IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA IN THE IBADAN JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT IBADAN

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE Y. M. HASSAN

 

DATE: 27^th JANUARY, 2026. 

SUIT NO: NICN/IB/83/2017

BETWEEN

 

ALHAJI OYEYEMI AKEEM KOLAWOLE--------------------------------------------------------------------- CLAIMANT

AND

 

 

1. THE GOVERNOR OF OYO STATE
2. OYO STATE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
3. HEAD OF SERVICE OYO STATE
4. ATTORNEY GENERAL AND COMMISSIONER FOR JUSTICE, OYO STATE.

REPRESENTATION

 

 

DEFENDANTS

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

INTRODUCTION

1. The Claimant instituted this suit via a General Form of Complaint dated 13^th day of November, 2017 and filed same day, accompanied with Statement of Facts and other relevant originating processes. The Claimant claims against the Defendants as follows:

 

1. A DECLARATION that the dismissal of the Claimant from the Service of the 2^nd Defendant by the 3^rd Defendant on the purported ground that one Bachelor of Arts (Education) certificate allegedly credited to the Claimant was forged without proper verification/authentication from the relevant issuing authority of the University of Ado Ekiti (now Ekiti State University) is unlawful, unconstitutional, null, void and of no effect having been done in bad faith (malafide) and contravenes the provisions of the Public Service Commission, Regulations, 1978.
2.  A DECLARATION that the Claimant extant and relevant university certificate as contained in the records of the Oyo State Civil Service is his Bachelor of Science certificate in Accounting obtained at all material time from University of Ado-Ekiti (now Ekiti State University) and not the purported Bachelor of Arts (Education) as alleged by the 3^rd Defendant.
3. A DECLARATION that the claimant is entitled to payment of his full arrears of salaries, allowances and other entitlements from 14^th August, 2017, when he was unlawfully dismissed from the Service of the 2^nd Defendant by the 3^rd Defendant till the hearing and final determination of the Claimant's case.
4. AN ORDER directing the defendants jointly or severally to pay to the Claimant all the outstanding salaries, allowances and all other entitlements accrued to the claimant without any deduction from 14^th August, 2017, when the claimant was unlawfully dismissed from the Service of the 2^nd Defendant by the 3^rd Defendant till the hearing and final determination of the claimant’s case.

 

5. AN ORDER directing the Defendants jointly or severally to reinstate the Claimant to his position and salary grade level or as may be due at the time of determination of this suit.
6. AN ORDER directing the Defendants to pay to the Claimant the sum of N5,000,000.00 (Five Million Naira) as general damages.
7. The sum of N10,000,000.00 (Ten Million Naira) only being aggravated damages for libel contained in the dismissal letter dated 14^th August, 2017 written by the 3^rd Defendant concerning Claimant which was also circulated and/or caused to be circulated in the ministries of the 2^nd and 3^rd Defendants which libelous portions in the Petition reads: “FORGERY OF CERTIFICATE: SUMMARY DISMISSAL Sequel to the on-going Certificate Verification embarked upon by the State Government, you have been indicted of Certificate forgery as your Bachelor of Art (Education) Certificate was declared invalid.”
8. AN ORDER directing the Defendants to tender to the Claimant a written apology which is also to be circulated at places where the Unlawful Summary Dismissal Letter had been circulated and also caused it to be published at any of the National Dailies.

2. Upon being served with the originating processes, the Defendants filed their amended defendants’ Statement of Defence dated and filed on 16^th day of January, 2019 with other accompanying documents. In response also, the claimant filed consequential amended reply to the Defendants’ amended Statement of Defence dated and filed on 21^st day of December, 2018.

 

THE CASE OF THE CLAIMANT AS PLEADED

That his juniors in the Civil Service have been promoted ahead of him. That despite being overdue to be promoted as Principal Grade Level 12, the 2^nd and 3^rd Defendants failed and or refused to promote him as Principal Grade Level 12 officer. That he appealed to the 3^rd Defendant on compassionate ground. That during his service with the 2^nd Defendant, he had worked and served diligently in different ministries of the Civil Service without any indictment whatsoever. That as part of his passion for success in his educational career, he had obtained Certificates from professional bodies from the field which he graduated from. That he has used his expertise and technical knowhow as a professional and has discharged his duties

 

with utmost good faith to the 2^nd Defendant before he was wrongfully dismissed. That at all times, he is a diligent worker of the 2^nd Defendant before his unlawful dismissal from service by the 3^rd Defendant from the service of the 2^nd Defendant. That before his unlawful dismissal by the 3^rd Defendant from the service of the 2^nd Defendant, he was an Acting Principal Accountant Grade Level 12 Officer and a Director of Finance and Account at the Office of the Accountant General.

That in his quest for more knowledge, he applied for leave of study for Masters (M.Sc.) in Accounting which was granted by the 2^nd Defendant while the Claimant was on his Annual statutory leave. That he proceeded for his annual leave which commenced sometimes in July, 2017 which was approved by the 3^rd Defendant. That before he proceeded on his annual leave, he handed over officially to one Mrs Adewusi, the Deputy Director of Finance and Account. That surprisingly while he was still on his official leave, he received a dismissal letter from the 3^rd Defendant on the purported ground of forged Certificate in Bachelor of Art (Education). That the said dismissal letter defamed his character as a criminal. That the 3^rd Defendant acted in bad faith (malafide) having not made proper verification at the issuing authority, Ekiti State University, Ado-Ekiti. That having been dissatisfied with the act of the 2^nd and 3^rd Defendants, he instructed his Solicitors to write to the Defendants and the Office of the Accountant General of Oyo State Civil Service of his unlawful dismissal but failed to reply to the said letters.

That he also caused his Solicitors to write a letter to the issuing authority, Ekiti State University on the authenticity and validity of the Certificate issued to him. That he has not violated any law of the 2^nd Defendant to have prompted the malicious act of the 3^rd

 

Defendant resulting in his dismissal. That his unlawful dismissal from the Oyo State Civil Service is wrongful, improper and unconstitutional, and it is therefore null and void. That he is entitled to be reinstated back to the service of the 2^nd Defendant. That he is entitled to all the outstanding salaries, allowances and all other entitlements accrued to him without any deduction from 14^th August, 2017 till the hearing and final determination of this case.

THE CASE OF DEFENDANTS AS PLEADED

4. The defendants on the other hand denied liability and stated further that the Claimant was not dismissed from the service of the Oyo State Government based on the purported letter of unlawful dismissal having not resumed back to the office since he took off on his annual leave in 2017. That the application of the Claimant’s educational career to the Ado-Ekiti University in 1997 is not known to the 2^nd and 3^rd Defendants. That the Claimant though embarked on part time study, the circular approving study leave for Civil Servants in Oyo State was released only in 2001. That the Claimant applied for a part time B.Sc. Accounting which was approved. That the Government of Oyo State embarked on a verification exercise in 2016, done by Captain Consulting which led to the discovery that the certificate from University of Ado-Ekiti presented by the Claimant was fake. That the 3^rd Defendant started taking actions in respect of all the staff discovered with fake result from the verification exercise the Claimant inclusive. That while the process was ongoing, the 3^rd Defendant observed an error in the name of the degree and instead of B.Sc. Accounting, B.A Education was written in the letter of the Claimant and quickly withdrew the original copy of the letter in file before same was formally served on the Claimant. That as at the said time, the letter was in file at the Oyo State Physical Planning Commission where the Claimant was working before his annual leave and not yet made public, the Defendants however later discovered that the file copy now pleaded by the Claimant was missing from the file.

 

That the Claimant proceeded on part of his annual leave sometimes in July and has since failed, neglected or refused to resume work. That the Claimant was never dismissed from the service of the 2^nd Defendant based on the purported letter. That the Claimant went on leave but never resumed back to work and up till the institution of this case. That the Claimant could not have received any letter from the 3^rd Defendant whom he does not work directly under particularly during his leave. The office of the 3^rd Defendant being in a separate building from the Oyo State Physical Planning Commission where the Claimant worked last before his leave in the office. That letters of dismissal are usually served and received by the recipient concerned staff with written acknowledgment of receipt of the original copy on the face of the copy of same as well as the names and signature of the recipient staff. That the Claimant was never served the said letter during his leave as he was not anywhere around during the said period. That the document referred to by the Claimant as letter of dismissal is a file copy of the original that never served on the Claimant, the copy bearing the minutes of directives of officers of that office to another who is not the Claimant that is the DDF & A.

That the Claimant could not be dismissed with the said dismissal letter when the Oyo State Planning Commission where the Claimant last served wrote a letter to the 3^rd Defendant of not been able to serve the Claimant who having gone on a 15 days part of his annual leave, had failed or neglected to report for duty. That nowhere was the character of the Claimant defamed as a criminal as the purported letter of dismissal was never served on the Claimant, anyone or any member of the public at any time. That the certificate of Bachelors Degree of Accounting was verified and found fake by the appointed Consultant of the Oyo State Government during a routing verification exercise in 2016. That since the Claimant went on his annual leave, he has never returned to work. That the Claimant was not dismissed based on the said letter as the purported dismissal is not from the Oyo State Government to the Claimant. That the Claimant was not dismissed but he absconded from his duty post

 

since the time he ought to have resumed from his annual leave that he obtained sometimes in July, 2017. That abscondment from duty by a public servant is regarded as a serious misconduct and attracts punishment under the Civil Service Regulation, Vol. VI: Laws of Oyo State 2000 and as amended. That the Claimant had all his salaries, allowances and other entitlements paid until his purported unlawful dismissal and absence from duty without permission when he was supposed to have resumed, an offence which is a misconduct in the Civil Service.

 

FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESSES

6. The Defendants’ Final Written Address is dated 28^th day of July, 2025 and filed on 29^th day of July, 2025. In it, learned Counsel to the Defendants, Dr. T.A. Dauro, distilled six issues for determination which are as follows:-
   1. Whether exhibits A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6, A7, & A8 as tendered by the Claimant during trial are admissible in evidence?

 

2. Whether the Claimant was dismissed from the service of the Defendants based on the ground of fake certificate of Bachelors of Arts (Education)?
3. Whether the Claimant was dismissed from the service of the Defendants based on the ground of fake certificate of B.Sc. Accountancy?
4.  Whether the Claimant was service with any letter of dismissal in the first place to warrant his absence from work since 14^th of August, 2017?
5.   Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs of reinstatement, outstanding salaries, allowance and all other entitlement having left the service of the Defendants for no reason at all and without necessary approval?
6. Whether the purported dismissal letter was circulated in the Ministries of the 2^nd & 3^rd Defendants by the Defendants to ground a case of libel?

7. In arguing the issues, Counsel submitted on issue two that the Claimant was never in any way dismissed from the service of the Oyo state Government. Counsel referred the court to exhibit A3 and submitted that the Claimant having failed to tender in evidence the original copy of the purported dismissal letter in court, he has failed woefully in proving his case in court during the trial. Reliance was placed on the case of ARIYO & ORS v. JULIUS BERGER (NIG.) LTD & ANOR (2016) LPELR-41474 (CA) P. 50, Paras. B-D.
8. In his further argument, Counsel referred the court to the testimony of CW1 and Exhibits A3 and H3 and submitted that CW1 came to this Honourable Court only to mislead the court. In addition, he

 

stated that Exhibit A3 is not a certified true copy, it is also not an original. That the said Exhibit is a file copy in that on it can be found the minutes of administrative communication between Government officials of the OYSG and submitted that the Claimant was never dismissed based on Exhibit A3. Reference was made to Section 132 of the Evidence (Amendment) Act, 2023 and the cases of ABDULLAHI v. LAKISAL (2018) LPELR-46669 (CA) P. 25, Paras A-C; A.Y. OIL & PETROCHEMICAL LTD & ANOR v. ETERNA PLC (2023) LPELR-60709 (CA) P. 11, Paras. A-B.

9. In a final submission on issue two, Counsel stated that CW1 removed himself from work for reasons best known to him and not because he got any letter to that effect, that absence from duty without leave is a serious misconduct under Section 030402 of the Public Service Rules, Vol. 13, 2013 and urged the court to so hold.
10. On issue three, Counsel submitted that the claimant was never dismissed from the service of the Defendants based on the ground of a fake certificate of B.Sc. Accountancy and that he who asserts must prove and that the claimant has not succeeded in proving this. He referred the court to Exhibit H2 and Exhibit A3 as well as the cases of ADULLAHI v. LAKISAL (supra) and ATTAH & ORS

v. STATE (SUPRA). Consequently, Counsel submitted that the claimant has only come to court to mislead the court by his evidence, thus making his evidence very unreliable and urged the court to so hold.

11. On issue four which is whether the claimant was served with any letter of dismissal in the first place to warrant his absence from work since 14^th of August, 2017, learned Counsel adopted his arguments on issues 1-3 and answered the question in the negative and urged the court to so hold.

 

12. On issue five, Counsel referred the court to paragraphs 8 and 25 of the Claimant’s Statement on Oath and Exhibit A2 and submitted that the claimant left the government service on his own volition and can no longer, having gone for long, now returned to ask for outstanding salaries, allowances and all other entitlement from 14^th August, 2017 and reinstatement and urged the court to so hold.
13. On issue six, Counsel referred the court to Exhibits A1-7 and Exhibit H3 and submitted that CW1 has not laid any iota of evidence before this Honourable Court to support paragraph 37 of his Statement on Oath that circular was sent to all Ministries of the 2^nd Defendant on his purported unlawful dismissal by the Defendants.
14. On privilege as one of the defenses of allegation of libel, Counsel referred the court to the cases of THE SKETCH PUBLISHING CO. LTD & ANOR v. AJAGBEMOKEFERI (1989) LPELR- 3207 (SC) P.62-63, Paras G-A; SKYE BANK & ANOR v. AKINPELU (2010) LPELR-3073(SC); ONU v. AGBESE (1985)

1 NWLR Pt. 4, 704 and urged the court to hold that the Defendants were under a duty and acted in it when the documents were made and same were never published.

15. Learned Counsel referred the court to Exhibits A7 & H3 and argued that the said exhibits were never published to the outside world or a third party and submitted that the claimant failed to adduce concrete evidence of the third party that the said exhibits were published to. More so, Counsel referred the court to exhibits A3 and A1-7 and submitted that it was the claimant himself that circulated and published his documents to the public and not the Defendants and urged the court to hold that the Defendants did not published any such defamed documents against the claimant. Reference was made to the cases of EDORO & ANOR v. GURARA FINANCE & SECURITY CO. LTD & ANOR (2023) FWLR (Pt. 142) 22-3

 

(CA); PROF. OLOGE & OR v. NEW AFRICA HOLDINGS LTD (2002) FWLR (Pt. 119) 16149 (a) 16622-3(CA).

16. In his further argument, Counsel submitted that no malice was intended but only honest motives. Reliance was placed on the case of CHIEF (DR) PETERSIDE v. PROF. FABARA (2006) FWLR (Pt. 297) 10649 (a) 1078, 1078, 1082(CA).
17. Again, Counsel referred the court to Section 190 of the Evidence (Amendment) Act, 2023 and submitted that Exhibits A2, A3, A4-7 and H1 are all privileged communication and unpublished letters that cannot sustain an action in libel.
18. In conclusion, Counsel urged the court to refuse the claims of the Claimant in its entirety being frivolous, vexatious and lacking in merit.
19. The Claimant’s Final Written Address is dated the 16^th day of October, 2025 and filed on 17^th day of October, 2025. In it, learned Counsel to the Claimant, B. G. Olufokunbi Esq, formulated two issues for determination which are as follows:

1. Whether or not the Claimant was wrongfully dismissed from the service of Oyo State Government.
2. Whether or not abscondment was a ground for the dismissal of the Claimant.
   20. In arguing the issues, learned Counsel on issue one referred the Court to Exhibit A3 and stated that the Claimant never presented such certificate. That he holds a valid Bachelor of Science in Accounting from the University of Ado-Ekiti (now Ekiti State University). Reference was made to Exhibits E, H2 & H3, F and G. Counsel referred again to the testimonies of DW1 and DW2 as well as the case of OLORUNTOBA-OJU v. ABDUL-RAHEEM

 

(2009) 13 NELR (Pt. 1157) 83 and stated that no investigation, no disciplinary panel and no proof of forgery were provided and the alleged forged certificate was never produced.

21. Learned Counsel contended that the Claimant was dismissed without queried or given an opportunity to defend himself and that the Defendants’ action, being ultra-wires and unconstitutional, renders the dismissal null and void. Reliance was placed on Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and the cases of GARBA v. UNIVERSITY OF MAIDUGURI (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 18) 550 and BAMBOYE v. UNIVERSITY OF ILORIN (1999) 10 NWLR (Pt. 622) 290.
22. In another argument on issue one, Counsel referred the Exhibits A4- A6 and contended that the Defendants’ failure to respond to or controvert the Claimant’s appeal letters amounts in law to an admission by silence. He relied on the cases of NLEWEDIM v. UDUMA (1995) 6 NWLR (Pt. 402) 383 at 400; UTB (NIG.) LTD

v.  OZOEMENA  (2007)  3  NWLR  (Pt.  1022)  488  at 469;

AJOMALE v. YADUAT (NO. 2) (1991) 5 NWLR (Pt. 191) 266 at 282; EBERE ALOYSIUS v. DIAMOND BANK PLC (2015) 58 NLLR (Pt. 199) 92; SUNDAY DANIEL v. GLOBACOM

NIG. LTD. (2016) 67 NLLR (Pt. 241) 522; OWOADE v.

OMITOLA (1988) 2 NWLR (Pt. 77) 413 and ADBAYO v.

JOHNSON (1969) 1 ALL NLR 176.

Consequently, Counsel urged the Court to treat the uncontroverted contents of those letters as established facts.

V.N.P.A (1997) 11 NWLR (Pt. 529) 658.

 

24. In another submission, Counsel referred the Court to the testimony of CW2, a subpoenaed witness and Exhibits H2 and H3 and stated that the Defendants failed to discharge any evidential burden to disprove the authenticity of the Claimant’s qualification. Reliance was placed on the case of OLORUNTOBA-OJU v. ABDUL- RAHEEM & ORS. (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 83.
25. On issue two, Counsel submitted that there is no evidence of abscondment. Reference was made to Exhibit A3 and the testimony of DW2 under cross examination. Learned Counsel argued that even if the Claimant had not resumed (which is false), there was no formal declaration of abscondment or compliance with the Public Service Rules on the subject. Therefore, he added that the abscondment claim is legally untenable and factually baseless. In support, he cited the case of EZE v. SPRING BANK PLC. (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1278) 133.
26. In another submission, Counsel stated that where a document emanates from the Defendants and its content is not disputed, technical objections as to certification cannot defeat its probative value. Reference was made to the case of MR. MATHEW ONYEMA v. MAINSTREET BANK LTD. NICN/LA/14/2012,

Judgment delivered 5^th March 2014. Again, he argued that an employer cannot approbate and reprobate, that they cannot deny the dismissal and simultaneously rely on the dismissal letter. In this respect, reliance was placed on the case of OLAOYE v. CIVIL SERVICE, EKITI STATE & ANOR NICN/LA/536/2013,

Judgment delivered on 15^th July 2015.

27. The learned Counsel contended that the Defendants failed to produce any evidence from Ekiti State University or any relevant agency contradicting Exhibits H2 and H3 or the testimony of CW2. Consequently,  Counsel  submitted  that  where  evidence  is

 

unchallenged, credible and admissible, the Court is bound to accept and act upon it. Reliance was placed on the case of MR. STEPHEN AJAO v. UNITY BANK PLC NWLR/82/2011 (Judgment

delivered 6^th June 2013).

Judgment delivered 12^th December 2014; SKETCH PUBLISHING CO. LTD v. AGBAEMOKEFERI (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 100) 678; MR. PETER OLORUNFEMI v. LAGOS STATE GOVERNMENT & ORS NICN/LA/64/2016, Judgment

delivered 29^th January 2012.

NICN/ABJ/236/2018, Judgment delivered 21^st March, 2022, per Kado J. among others.

NICN/LA/114/2016 (delivered 21 March 2019); OLADIPO v.

 

ZENITH BANK PLC (2017) 69 NLLR (Pt. 217) at 33-24; PATRICK OBIORA v. NIGERIAN BREWERIES PLC (2015)

62 NLLR (Pt. 217) 85 at 115. Among other cases.

31. In conclusion, Claimant’s Counsel urged the Court to enter judgment in favour of the Claimant and grant all the reliefs as contained in the Statement of Facts.
32. The Defendants filed a Reply on Points of law to the Claimant’s Final Written Address dated 28^th October 2025 and filed on 29^th October 2025. Reference will be made to the said Reply on Points of law in the course of this judgment when need arises.

COURT’S DECISION

33. Having painstakingly perused the facts of this case as pleaded by the parties, the evidence adduced both oral and documentary, having also watched the demeanor of the witnesses called while testifying during the trial of this case and having gone through the Final Written Addresses and the Reply on Points of law as well as the arguments of Counsel at the point of adopting their respective written addresses, it is my humble view that the issues distilled by Counsel in their Final Written Addresses can be summed up into one which is whether the Claimant has proved his case as required by law to be entitled to the reliefs sought in this case.
34. Before I dwell into the issue for determination raised above, let me quickly resolve some preliminary issues that has to do with admissibility of some documents.
35. At the proceedings of 19^th day of February, 2025 when the Claimant was being led in chief, Counsel sought to tender in evidence some documents, the Defendants’ Counsel objected to the admissibility of eight (8) out of the documents sought to be tendered. The documents

 

objected were provisionally admitted in evidence and Counsel were directed to address the court on the admissibility or otherwise of the said documents at address stage for the court to rule accordingly.

3.00 to 3.02 inter alia that Exhibits A1, A2, A3, A4, & A5 are all public documents and that it is only the certified true copy that is admissible in evidence and the ones tendered by the Claimant are not certified true copy. Also, Counsel argued that Exhibits A6 & A8 are private documents but the Claimant tendered photocopy which are not admissible in evidence. Consequently, Counsel urged the Court to discountenance the documents and expunge them from the bundle of evidence. Reference was made to Sections 104, 105 and 190(1) of the Evidence (Amendment) Act, 2023.

1. Relevance to the facts in issue.
2. Proper pleading or reference in the witness Statement on Oath
3. Compliance with the Evidence Act, 2011 regarding form and content. Consequently, Counsel submitted that each of Exhibits A1-A7 meets these requirements. Arguing further, Counsel stated that each of the Exhibits were expressly referred to in the Claimant’s sworn deposition, they are relevant to the central issue of wrongful dismissal and

 

alleged abscondment and forms the basis of the Claimant’s claim for reinstatement and declaratory reliefs.

(1996) 6 NWLR (Pt. 453) 148; UDO v. STATE (2016) LPELR-

40100 (CA); ISHOLA v. UBA LTD (2005) 6 NWLR (Pt. 922)

422; OLUJINLE v. ADEAGBO (1988) 2 NWLR (Pt. 75) 238 and

OMISORE v. AREGBESOLA (2015) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1482) 205.

2 CA.

40. I have considered carefully the grounds of the Defendants’ Counsel Objection on the admissibility of the said documents sought to be tendered by the Claimant’s Counsel and I have equally gone through the Claimant’s Counsel response to same. I have perused through the Claimant’s pleadings, it is clear therein that the said documents were pleaded and equally relevant to the proper determination of this suit. To that extend therefore, it is settled law that relevancy is key to admissibility. Having said this, it is apparent that the objection of

 

the Defendants’ Counsel is predicated on the noncompliance with the Evidence Act, 2011 by the Claimant’s Counsel while tendering the documents. Nevertheless, I am of the considered opinion that from the facts and circumstances of this case, to do justice in this case, those documents should be considered and admitted in evidence. On that note, I refer to Section 12(2) (b) of the National Industrial Court Act, 2006 which provides thus:-

“12(2) subject to this Act and Rules made thereunder, the Court:

(b) Shall be bound by the Evidence Act but may depart from it in the interest of justice.”

In view of the foregoing and without further ado, I overrule the objection of the Defendants’ Counsel to the admissibility of the said documents in the interest of justice and now properly admit the said documents in evidence as already been marked.

41. Having clear the preliminary issues, I will now proceed to determine the issue for determination which is whether the Claimant has proved his case as required by law to be entitled to the reliefs sought in this case. Let me begin by saying that it is not in dispute that the Claimant was employed by the 2^nd Defendant as shown in Exhibit B (Letter of Appointment dated 6^th October, 1988) as a Clerical Staff and rose through the rank and become Acting Principal Accountant Grade Level 12 Officer and a Director of Finance and Account at the office of the Accountant General as shown in Exhibit A6.
42. However, what appears to be in dispute is the fact that the Claimant is alleging that the he was unlawfully dismissed from the service of the 2^nd Defendant by the 3^rd defendant and that the reason adduced for the dismissal as shown in Exhibit A3 defamed his character as a criminal. In other words, the crux of the Claimant’s case is that he

 

was unlawfully dismissed from the service of the 2^nd Defendant and praying the Court for an order of reinstatement as well as other reliefs.

“Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts shall prove that those facts exist.”

And a long line of judicial decisions from the appellate Courts support this position of the law. I refer to the case of DEMATIC (NIG) LTD v. UTUK & ANOR (2022) LPELR-56878 where the

Supreme Court per ADAMU JAURO, J.S.C. at pages 35-36, Paras. B-D held thus:

“The law is settled that he who asserts a fact must prove the existence of that fact, otherwise he would not be entitled to the judgment of the Court. The burden of proof lies on the person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side…”

Similarly, Court of Appeal held in the case of JOSHUA v. MAITSAMIYA  (2024)  LPELR-62417  per MOHAMMED

DANJUMA, JCA Page 20-20 Paras. A-E that:

 

“…It is an elementary principle of law that he who asserts must prove the facts asserted. In other words, where a party asserts the positive and his adversary asserts the negative, the initial burden is on the party who asserts the positive to prove the assertion…”

See also the cases of OKEKE v. OKEKE (2019) NWLR (Pt. 1701) 288; MUSTAPHA v. ZARMA & ORS (2018) LPELR-

46326 (CA); NSEFIK v. MUNA (2007) 10 NWLR (Pt. 10) 502.

“A party who seeks a declaratory relief has the duty or onus to prove that he is entitled to the declaration by calling sufficient, cogent and credible evidence. He will succeed on the strength of his own case and not on the weakness of the defence, though there are terms when the plaintiff may take the benefit of an aspect of the defence that supports his claim. Aside that, admission by the defence may not advance the plaintiff’s claim as the Defendant may decide not to even file a defence and dare the plaintiff to proof his case

 

since a declaratory relief cannot be granted in the absence of evidence led by the plaintiff…”

See also the cases of EMENIKE v. P.D.P & 3 ORS (2012) NWLR (Pt. 1315) 556 at 590, Paras. A-B; SULE v. HABU (2012) ALL

FWLR (Pt. 912) 664.

Paragraph 18 reads thus:

“During my service with the 2^nd Defendant, I have worked and served diligently with different ministries of the civil service without any indictment whatsoever.”

Paragraph 19 reads thus:

“I have been prudent at all times in my service to the 2^nd Defendant.”

Paragraph 23 reads thus:

“I am at all times a diligent worker of the 2^nd Defendant before my unlawful dismissal from the service of 2^nd Defendant by the 3^rd Defendant.”

Paragraph 24 reads thus:

“Before my unlawful dismissal by the 3^rd Defendant from the service of the 2^nd Defendant,

 

I was an Acting Principal Accountant Grade Level 12 Officer and a Director of Finance and Account at the Office of the Accountant General.”

Paragraph 28 reads thus:

“Surprisingly, while I was still on my official leave, I received a dismissal letter from the 3^rd Defendant on the purported ground of forged Certificate in Bachelor of Art (Education).”

Paragraph 30 reads thus:

“The content of the purported dismissal letter is false in all aspect as I have never at any time forged my certificate.”

Paragraph 31 reads thus:

“I did not at any time obtain a degree in Bachelor of Art (Education) but rather obtained degree in Bachelor of Science in Accounting.”

Paragraph 45 reads thus:

“I know that I have not violated any law of the 2^nd Defendant to have prompted the malicious act of the 3^rd Defendant resulting in my unlawful dismissal.”

Paragraph 47 reads thus:

“I will contend at the hearing that my unlawful dismissal from the service of the 2^nd Defendant is wrongful, improper and unconstitutional, and it is therefore null and void.”

 

Paragraph 48 reads thus:

“I will also contend that I am entitled to be reinstated back to the service of the 2^nd Defendant.”

Paragraph 49 reads thus:

“I will also contend that I am entitled to all the outstanding salaries, allowances and all other entitlements accrued to me without any deduction from 14^th August, 2017 till the hearing and final determination of this case.”

46. From the evidence of CW1 reproduced above, it is clear and apparent that the Claimant led evidence that he was unlawfully dismissed by the 3^rd Defendant from the service of the 2^nd Defendant on the ground that he forged his certificate of Bachelor of Art (Education) which he said his certificate is that of Bachelor of Science (Accounting) not Bachelor of Art (Education). He tendered Exhibits A3, E, F, H1 and H2 to show that he indeed has Bachelor of Science (Accounting).
47. However, the Defendants in defence of this suit, called two witnesses by name Molomo Noah Bamidele and Shittu Omowunmi Janet, who testified as DW1 and DW2 respectively and tendered in evidence six documents which were admitted and marked accordingly. From the testimonies of both DW1 and DW2 as contained in their Statements on Oath, the main defence of the Defendants is that the Claimant was not dismissed as alleged but that he absconded when he went on his annual leave and never return and that the dismissal letter (Exhibit A3) was never serve on the Claimant. That the one he tendered in Court is a file copy missing and that the 3^rd Defendant discovered that B.A. Education was

 

written in the letter of the Claimant, instead of B.Sc. Accounting. For clarity and ease of reference, let me refer to DW1 Statement on Oath particularly paragraphs 6, 10, 26, 27, 31, 33, 34, 35, 37, 45, 46, and 47. I shall take the pains of reproducing them hereunder.

Paragraph 6 reads thus:

“That the Claimant has not been dismissed from the service of the Oyo State Government but having learned that he was about to be asked to go based on his fake certificate, he absconded from the office and has not returned since.”

Paragraph 10 reads thus:

“That the Claimant has not been dismissed from the service of the Oyo State Government by the purported letter of unlawful dismissal but has refused to resume back to the office since his annual leave of 2017.”

Paragraph 26 reads thus:

“That the Claimant proceeded on part of his annual leave sometimes in July and has since failed, refused or neglect to resume work.”

Paragraph 27 reads thus:

“That the defendant admit this statement to the extent that the Claimant was never dismissed from the service of the 2^nd Defendant by the said letter of unlawful dismissal.”

 

Paragraph 31 reads thus:

“That the Defendants aver that the Claimant went on leave but never resumes as at when due and up till the institution of this case.”

Paragraph 33 reads thus:

“That letter of dismissal are usually served and received by the recipient staff with written acknowledgement of receipt of the original copy on the face of the copy of same as well as the names and signature of the recipient staff.”

Paragraph 34 reads thus:

“That the document referred to by the Claimant as letter of dismissal is a file copy of the original that was never serve on the Claimant which bears the minutes of directives of officers of that office, the same was not minute to the Claimant but the DDF&A.”

Paragraph 35 reads thus:

“That sometimes in 2017, the 3^rd Defendant discovered that the file copy of documents in the Oyo State planning committee was missing which happens to be the photocopy of the purported dismissal and unserved letter pleaded by the Claimant in this case.”

Paragraph 37 reads thus:

“That nowhere was the character of the Claimant defamed as a criminal in that purported letter

 

of dismissal was never served on the Claimant, anyone or any member of the public at any time.”

Paragraph 45 reads thus:

“That since the Claimant went on leave, he has never returned to work.”

Paragraph 46 reads thus:

“That the Claimant was not dismissed as the purported dismissal letter did not move from the Oyo State Government to the Claimant.”

Paragraph 47 reads thus:

“That the Claimant was not dismissed by the said letter but he failed to resume to his duty post since the time he ought to have resumed from his annual leave that he obtained sometimes in July, 2017.”

48. Taking into consideration the evidence adduced by the Defendants through their witnesses, particularly that of DW1 reproduced above, it is clear as daylight that the Defendants admitted that the Claimant went on annual leave sometimes in July, 2017 but that he never resume work from the said leave and the said dismissal letter (Exhibit A3) was never serve on the Claimant. As such, he was never dismissed as alleged but absconded and never return to work since he went on leave.
49. At this point, let me pause a bit and refer to the case of ISRAEL O. AINA v.   UNITED BANK FOR AFRICA & ANOR (1997) 4

NWLR (Pt. 498) 181 where it was held that:

 

“In all civil cases, the onus of proof usually lies with the plaintiff. It is only after he has discharged this initial onus that it shifts on the Defendant.”

50. As it stands now, from the evidence adduced by the parties in this case, it is my considered opinion that the burden of proof is still on the Claimant to prove his assertion that he was unlawfully dismissed by the 3^rd Defendant from the service of the 2^nd Defendant via Exhibit A3, that he was served Exhibit A3 and that he did not abscond but return from the annual leave to work. This is in line with the principle of law that he who asserts the positive has the initial burden of proof. See the case of JOSHUA v. MAITSAMIYA (Supra). It is after the Claimant has proven these that the burden will shift to the Defendants.
51. It should be noted that the Claimant has filed a consequential amended reply to the Defendants’ amended Statement of Defence together with the additional witness Statement on Oath of the Claimant. But, to my surprise, having perused through the said Claimant’s additional Statement on Oath, I could not found where it was stated how the Claimant came about Exhibit A3 and/or who served him the said Exhibit A3 as well as when did he return from his annual leave.
52. More so, the Claimant was asked during cross examination by the Defendants’ Counsel inter alia thus:

“Q- How did Exhibit A3 gets to your possession being a file copy?

A- It was given to me by Director of Admin – Molomo N. B.”

 

“That the Defendants took note that the Claimant could not be served with the said dismissal letter when the Oyo State Planning Commission where the Claimant last worked wrote to the 3^rd Defendant by a letter dated 14/9/17 of not been able to serve the Claimant who after his leave failed to resume work.”

The Defendants tendered in evidence Exhibit H3 being a letter dated 14^th September, 2017.

LPELR-60649 where Court of Appeal per HAMMA AKAWU BARKA, JCA at Pages 36-36, Paras. E-F held thus:

“The position of law is that once documentary evidence supports oral evidence, such oral evidence becomes more credible.”

See also the cases of EZE v. THE STATE (2018) LPELR-43715 (SC); AINA & ANOR v. DADA & ANOR (2024) LPELR-62505 (SC); OBASUYI v. EGUAGIE (2021) LPELR-56119(CA).

55. In view of the foregoing, I am of the firm view that the Claimant has failed to adduce credible evidence to prove to this court satisfactorily how or who served him Exhibit A3. I so hold. I must add that an X-ray of the said Exhibit A3 will show that there is on the face of it an administrative communication which reads thus:

 

“Please deliver the original copy to the affected officer and ensure immediate stoppage of his salary.”

56. To that extend, I have no difficulty in agreeing with the DW1 and DW2 depositions on oath particularly at paragraphs 15 respectively to the effect that Exhibit A3 is a file copy missing and same was never served on the Claimant. I so hold.
57. Consequently, it is settled principle of law that termination of employment takes effect when an employee is serve with letter of termination. In the instant case therefore, the assertion of the Claimant that his employment with the 2^nd Defendant was unlawfully terminated by the 3^rd Defendant via Exhibit A3 is unfounded, to say the least, having not been served with the said Exhibit A3. I so hold.
58. From the totality of evidence adduced by the Claimant before this Honourable Court, the Claimant did not adduce any credible evidence to show that he return from his annual leave which he embarked in July, 2017. In fact, the Claimant deposed in his Statement on Oath particularly at paragraph 28 thus:

“Surprisingly, while I was still on my leave, I received a dismissal letter from the 3^rd Defendant on the ground of forged Certificate in Bachelor of Art (Education).”

In addition, the Claimant stated under cross examination inter alia that:

“Q- Can you possibly remember the period you started the leave and the period you are expected to return from the leave?

 

A- I started my leave on 10^th July, 2017 and it ended on 28^th July, 2017 because it was on Friday, I resumed on 31^st July, 2017 to work.

Q- Take a look at Exhibit A3, the purported dismissal letter, when did you received that Exhibit A3?

A- After I resumed to work from my leave like a month. Q- When last did you report at your place of work?

A- The day I was given a letter that I was sacked, that was the last day I was at work.

Q- After your annual leave, you did not resume back to work, you absconded from service up to date. True or false?

A- False.”

GUMEL, JCA at Page 22-22, Paras. A-C where it was held that:

 

“…It is trite that contradictions in the testimony of a witness in examination-in-chief and his testimony under cross-examination amounts to no evidence at all on account of contradiction…”

See also the case of INEC v. ZAKKA & ORS (2023) LPELR- 61453(CA).

60. At this juncture, it is my considered opinion in light of the above analysis that the Claimant has failed to adduce credible evidence to prove to this Honourable Court that he return or resume to work after his annual leave. I so hold.
61. I think I can stop here. I have talk enough but before then, let me quickly say that the Claimant having failed to adduce credible evidence to prove that his employment was unlawfully terminated via Exhibit A3, I do not need to proceed to consider the issue of defamation of character alleged by the Claimant because in my opinion, it has become an academic exercise.
62. In the final analysis and for all I have said above, it is my considered opinion that the Claimant has failed to adduce credible evidence in prove of his case as required by law. To that extend, I without further ado, resolve the issue for determination in favour of the Defendants and against the Claimant and hold very strongly that the Claimant’s case has failed in its entirety for lack of credible evidence. On that note, I refer to the case of UBOCHI v. EKPO & ORS (2014) LPELR-23523 Per UZO IFEYINWA NDUKWE-ANYANWU,

JCA Pages 21-21, Paras. D-E where it was held thus:

“Where no evidence is led to establish the claims made before a Court, such claims will be dismissed for want of evidence…”

 

Similarly, it was held in the case of BALA & ANOR v. HASSAN (2014) LPELR-23997 per ABDU ABOKI, JCA Pages 41-42,

Paras. G-B that:

“…In effect, where a plaintiff fails to adduce satisfactory evidence to prove what was asserted, there will be no duty on the defendant to adduce evidence because the plaintiff is to succeed on the strength of his own case and not the weakness of evidence from the defendant…”

63. On the whole, I hereby dismiss the Claimant’s suit in its entirety.
64. I make no Order as to cost. Parties shall bear their respective cost.
65. Judgment is entered accordingly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hon. Justice Y. M. Hassan.

Presiding Judge.