IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT ABUJA

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE R.B. HAASTRUP

 

30TH JULY 2026

SUIT NO. NICN/ABJ/154/2025

 

BETWEEN

 

NDUBUISI JOY CHINEME ……………………………………………….…… CLAIMANT 

 

AND 

 

FEDERAL CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION …………………………..……DEFENDANT

 

REPRESENTATION:

A.I. Erameh Esq., for Claimant

No legal representation for Defendant

 

JUDGMENT

[1] This suit is commenced by way of a General Form of Complaint filed on 27th May 2025, accompanied with Claimant’s originating processes filed in accordance with the rules of this Court.  

 

CASE OF CLAIMANT

[2] It is the case of the Claimant that she was first offered temporary appointment as Administrative Officer I on 20th February 2015 vide letter ref. No. F9C800/C8721/15. She was subsequently posted to the Federal Ministry of Industry, Trade and Investment on 23rd November 2016 and later deployed to the commercial law department on 3rd May 2017. Following a promotion examination, the Claimant’s appointment was confirmed and made permanent on 12th October 2020.

 

[3] The Claimant avers that she passed a verification exercise in 2021 and was commended by the head of service after her confirmation examination. On 27th July 2022, two staff of the Defendant served the Claimant a letter directing her to surrender all official documents and items in her custody. The Claimant contends she was never issued a query, never invited to explain her appointment, and was given no reason prior to the said letter and the consequent stoppage of her salary. As a result, the Claimant has suffered psychological trauma, developed hypertension, and was unable to meet her family obligations.

 

[4] She further avers that her promotion to level 13, scheduled for October 2022, was frustrated while her contemporaries were promoted and all efforts to obtain an explanation from the Defendant were rebuffed. In sum, the Claimant seeks redress for unlawful stoppage of salary, denial of fair hearing, and the resultant damages arising from her abrupt removal from service after almost 8 years of unblemished service.

 

[5] It is predicated upon the foregoing facts that the Claimant seeks the following reliefs:

  1. Declaration that the doctrine of Exturpi Causa non oritur actio was not complied before the letter with reference no T/23359/s.302601/1 dated 27th of July 2022 captioned re: service wide verification exercise for all officers recruited by the Federal Civil Service Commission from 2013-2020 relieving Claimant of her official duties and directing her to hand over government properties in her possession is null and void and of no intent and purpose.
  2. A declaration that the issuance of the above letter dated 27th of July, 2022 and stoppage of her salary based on unverified allegation without a query or disciplinary action or panel or opportunity to respond violates section 36 of the 1999 constitution of 1999 (sic).
  3. A declaration that Claimant stoppage of salary and other entitlements after 7 years of continuous service, confirmation and no official query or disciplinary proceedings constitute a breach of contract of service of employment and employment rights.
  4. A declaration that the stoppage of the Claimant's salary from the 27th of July, 2022 amounts to constructive dismissal without due process under Public Service Rules.
  5. An order compelling Defendant to pay the Claimant the sum of N540, 000 being unpaid salary from July 2022 till July 2025 and N180, 000 monthly thereafter until judgement date of judgement (sic).
  6. An order of Court directing the immediate payment of all arrears of salary and entitlements of her level from July 2022 till date.
  7. An order of Court to recall the Claimant to immediate re- employment back to federal civil service and be accordingly posted to any ministry of the Defendant's choice.
  8. An order of Court for the Claimant to be at par with her contemporaries in the civil service that were employed in 2015.
  9. An order of Court to partake in the next promotion examination of her contemporaries that entered the civil service in 2015.
  10. The sum of 3,000 000 as general damages for constructive dismissal from Federal without legal basis.
  11. An order of Court re-opening Claimant's first bank account closed as result of her stoppage of work.
  12. N200, 000.00 as cost of action. 

It is pertinent to mention here that this suit stands undefended.

 

COMMENCEMENT OF HEARING

[6] Trial in this suit commenced on 30th September 2025 wherein the Claimant opened her case and testified as CW. She adopted written statement on oath filed 27th May 2025 and tendered seven (7) documents admitted and marked as exhibits A-G.

 

[7] The Defendant neither entered an appearance nor filed a defence and was also absent for cross-examination. Upon the application of the Claimant’s Counsel on 18th December 2025, the Defendant was foreclosed from cross-examining the Claimant (CW). Thereafter, the Claimant closed her case on same date and Court adjourned for defence.

 

[8] On the adjourned date, the Defendant once again failed to appear or enter defence. Consequently, upon another application by the Claimant’s Counsel, the Defendant was foreclosed from presenting a defence and the matter was adjourned for the adoption of final written addresses.

 

[9] The Claimant’s Counsel on 3rd June 2026 adopted final written address filed on 12th May 2026, wherein learned Counsel to the Claimant formulated three (3) issues for determination to wit:

  1. Whether from the facts adduced it can be concluded that the Claimant was properly appointed as Administrative Officer I by the Federal Civil Service Commission and therefore her appointment/ termination is protected by statute.
  2. Whether the summary dismissal of the Claimant from her appointment as Administrative Officer I could be considered as unlawful and not according to due process it being an employment clothed with statutory flavour. The manner, in which the Claimant was dismissed from office, is a violation of the process prescribed by law and of her fundamental human rights to fair hearing before her letter of dismissal was served on her.
  3. Whether having considered the totality of the evidence before this honourable Court, the Claimant is entitled to her claim. 

 

LEGAL ARGUMENT 

 

ISSUE ONE

Whether from the facts adduced it can be concluded that the Claimant was properly appointed as administrative officer I by the federal civil service commission and therefore her appointment/termination is protected by statute.

 

[10] Claimant’s Counsel submits that evidence shows that the Claimant was first given a temporary appointment as administrative officer I by the federal civil service commission through a letter dated 20th February 2015. The letter stated that the appointment would be regularized within six months upon submission of credentials and a medical certificate. Her appointment was later confirmed and made permanent and pensionable by a letter dated 12th October 2020. Following the appointment, she was posted to the federal ministry of industry, trade and investment and subsequently deployed between departments. Relying on Exhibit D and the public service rules, Claimant’s Counsel submits that direct appointment into the federal public service on probation in a pensionable post is recognized and eligibility requires minimum age, qualifications including computer literacy, medical fitness, good conduct testimonial, and compliance with the scheme of service. Appointment must also have authorization from the office of the head of service of the federation; all of which the Claimant satisfied, resumed duty, and subsequently underwent verification, confirmation, and promotion exercises over a period of seven years. 

 

[11] It was submitted that the Claimant’s appointment was made pursuant to the Constitution and the Federal Civil Service Rules and Regulations. Her employment is therefore clothed with statutory flavour and her appointment and termination are protected by statute. He cited KWARA STATE JUDICIAL SERVICE COMMISSION & 3 ORS V. MISS YETUNDE ZAINAB TOLANI (2019) 7 NWLR (PT. 1671) 382 @ 399, SECTION 153(1)(D) and PART I D OF THE THIRD SCHEDULE TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA 1999, SECTION 318(1) OF THE 1999 CONSTITUTION, NIGERIA V. DR. JIMMY SHOGBOLA (2004) 11 NWLR (PT. 883) 1 @ 20 PARAS D-F AND SECTION 277(1) of the 1999 CONSTITUTION. 

 

ISSUE 2

Whether the summary dismissal of the Claimant from her appointment as administrative officer I could be considered as unlawful and not according to due process it being an employment clothed with statutory flavour. The manner, in which the Claimant was dismissed from office, is a violation of the process prescribed by law and of her fundamental human rights to fair hearing before her letter of dismissal was served on her.

 

[12] Claimant’s Counsel argues that the Claimant’s employment is coated with statutory flavour; therefore her dismissal must comply with the procedure prescribed by law and with the principles of natural justice. That the Defendant summarily dismissed the Claimant on the ground that her appointment was "fake". The letter gave no evidence or particulars. She was not issued a query, not invited to defend herself, and was immediately stripped of office and salary. A procedure which is contrary to the rules of fair hearing guaranteed under section 36(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 having not been given the opportunity to present her case before any adjudicating authority. He cited OLAYIOYE V. OYELARAN (2019) 4 NWLR (PT. 1662) 351 @ 372-373 PARAS H-C. That the act also offends the principle of nemo judex in causa sua. The dismissal therefore violates due process and the Claimant’s fundamental right to fair hearing.

 

ISSUE 3

Whether having considered the totality of the evidence before this honourable Court, the Claimant is entitled to her claim. 

 

[13] Learned Counsel to the Claimant submits in the affirmative and asserts that The Claimant has led evidence of lawful appointment, confirmation, years of service, and unlawful termination without fair hearing. Therefore, she has discharged the burden of proof placed on her by law.

In conclusion Claimant’s Counsel urged Court to resolve the issues in favour of the Claimant and grant all reliefs sought in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience.

COURT’S DECISION

[14] Upon a careful consideration of the pleadings of the Claimant herein, evidence adduced in support and address of learned Counsel for the Claimant, I hereby adopt the issues set out by the Claimant’s Counsel albeit in my own terms to wit:

  1. Whether the Claimant was validly appointed by the Federal Civil Service Commission.
  2. Whether the termination of the Claimant’s appointment complied with due process and the rule of fair hearing.
  3. Whether an employee with statutory employment who was unlawfully terminated is entitled to placement at par with contemporaries.
  4. Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought.

 

The foregoing issues shall be resolve simultaneously.

 

[15] The gamut of the Claimant’s case is that she was employed by the Defendant and that her employment was brought to an abrupt end on the grounds that her employment is fake. Thus, the question of the validity of the Claimant’s employment is fundamental to this suit. This is because the Court lacks jurisdiction to enforce an illegal contract, and further because one of the principal reliefs sought by the Claimant is reinstatement. It is therefore incumbent on the Court to first ascertain whether a valid contract of employment existed between the parties. 

 

[16] The record of this Court shows that the Defendant did not file any process in response to the Claimant’s suit. The law is well settled that where evidence on a material fact is not challenged, contradicted, or controverted by the opposing party, the Court is bound to accept such evidence as credible and act upon it, unless it is obviously unreliable on the face of it. See IJOMAH V. MOLOKWU (2025) 21 NWLR (PT. 2023) 145, AMADI V. ORLU (2023) 14 NWLR (PT. 1904) 319 AT 353, PARAS C-H. 

 

[17] It must however be emphasized that the mere failure of the Defendant to defend does not automatically entitle the Claimant to Judgment. The Court is only obligated to accept the Claimant’s unchallenged evidence if it is cogent, credible and capable of sustaining the reliefs claimed. See AREWA TEXTILES PLC V. FINETEX LTD (2003) 7 NWLR (PT. 819) 322. Consequently, the burden rests on the Claimant to prove by credible evidence that she is entitled to the reliefs sought. This is in line with the cardinal principle that he who asserts must prove. See NITEL LTD V. OKEKE (2017) 9 NWLR (PT. 1571) 439 AT 462, OMISORE V. AREGBESOLA (2015) NWLR (PT. 1482) 1 AT 273, SECTIONS 131, 132, AND 133 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT 2011. In discharge of this burden, the Claimant placed before the Court the following documents: 

  1. Offer of temporary appointment dated 20th February 2015 and marked Exhibit A
  2. Letter of appointment dated 12th October 2026 and marked Exhibit B
  3. The Office of the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation Gazette marked Exhibit C
  4. Assumption of duty certificate marked Exhibit D 

 

[18] Having carefully examined the documents, I find that the Claimant was in fact employed by the Defendant. For sake of clarity, I must state that Exhibit C, being a public document, was not relied upon in arriving at this finding. This is because the Claimant did not tender a certified true copy, which is the admissible form of secondary evidence for public documents. That notwithstanding, Exhibits A B and C are private documents and do not suffer from that defect. The said documents corroborate the fact of employment, and that fact has not been controverted by the Defendant. Where a material fact is admitted or not challenged, the burden of proof required of the Claimant is minimal. See OKOYE V. IRISO (2023) 17 NWLR (PT. 1914) 581 AT 599, PARAS D-F, MOBIL OIL NIG. LTD. V. N.O.C.M. CO LTD. (2000) 9 NWLR (PT. 671) 41 AT 52, PARA H. Accordingly, I find that the Claimant has established on a balance of probabilities that she was validly employed by the Defendant. 

 

With regard to the validity of the dismissal of Claimant’s employment, the document central to this issue is Exhibit F titled: RE: SERVICE WIDE VERIFICATION EXERCISE FOR ALL OFFICERS RECRUITED BY THE FEDERAL CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION FROM 2013 TO 2020. The relevant portions state: 

“I am directed to draw your attention to a letter Ref. FC.2039/S. 122/1/108 dated 25th July, 2022 on the above subject. (Copy attached herewith). Following the Service-wide verification exercise conducted by the Federal Civil Service Commission for Officers recruited from 2013 to 2022, your appointment as Admin Officer I (AOI) GL.09 has been found to be fake. Consequent upon the above, you are hereby relieved of all Official duties and directed to handover any Government property in your possession immediately.” 

 

[19] Although the Claimant did not use the word "dismissal", she averred that her salary was abruptly stopped. From the contents of Exhibit F, it is clear that the Defendant, after conducting a verification exercise, concluded that the Claimant’s appointment was fake. The Defendant then relieved her of all official duties and asked her to hand over government property. The natural consequence of that letter is that the Claimant was constructively dismissed without any benefits. The stated ground for the action is that the appointment was fake. This imports an allegation of misconduct or fraud. It is elementary that where dismissal is predicated on misconduct, the employer must strictly comply with the rules of fair hearing and with the applicable Public Service Rules before carrying out the dismissal. There is no evidence before this Court that the Claimant was issued a query or given any opportunity to respond to the allegation before the decision in Exhibit F was taken. The Claimant’s employment with the Defendant has statutory flavour. It is an appointment made by the Federal Civil Service Commission and is regulated by the Public Service Rules and other extant regulations. See ADEDEJI V. C.B.N. (2023) 5 NWLR (PT. 1878) 531 AT 553, PARA E, P.H.C.N. PLC V. OFFOELO (2013) 4 NWLR (PT. 1344) 380. By virtue of PSR 010101 (2008), the Public Service Rules apply where there are no contrary terms in the letter of appointment. PSR 030307 mandates that before an officer in the public service can be dismissed, she must first be issued a query setting out the offence, the rule breached and the possible penalty. She must also be afforded a reasonable opportunity to make representations in her defence. This requirement aligns with the constitutional guarantee of fair hearing under Section 36 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended). 

 

[20] The Claimant has averred that she received the letter in Exhibit F without any prior query or invitation to defend herself. I therefore find that the dismissal of the Claimant did not comply with the requirements of fair hearing, natural justice and the Public Service Rules. It is settled that in employment with statutory flavour, strict compliance with laid down procedures is compulsory. See COMP. GEN. CUSTOMS V. COMPT. ABDULLAHI B. GUSAU (2017) 18 NWLR (PT. 1598) 353 AT 378, PARAS. F-G, OLORUNTOBA OJU V. ABDUL RAHEEM (2009) 13 NWLR (PT. 1157) 83 AT 137, PARAS G-H. The Defendant glaringly failed to comply with laid down procedure. For the foregoing reasons, I hold that the dismissal of the Claimant is unlawful, null and void.

[21] The law is settled that where dismissal in a statutory employment is declared unlawful, the Court may order reinstatement and payment of accrued salaries and allowances in addition to any other relief. See OFORISHE V. N.G.C. LTD (2018) 2 NWLR (PT. 1602) 35 @ 54, PARAS A-C, DAMISA V. U.B.A. (2025) 19 NWLR (PT. 2021) 409 @ 431, PARA C; 432, PARAS A-B. 

 

[22] Having found that the Claimant’s employment has statutory flavour and that her dismissal was unlawful, I shall now consider the specific reliefs. The Claimant claims special damages of N540, 000.00 (Five Hundred and Forty Thousand Naira only) representing unpaid salaries from July 2022 to July 2025 and N180, 000.00 (One Hundred and Eighty Thousand Naira Only) monthly thereafter until Judgment. It is trite that special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved with credible evidence. In the absence of such proof, the claim must fail. See THOMPSON V. AKINGBEHIN (2021) 16 NWLR (PT. 1802) 283 AT 323, PARAS E-F, S.P.D.C. (NIG.) LTD. V. OKEH (2026) 11 NWLR (PT. 2050) 93. In this case, the Claimant did not place any evidence before the Court to support the specific sum claimed. There were no pay slips, statement of account, or computation to show how the of N540, 000.00 (Five Hundred and Forty Thousand Naira only) and N180, 000 (One Hundred and Eighty Thousand Naira Only monthly were arrived at. For this reason, the claim for special damages fails. 

 

[23] I must however reiterate that in statutory employment where dismissal is unlawful, the employee is entitled to reinstatement and to all salaries and allowances that accrued during the period of wrongful exclusion. Therefore, while the claim for special damages fails, the Claimant is by OFORISHE V. N.G.C. LTD (SUPRA), PARAS A-C, DAMISA V. U.B.A. (SUPRA) entitled to payment of all arrears of salary and allowances from July 2022 to the date of this Judgment. I so hold.

 

[24] The Claimant also seeks an order to be placed at par with her contemporaries in terms of promotion. The general position of the law is that promotion is not a right but a privilege earned by the employee. An employer cannot be compelled to promote an employee. See NWOYE V. FAAN (2019) 5 NWLR (PT. 1665) 193. However, I hold the firm view that in cases of unlawful dismissal from statutory employment, the Court may order notional promotion to prevent the employer from benefiting from its own wrong. Where the employer’s unlawful act prevented the employee from meeting a condition precedent for promotion, such as sitting for a promotion examination, the Court will treat that condition as satisfied and place the employee at par with her contemporaries for the purpose of seniority and emoluments. To succeed on this, the Claimant must prove the date of the promotion exercise, that she was qualified before the dismissal, and that her contemporaries on the same grade actually sat for the examination and were promoted. 

 

[25] In this case, the Claimant only asserted that she was due to write a promotion examination to level 13 in October 2022 alongside her contemporaries. She did not lead evidence in support thereof to show that she was qualified at the time or that her contemporaries actually took the examination and were promoted. Courts do not speculate. In the absence of credible evidence, this relief cannot succeed. 

 

[26] The Claimant also claims general damages. The law does not permit an employee in statutory employment to claim both reinstatement and general damages for the same wrongful dismissal, as that will amount to double compensation. See NIGERIAN SOCIETY OF ENGINEERS V. OZAH (2015) 6 NWLR (PT. 145) 76 AT 100, PARAS B-D. 

 

[27] Finally, the Claimant seeks an order for the reopening of her First Bank account which she alleged was closed due to stoppage of salary. No facts were pleaded in support of this claim. It is settled that evidence led on facts not pleaded goes to no issue. See OBINECHE V. AKUSOBI (2010) 12 NWLR (PT. 1208) 383. This relief therefore fails. 

 

[28] On the whole, the case of the Claimant succeeds partially and determined as follows:

Reliefs i,ii,iii,iv,vi,vii,xii succeed

Reliefs v,viii,ix,x,xi fail.

It is hereby declared and/or ordered as follows:

  1. The dismissal of the Claimant as contained in the letter with Reference No. T/23359/S.302601/1 dated 27th of July 2022 captioned RE: SERVICE WIDE VERIFICATION EXERCISE FOR ALL OFFICERS RECRUITED BY THE FEDERAL CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION FROM 2013-2020 is unlawful, null and void and of no effect, same having been done in breach of the rules of fair hearing and the Public Service Rules.
  2. The issuance of the said letter dated 27th of July, 2022 and the stoppage of the Claimant’s salary based on unverified allegations without a query, disciplinary action, panel, or opportunity to respond amounts to constructive dismissal and violated the Claimant’s right to fair hearing guaranteed under Section 36 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended). 
  3. The Defendant shall immediately reinstate the Claimant into the Federal Civil Service and post her to any Ministry of choice.
  4. The Defendant shall immediately pay the Claimant all arrears of salary and entitlements accruable to her grade level from July 2022 till date of this Judgment.

 

[29] Judgment is entered accordingly.

 

 

……………………………………

Hon. Justice R.B. Haastrup

Judge