The Presiding Judge, Ibadan Judicial Division of the National Industrial Court has dismissed the case filed by one Muhammed Garba challenging his dismissal from the Nigerian Army for lack of cogent and credible evidence.

The Court held that Garba has a duty to prove to the Court the procedure under his terms and condition of employment by which he could be dismissed, and to draw the attention of the Court to how the Nigerian Army breached the established and accepted procedure for his dismissal.

From facts, the claimant- Muhammed Garba had sought a declaration that his purported dismissal by the Nigerian Army and 2 others with the effect from the 16th day of June 2016 while in the service of the Nigerian Army is irregular, illegal, unconstitutional in bad faith and breach of natural justice and therefore null and void.

Likewise, an order directing the Nigerian Army to reinstate him to his post forthwith with payment of all his salary, entitlement, and emoluments from the month of July 2016 till his reinstatement.

In defense, the defendants- Nigerian Army, Commander Odogbo Barrack maintained that Garba has not succeeded in establishing that his dismissal is irregular, unconstitutional and in bad faith; and did not deny or refute the serious allegations that led to his dismissal.

Counsel urged the Court to refuse all the reliefs sought for lack of proof and dismiss the case in its entirety.

However, despite serving hearing notices and several adjournments, Garba did not cross-examine the defendant and did not file any final written address. 

Delivering the judgment after careful evaluation of the submissions of both parties, the presiding Judge, Justice Dele Peters held that Garba failed to inform the Court about the established procedure to be followed by the Nigerian Army before his dismissal, and did not inform the Court how the procedure was breached.

Justice Dele Peters ruled that the only exhibit tendered by Garba did not show a link between his dismissal and the procedure followed for the same.

“In the instant case, Claimant did not challenge the procedure for his dismissal. He did not challenge the competency of his Commanding Officer both to try and dismiss him. Neither did the Claimant allege that he was denied a hearing in the events leading to his dismissal. It is my finding that the Claimant failed to adduce cogent and credible evidence in support of the declaration sought.” The Court ruled.

Visit the judgment portal for full details