. They actually did at a point in compliance with its scheme of service but later resiled. Hence, they severally approbate and reprobate by taking a position today and tomorrow turn around to take another stand. The defendant strikes me as an unserious, wavering, unstable, nebulous, double minded and inconsistent government department that allows itself to be tossed about by sentiment exhibited in the way and manner it handled claimant’s case. The law frowns at this orchestrated attitude of a government establishment which utterly feels unconcerned about the consequences of its action. See Westcom Technology & Energy Service Ltd v. Transclear S.A [2018] LPELR-44794CA; By the authority of Julius Berger Nig. Plc v. Almighty Project Innovative Ltd & Anor [2018] LPELR-44382 CA; by equitable doctrine of estoppel, a man is not allowed to blow hot and cold, to affirm one time and deny at the other time, that is to approbate and reprobate. Taking into consideration the provisions of Section 169 of the Evidence Act 2011 which provides that:
When one person has either by virtue of an existing Court judgment, deed, or agreement, or by his declaration act or mission, intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon such belief, neither he nor his representative interest shall be allowed in any proceedings between himself and such person or such person’s representative in interest to deny the truth of that thing.
Therefore, the only irresistible, apparent and a just conclusion to make deducible from the circumstances of this case is that the defendant is disallowed from blowing hot and cold, affirming at one time and denying at another time, thereby toiling with the claimant’s career progression, the demotion of the claimant by the defendant after 17 years of making her believe that her appointment has been harmonized to GL09 vide exhibit GA2, she has enjoyed the position/promotion as well as received salaries, is the most unjust and unlawful. Consequently, I hold that the defendant’s failure to adhere to the harmonization of the claimant vide a letter dated 27th December, 1995 [exhibit GA2] is unlawful and thus the letter dated 23rd November, 2012 withdrawing claimant’s promotion as Chief Community Development Inspector GL 14 and letter dated 17th of March, 2016 [Exhibit GA4] are both set aside.
It is the claimant’s claim that the defendant is to effect or uphold the conversion and her two outstanding promotions from the post of Chief Community Development Inspector GL 14 of 1st January, 2007 to the post Deputy Director GL15 with effect from 1st January, 2010 (after three years on GL 14 Statutorily required) and to the post of Director GL 16 with effect from 1st January, 2014 (after four years on GL 15 Statutorily required). It is the defendant’s argument that exhibit GA1 at 3.8 at page 324 provides for terminal grade level of a Community Development Inspector cadre which is grade level 14 with a rank of a Chief Community Development Inspector. Learned counsel submitted the legal position which is that a public body vested with the statutory powers must act within the law. He cited the case of Bernard Amasike v The Registrar – General, Corporate Affairs Commission and Another [2010] 39 WRN 1 at 18. He submitted further that the defendant by exhibit JE3 only promoted the claimant to the post of Chief Community Development Inspector Grade Level 14 which is the bar for officers in the Community Development Inspector cadre in the service of the defendant. The claimant by her written address did not proffer any argument in this regard however, by paragraph 29 of her statement of claim she averred that the defendant vide a letter dated 17th of March, 2016 but delivered on the 23rd of March, 2016 affirmed her demotion and also that by the same letter, she was informed that her retirement grade level is to be on GL13 instead of GL16 and that she had spent a number of 21 years instead of 35years in service. That the defendant used 21 years in computing her gratuity and pension.
Now, has the claimant proven that she is entitled to be promoted to GL16? It is settled law that promotion connotes advancement in rank or position, the offer of an employer and acceptance by an employee of a better more highly regarded position with the same employer, in terms of improved pay and/or improved conditions in return for the carrying out of a more responsible set of duties or more onerous tasks. Differently put it is an elevation to a higher position usually with an attendant increase in salary and/or benefits and probably an increase in duty/ responsibility. It is trite that under the Nigerian employment law, promotion is neither automatic nor a right to the general proposition of law but a privilege; it is usually expected to be earned, there has however been a variation in that where it is based on agreed terms and conditions which the employee has fulfilled, it would be a breach of agreement if the employer fails to approve such promotion. See the cases of Mariam v. University of Ilorin Teaching Hospital Management Board [2013] 35 NLLR (Pt. 103) NIC, FMC Ido-Ekiti v. Alabi [2013] NLLR (Pt. 890) 160, Abenga v. Benue State Judicial Service Commission [2006] 14 NWLR (Pt. 1000) 610. It is also being regarded as a privilege and not a right, it has to be earned and it is not a gift, See also Onalo v. Chairman Police Service Commission [2015] 55 NLLR (Pt. 188), page 4. The position of the law is firmly settled in that it is the duty of the claimant to prove her case to be entitled to the reliefs she seeks as stated supra. A careful perusal of exhibit GA1 at page 47 particularly at paragraph 1, 1.9, it reveals that the highest position in the Community Development Inspector Cadre is the Chief Community Development Inspector grade level 15. However, the claimant has failed to prove that she was indeed promoted by the defendant to the Grade levels 15 and 16 she is claiming, this she did by not adducing credible and cogent evidence to support her claims as there is nothing on record to evince so. She failed to convince me that she fulfilled all the condition precedent to her promotion to GL15, i.e. the last grade level in the Community development cadre. She answered under cross examination that the defendant refused to accept her Aper forms because according to it, she was demoted. She did not however, make a formal complaint about the defendant’s alleged refusal to accept her Aper forms. She equally failed to evince that she fulfilled other conditions precedent to her earning the promotion to GL15, which might include interview or promotion Examination. I need to reiterate that reliefs are not granted as a matter of course, a party seeking for a relief has the onerous responsibility of presenting enough credible materials before the Court to substantiate his claims. The answer to the above posed question would have been different if claimant had canvassed evidence in prove of her claim for promotion to GL15/16. In all I find that claimant’s relief IV is not substantiated and thus bound to fail. Consequently, claimant’s claim IV fails. I so find and hold.
Regarding claimant’s claim for computation of her gratuity on the basis of thirty five years of service spent by her at the time of her retirement on the 1st of August, 2015 instead of 21 years wrongfully computed by the defendant. Having held supra, that the demotion of the claimant is unlawful, an apposite question to ask here is when was the claimant’s date of first appointment to enable the Court duly calculate the y ears of service spent by the claimant in service to the defendant. It is clear on exhibit GA by a letter dated 20th August 1980, that the claimant was a class Teacher and the defendant by exhibit JE4 a letter dated 27th April, 1995 stated at paragraph 2 (i) that “Your date of first appointment shall now be first of August, 1980”. Her salary on GL 09 step 6 as a class Teacher was made personal to her. Claimant tendered her retirement letter on attainment of the statutory age of retirement in the civil service, i.e. 35 years without any objection by the defendant, thus admitting of the fact that claimant had attained the mandatory 35 years age of retirement from the civil service. Therefore, considering the claimant’s first date of appointment as a class Teacher in 1980 together with the date of his retirement on 1st August, 2015, will be 35 years of service. It is in view of the above that I find that claimant put in 35 years of service in the defendant and not 21 years. Consequently I order that claimant’s gratuity be calculated with the 35 years of service on GL14 and not with 21 years on GL13 as alleged by the defendant. I so hold.
On claimant’s claim for damages in the sum of The sum of (N10, 000,000) Ten Million Naira being general damages for the unlawful, wrongful and unfair demotion meted on her as a result of which she suffered severe career retrogression, degradation and psychological trauma. It is settled law that where an employment is statutory and the process required by the Statute for discipline and disengagement was not followed, the act of determination/demotion of employment by the employer will be void. Damages in law is the direct and probable consequence of a breach of contract or an act complained of. See the case of Olaleye Kevin Faturoti v University of Lagos [2016] 65 NLLR (Pt. 233) 783. I have held earlier that the demotion of the claimant from GL14 to GL 12 is unlawful. It is claimant’s contention that she was demeaned, traumatized and humiliated by the degrading action of the defendant. The consequence of the defendant’s action goes without saying that the claimant must have suffered in a manner and a way that money may not be adequate to compensate her. It is in this light that I find that the claimant is entitled to an award of damages and pursuant to Section 19 (d) of the National Industrial Court Act 2006, which empowers this Court to award damages/compensation in circumstances as in this case, that I award the sum of N500, 000 (Five hundred Thousand Naira) only as damages to the claimant. I so hold.
In conclusion, it is obvious that the claimant’s claims succeed in part. For the avoidance of doubt, I declare and order as follows;
That the downward reversal of status and demotion of the claimant from GL14 to GL12 is unlawful.
That the demotion and reversal of claimant’s harmonization of service vide a letter dated 17th of March, 2016 is set aside.
That the claimant’s claim IV fails.
That claimant’s gratuity is to be computed based on her 35 years of service on GL14 with the defendant and not 21 years.
That I award the sum of N500,000.00 [Five hundred Thousand Naira] to the claimant as damages.
That the defendant is to comply with this judgment within 60 days, failing which the Claimant’s emolument is to attract 10% interest per annum.
Judgment is entered accordingly
Hon. Justice Oyewumi O.O
Presiding Judge
