IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE MINNA JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT ABUJA

 

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HONOURABLE JUSTICE O. Y. ANUWE

 

Dated: 26^th March 2026                                       SUIT NO: NICN/MN/79/2024

           

Between:

 

Mohammed Alhaji Idris                                                        -                         Claimant

 

And

 

1.     Attorney General of Niger State

2.     Niger State Government                                                                          Defendants          

3.     Niger State Civil Service Commission                                    

                             

Representation:

M. T. Mohammed, with him, Godwin Ozara for the Claimant

Hauwa Jibril (Asst. Director) for the Defendants

 

         JUDGMENT

The Claimant instituted this action by a Complaint filed on 19^th December 2024. His claims against the Defendants are as follows:

1.     A declaration that the Claimant was duly employed into the civil service of Niger State and his employment is still subsisting and valid.

2.     A declaration that the continuous withholding of the Claimant's salaries and all other entitlements (including promotions) i? illegal, unconstitutional, null and void.

3.     A declaration that the claimant’s original NCE presented to the screening committee is genuine, valid and authentic.

4.     An order of the Court compelling the Defendants to pay the sum of N2,587,543.41 as the withheld salaries of the Claimant from January 2021 to December 2024.

5.     An order awarding exemplary damages against the 3^rd defendant.

6.     And for such further order this Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances of this suit.

 

The Complaint was accompanied with a statement of facts, list of witnesses, witness statement on oath of the claimant, list and copies of documents pleaded by the claimant.

 

The defendants filed a joint statement of defence on 11^th March 2025 along with a counter claim wherein the defendants claim the following reliefs against the claimant:

1.     An order directing the Claimant to refund the sum of N7,181,4882.44 being salaries erroneously paid to him over the period of 142 months.

2.     An order directing the Claimant to tender an unreserved public apology for misleading the Counter-Claimants and the general public vide three National dailies.

3.     The cost of defending this suit (Solicitor's fees) in the sum of N2,000,000.

4.     The sum of N5,000,000 as general damages.

 

The statement of defence was accompanied with the witness statement on oath of Usman Baba, list of witnesses and list and copies of documents. The claimant filed a reply to the statement of defence and defence to the counter claim on 14^th April 2025, together with additional witness statement of the claimant.

 

In the proceedings of 29^th October 2024, learned counsels for the parties informed the Court that the parties have agreed to adopt the trial on procedure provided in Order 38 Rule 33 of the Rules of this Court. The request of the parties was granted and parties were directed to file their final written addresses. The written addresses of the parties were filed subsequently. The final written address of the claimant was filed on 17^th November 2025 while the defendants filed their final written on 9^th January 2026 but deemed on 13^th January 2026 in which date the final written addresses were adopted.

 

Rule 33 of Order 38 of the Rules of this Court permits trial on records where parties, at the close of pleadings, agree or consent to adopt the procedure. The procedure in trial on records is that the parties do not call witnesses or evidence but rely only on the pleadings, the frontloaded documents and the written addresses filed on the basis of the documents on record. The parties in this suit having consented to the procedure, this suit will accordingly be determined using the facts pleaded by the parties, the frontloaded documents and the content of the written addresses.

 

CLAIMANT’S CASE:

In the statement of facts, the Claimant pleaded that he is a Civil Servant employed by the 2^nd Defendant in 2009. His entry qualification into the civil service was NCE. He was given a letter of offer of appointment and also issued personal sub-head number and control number by the 2^nd defendant. The claimant attended the screening exercise in 2020/2021 and presented his original NCE certificate.  One of the members of the screening committee said the NCE certificate could be fake. After the screening, the claimant continued his duties but his salary was stopped.  Some months later the HOD told him the Government has stopped him from coming to work until his NCE is verified. The last salary he was paid was for the month of December 2020 in the sum of N50,573.82. His unpaid salaries from January 2021 to December 2024 has accrued to the sum of N2,587.543.41.

 

The claimant frontloaded these documents: letter of offer of provisional appointment dated 4/2/2009, letter of permanent and pensionable appointment dated 11/5/2011, NCE certificate, Teachers Registration Council of Nigeria Certificate of Registration, notification of appointment dated 12/8/2020, pay slip for December 2020 and solicitors’ letter dated 18/11/2024.

 

DEFENDANTS DEFENCE AND COUNTER CLAIM:

In their statement of defence, the Defendants admitted that the claimant was employed by the 2^nd and 3^rd defendants but averred that the employment was made under the mistaken belief that the claimant’s entry qualification, NCE, was genuine. In the year 2020, the 2^nd defendant set a screening committee. The claimant appeared before the committee and presented NCE certificate which was subjected to verification but it turned out to be fake. The committee wrote to the Niger State College of Education to confirm the genuineness of the claimant’s NCE but in the reply of the school, the school said the claimant’s NCE is not authentic. As result, the claimant’s salary was stopped and his appointment was terminated via a dismissal letter. At the time the claimant was given appointment in 2009, he presented a fake NCE. The claimant misled the defendants into paying him salaries of NCE entry level and since 2009, the claimant had been illegally receiving the salary of NCE entry level. Until his dismissal, the Claimant had illegally received the total sum of N7,181,482.44 over a period of 142 months.

 

The documents frontloaded by the defendants are: letter of apology dated 21/7/2022, letters dated 13^th October 2020 and 2^nd March 2021 from Niger State College of Education, dismissal letter dated 17/6/2021

 

FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESS OF THE CLAIMANT

The Claimant’s Final Written Address dated 15^th November 2025 was filed on 17^th November 2025. Five issues were formulated for the determination of the court.

 

ON ISSUE ONE “whether the Claimant has been given fair hearing before the purported termination of his appointment” counsel relied on Chapter 3 Section 4 Rule 03404 of the Niger State Civil Service Rules which outlines the procedures for interdiction for an employment governed by statute, and submitted that the procedures were not followed. Citing the case of KABELMENTAL NIG. LTD vs. ATIVIE (2001) FWLR 640-846 (Pt. 66) Pg. 664 and the case of P.H.C.N PLC vs. OFFOELO (2013) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1344) Pg. 393, counsel submitted that the Claimant was not served any dismissal letter; therefore, his appointment remains subsisting. According to counsel, the claimant was not aware of his alleged dismissal, not until the Defendants made reference to it in their statement of defence.

 

ON ISSUE TWO, “whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought”, learned counsel for the claimant, in submitting that the appointment of the Claimant is still subsisting and valid, stated that termination in statutory employment requires strict compliance with relevant laws; and the remedy for such wrongful termination of a statutory employment is reinstatement and payment of accrued entitlements. Counsel cited amongst others, the case of MRS. AKINYOSOYE YEMISI vs. FEDERAL INLAND REVENUE SERVICES (2015) 6 ACELR Pgs. 179 and 192.

 

ON ISSUE THREE, “whether Niger State Civil service screening committee can investigate criminal allegation against its employee and adjudicate thereon with conclusion that the claimant’s certificate was forged”, it is counsel’s submission that the defendants cannot be a judge in their own case, and the screening committee cannot investigate or adjudicate criminal allegations such as forgery which is a criminal offense and must be proved beyond reasonable doubt in a competent court. Citing the case of APC vs. OBASEKI (2022) 2 NWLR (pt. 1814) page 282 amongst other cases, counsel emphasized that executive bodies cannot replace courts in determining criminal guilt.

 

ON ISSUE FOUR, “whether failure to respond the claimant request letter to the 3^rd defendant does not amount to admission of liability”, it is the submission of counsel, citing the case of KABO AIR LTD vs. MUMI BUREAU DE CHANGE LTD (2020) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1715), that the 3^rd Defendant’s failure to respond to the Claimant’s solicitor’s letter regarding his employment status amounted to an admission of liability.

 

ON ISSUE FIVE, ‘whether documents made pendente lite has probative value in law’, Claimant Counsel submits that documents attached to the defence (verification certificate and statement of results) were created after the screening exercise and during the pendency of the suit. Under Section 83(3) of the Evidence Act 2011, such documents have no probative value and are inadmissible.

 

FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESS OF THE DEFENDANTS/COUNTER CLAIMANTS

The Defendant’s Final Written Address was filed on 9^th January 2026, wherein they formulated Three issues for determination.

 

ON ISSUE ONE “whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought” learned counsel states that the reliefs sought by the Claimant are declaratory in nature and same cannot be granted in the absence of cogent evidence led by the Claimant. Counsel relied on MARANRO vs. OYEGOKE (2025) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1980) 447 @ Pg. 475-476, PARAS, F-B which emphasizes that a claimant must succeed on the strength of their own case, not the weakness of the defendant’s. According to the defence, the Claimant is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought before this Honourable Court because the dismissal of the Claimant was based on the fake NCE Statement of Result and was also in accordance with the Niger State Civil Service Rules.

 

ON ISSUE TWO, “whether in view of the circumstance leading to the dismissal of the Claimant and the provisions of the Niger State Civil Rules, the dismissal can be adjudged to be proper”, learned counsel submitted that, considering the circumstances leading to the Claimant’s dismissal and the Niger State Civil Service Rules, the dismissal was proper. By Rule 04437 of Niger State Civil Service Rules, concealment of facts or false statements regarding qualifications is sufficient ground for dismissal without notice. Counsel added that the Claimant’s act of presenting a forged certificate constitutes concealment of fact, justifying he’s dismissal.

 

Counsel reiterated that the Defendants conducted a fair hearing process, including initial Screening Committee verification, a Re-Verification Committee comprising senior educationists, legal experts, and labor representatives; and the Claimant attended all proceedings and was afforded ample opportunity to defend he’s certificate.

 

ON ISSUE THREE, “whether the respondents have established their Counter Claim” according to the defence, a Counter-claim is a sword not a shield, and that a Counter-Claim is to all intents and purposes a separate and independent action in its own right. Counsel urged the Court to resolve the Counter-Claim in favour of the Defendants.

 

DECISION ON THE CLAIMS OF THE CLAIMANT

From the facts pleaded by the parties, the fact that the claimant was employed into the Civil Service of the 3^rd defendant is not in dispute in this suit. The area of dispute is whether the claimant’s employment still subsists and whether he is entitled to the arrears of salaries which he claims in this suit. This issue arose from the first claim of the claimant where he sought a declaration that his employment still subsists. The other claims sought by the claimant, particularly reliefs 2 and 4 regarding his unpaid salaries, are founded on relief 1.  Accordingly, whether the claimant is entitled to other claims sought in this action will depend on whether or not his employment still subsists.

 

In the averments in the statement of facts, the claimant pleaded that during the screening exercise in 2020/2021, the screening committee said the NCE certificate presented by the claimant could be fake. After the screening, the claimant continued his duties but some months later the HOD told him the Government has stopped him from coming to work until his NCE is verified. His salary was also stopped. The last salary he received was for the month of December 2020.

 

On their part, the defendants pleaded that the claimant appeared before the screening committee where it was discovered that the NCE certificate presented by the claimant is fake. Upon being satisfied that the NCE certificate of the claimant is fake, his salary was stopped and his appointment was terminated via dismissal letter. The defendants pleaded the dismissal letter and frontloaded it. It is dated 17/6/2021 and issued by the 3^rd defendant. The content of the letter disclosed that the claimant was dismissed from the Niger State Civil Service with effect from 2/1/2021 and the reason for his dismissal, as stated in the dismissal letter, is falsification of record under Rule 030402 of the CSR. In his reply to statement of defence, the claimant pleaded that his has not been dismissed.

 

The defendants have presented a dismissal letter issued in the name of the claimant. The letter was issued on 17^th June 2021 but to have taken effect from 2/1/2021. The Claimant wants the Court to declare that his employment still subsists. I cannot make that declaration now that his dismissal letter has been shown to the Court by the defendants. In view of the dismissal letter, the only reason the Court will declare the claimant’s employment still subsisting is if it is shown that the dismissal is wrongful or unlawful. The claimant did not challenge his dismissal in this suit and, other than to plead that he has not been dismissed, he did not plead any fact which can enable the Court consider whether his dismissal, as disclosed in the letter produced by the defendants, was properly or lawfully done. The fact that he is not in receipt of the dismissal letter does not mean that the 3^rd defendant has not dismissed him from the employment. Also, the fact that the claimant is not in receipt of or served the dismissal letter cannot be a factor to nullify or impeach the letter of dismissal produced by the defendants. The contention whether or not the claimant received the dismissal letter is a matter to be tested and determined upon receiving oral evidence and cross examination of witnesses. In view of the trial on record procedure adopted in this matter, the facts pleaded by the claimant are not enough to determine whether he received the dismissal letter or not.

 

The obvious fact however is that the 3^rd defendant had taken a decision to dismiss the claimant from service. The claimant himself confirmed that his salary had been stopped. In view of these facts, the declaration sought by the claimant to the effect that his employment subsists cannot be made. Until the dismissal is properly and successfully challenged and set aside, the claimant cannot be entitled to salaries for the effective period of the dismissal. Accordingly, reliefs 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 sought by the claimant fail.

 

In relief 3, the claimant wants this Court to declare that his original NCE certificate which he presented to the screening committee is genuine, valid and authentic. In my view, it is only the school who issued the NCE certificate that can confirm its genuineness, validity and authenticity. This court did not issue the NCE certificate and cannot therefore make the declaration sought by the claimant unless and until the claimant produce evidence from the school confirming the authenticity of the NCE certificate. The claimant did not present any confirmation from the school. I am therefore unable to make the declaration sought in relief 3.

 

The result of the foregoing is that the claimant is not entitled to any of the claims he sought in this suit.

 

DECISION ON THE DEFENDANTS’ COUNTER CLAIM

In the counter claim, the defendants sought an order directing the Claimant to refund the sum of N7,181,482.44 being salaries paid to him since 2009 for the period of 142 months. The basis for this claim is that the claimant, at the time he was given appointment in 2009, he presented a fake NCE certificate. Since 2009, the claimant had been illegally receiving salary from the defendants based on fraudulent representation of his qualifications. He had so far received the total sum of N7,181,482.44 a period of 142 months from 2009 to 2021. The Defendants said they are entitled to refund of this sum received by the Claimant.

               

From the facts of this case, I find that the claimant did not employ himself into the service of the 2^nd and 3^rd defendants. He was given provisional appointment by the 3^rd defendant in 2009, the appointed was confirmed and the claimant was promoted. The claimant has been in the service of the 2^nd and 3^rd defendants since 2009 and he had rendered services for the defendants for which he was paid salaries. The defendants who employed the claimant did not conduct due diligence before employing the claimant in 2009 and in the period that the claimant was in service, the defendants never took steps to find out the authenticity of the claimant’s qualifications until 2021. The defendants have themselves to blame for not taking proactive steps to confirm the genuineness of the educational qualifications of persons they employ into the 1^st defendant’s civil service.

 

Since the time the claimant was employed by the defendants in 2009, he worked for the defendants up till the time his employment was terminated and his salary was stopped in 2021.  The claimant has earned the salaries for the period from the date of his employment to the date of his dismissal. The result of the foregoing is that the defendants are not entitled to their claim in relief 1 of the counter claim. I also find the defendants did not make out any case to entitle them to reliefs 2, 3 and 4 sought in the counter claim. Consequently, the Counter claim fail and it is dismissed.

 

In conclusion, this suit is liable to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed.

 

Parties shall bear their costs.

 

Judgment is entered accordingly.

 

 

Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe

Judge