Back

The court has exclusive jurisdiction in civil causes and matters relating to or connected with any labour, employment, trade unions, industrial relations and matters arising from workplace, the conditions of service, including health, safety, welfare of labour, employee, worker and matter incidental thereto or connected therewith.

LIVE Proceeding VIRTUAL COURT

News


Dismissal From Service: Industrial Court Terminates Suit Against FJSC and 3 ors


1092 Tuesday 13th February 2018

 

His Lordship, Hon. Justice Benedict B. Kanyip of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, Abuja division in a judgment dismissed suit against Federal Judicial Service Commission and 3 others filled by Raphael Adula Odama challenging his dismissal from service.

 

The claimant through his counsel Oman C. Omang Esq. On 5th Ma 27, 2017 filed  complaint together with the statement of facts, list of witnesses, witness statement of facts, list and copies of documents against the defendant prayed for the following relief among others; A declaration that the letter of dismissal served on the him by the FJSC dated 24th January 2017 is null and void and of no effect as the claimant did not make false declaration for the purpose of appointment. An order of the Honourable Court directing the 1st and 2nd and 3rd defendants to reinstate the claimant in their employment as Executive Officer (Litigation) on salary Grade Level 07 being his last rank in the service of the 1st and 2nd defendants and An order of the Honourable Court directing the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants to immediately pay to the claimant his lawful salary for the months of June 2011 to July 2014.

 

The defendants 2nd(Chief Registrar, NICN) and 3rd (NICN) defendants counterclaimed against the claimant for A declaration that the employment of the claimant into the service  is invalid, irregular, null and void and of no effect whatsoever, and an order for a refund to the 2nd and 3rd defendants, within 90 days of the judgment of this Honorable Court, by way of special damages all salaries, allowances, remuneration and any payment made and received by the claimant from 12th April 2010 accounting and/or representing the period when the claimant was erroneously employed under the false believe and representation that he had the requisite qualification for gaining employment into the service when he know that he had not completed his course of study thereby making the 2nd and 3rd defendants to incur financial losses and expenses in payment of salaries and allowances for the period he deceitfully held office.

 

To the 2nd and 3rd defendant, the claimant deceived the 2nd and 3rd defendants into believing that he was a holder of Diploma in Law of the University of Abuja obtained in 1998 for purposes of gaining employment into the service of the 2nd and 3rd defendants. However, that during the staff verification exercise for purposes of ascertaining the actual qualification status of all their employees and members of staff with a view to ensuring that each employee holds the post in which they are with requisite qualification, it was discovered and revealed that the claimant could not submit or tender his Diploma in Law certificate of the University of Abuja as earlier claimed by the claimant during the time of his employment into service. That notwithstanding the fact that he (the claimant) was unable to present his certificate on demand during the staff verification exercise, he was given added time and opportunity to produce the certificate but yet he failed to do so since July 2011 to June 2013, the claimant was subjected to necessary disciplinary actions.

 

The claimant did not file any reply by way of response and defence to the counterclaim of the 2nd and 3rd defendants up to date.

 

The Federal Judicial Service Commission submitted a sole issue for determination, namely: taking into cognizance the evidence before this Honourable Court, whether the claimant’s employment was not rightfully terminated. In addressing this sole issue, the 1st defendant itemized facts that are not in dispute which inludes:

  • The claimant was employed by the 3rd defendant as a Litigation Officer II.
  • The claimant was promoted to the post of Executive Officer (Litigation) GL 07 by a letter of 1st December 2015.
  • The claimant was served with a preliminary letter dated 9th November 2016 by the 3rd defendant which informed him of the allegations leveled against him and a request that the claimant respond within 48 hours of the receipt of the letter.
  • The claimant received the preliminary letter and responded accordingly vide a letter dated 10th November 2016.
  • The claimant’s response was found unsatisfactory and the 3rd defendant referred the matter to the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant at its meeting held on the 17th January 2017 decided in accordance with Regulations 213 of the Federal Judicial Service Regulations 2010 to dismiss the claimant from the services of the 3rd d
  • The claimant was accordingly dismissed from the Federal Judicial Service for misleading the 3rd defendant to believe that he was awarded the Diploma in Law in 1998.
  • The claimant until his dismissal was an Executive Officer (Litigation) at the Calabar Division of the National Industrial Court (3rd defendant).

To the 1st defendant, these facts not being in dispute require no further proof, urging the Court to so hold.

 

After reviewing the argument of the parties, the Court Presided by Hon. Justice B. B. Kanyip, had this to say:

 

I have carefully considered the processes filed, the arguments and submissions of the parties on the preliminary points that arose in the cause of this trial.

 

I acknowledged earlier a measure of carelessness and hence blameworthiness of the 2nd and 3rd defendants in terms of the facts of this case; and I also noted that it is curious that the 2nd and 3rd defendants did not see anything fraudulent about the acts of the claimant (he was even given time to cure the defects noticeable in the issue of his Diploma in Law certificate, aside from even being confirmed and promoted in the meantime).

 

On the whole, and for the avoidance of doubt, the claimant’s case against all the defendants fails and is hereby dismissed. The 2nd and 3rd defendant’s counterclaim (1) is discountenanced given that it approximates to their defence of the claimant’s claims, which in any event fails and have been dismissed. Counterclaim (2) of the 2nd and 3rd defendants fails and is dismissed.

 

Judgment is entered accordingly.

For Full Judgment, Click Here