Media
- Home
- Details
Abakaliki --His Lordship, Hon. Justice I. G. Nweneka of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, sitting in Abakaliki on Wednesday 26th September, 2018 in a judgment declared the termination of the AUGUSTINE NWODOM NWIBO (claimant) appointment by JUDICIAL SERVICE COMMISSION, EBONYI STATE as unlawful, unwarranted, null and void.
His Lordship ordered reinstatement of the Claimant forthwith and payment of all his salaries, allowances and other benefits from the date of his unlawful termination.
Cost of N50, 000 [fifty thousand naira] also awarded in favour of the Claimant against the 1st Defendant payable within 7 days from the date of this judgment.
The Claimant commenced this action by a Complaint on 5th June 2013 sought against the Defendants among others; A declaration that the termination of his appointment without affording him the opportunity to know the allegation against him and to be heard in defence amounted to gross violation of his fundamental right to fair hearing as protected under section 36 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended. Likewise An order reinstating the Claimant with immediate effect, with all his full entitlements and benefits inclusive of any arrears owed him.
The Claimant’s case is that he was a staff of the 1st Defendant having been employed on 29th October 2001 as Clerical Assistant and deployed to Mbeke Ishieke Customary Court. His appointment was confirmed on 12th January 2004, and worked without blemish, caution, query or suspension until 13th March 2013 when his appointed was terminated without notice.
He attributed his termination to disagreements between the Chairman of the Customary Court, Barrister Steve Nwankwo, and the Registrar, Mr. Modacai Nwuzor, leading to the transfer of Mr. Nwuzor to the Headquarters; subsequent petitions against the Chairman and setting up of a panel to investigate the complaints against him.
The Defendants admitted that the Claimant was a staff of the 1st Defendant but denied that his employment had statutory flavour. It is the Defendants’ case that the Claimant was a junior staff whose service was dispensable at the pleasure of the 1st Defendant without assigning any reason; and flowing from this, the 1st Defendant disengaged him when his services were no longer required and paid his entitlements.
The Defendants formulated one issue for determination whether the manner the 1st Defendant terminated the employment of the Claimant is lawful?
Arguing this lone issue learned Counsel for the Defendants submitted that the Claimant’s employment was lawfully terminated. The Defendants contended that the Claimant’s employment was the ordinary master and servant contract and the 1st Defendant has the right to hire and fire.
The claimant submitted whether the Claimant is a public officer and his appointment a statutory one which enjoys statutory flavours as governed by the Public Service Rules, 2009 or that of a mere master and servant relationship, whose appointment is at the pleasure of his master, 1st Defendant?
Arguing issue one, learned Counsel contended that the 1st Defendant is a creation of statute and as a result its affairs are regulated by the Public Service Rules and urged the Court to discountenance the Defendants’ argument that the appointment is one of master and servant.
After reviewing the argument of both parties, the Court Presided by Hon. Justice I. G. Nweneka expressed thus;
“Let me quickly say that the category or grade of an employee is not material in determining whether his employment is with statutory flavour or not. What determines the status of the employee is the legal character of the contract of employment.
“The summary of all I have been saying is that from the evidence before me, I find and hold that the Claimant was a staff of the 1st Defendant and from the documentary evidence a civil servant. As a civil servant he enjoys statutory protection.
“It is in evidence that the Claimant was summarily disengaged from the services of the 1st Defendant. The letter of termination, exhibit D, did not give any reason for the termination. It merely stated that his services were no longer required. Clearly, the termination was not on account of any misconduct."
The Court declared that the termination of the Claimant’s appointment by the 1st Defendant as unlawful, unwarranted, null and void and Also ordered the 1st Defendant to reinstate the Claimant forthwith and pay all his salaries, allowances and other benefits from the date of his unlawful termination.
