Media
- Home
- Details
Abuja – His Lordship, Hon. Justice Sanusi Kado of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, sitting in Abuja, on Tuesday 8th January 2019 in a judgment declared null and void, set aside the letter of compulsory retirement of COL. DANLADI RIBAH HASSAN (RTD) (claimant), ordered reinstated back to his post in the Nigeria Army (defendant) with all his rights and privileges.
The claimant sought against defendants among others; A DECLARATORY ORDER of this Hon. Court that purported compulsory retirement of the Claimant from the services of the Nigerian Army by the Second Defendant vide its letter dated 9th June 2016 constitutes/constituted an unfair and or wrongful dismissal and therefore wrongful, unlawful, illegal, unconstitutional, invalid and contrary to the Armed Forces of Nigeria Harmonized Terms and Conditions of Service for Officers 2012. AN ORDER of the Hon. Court setting aside the purported letter of compulsory retirement dated 9th June 2016 which was issued by or on behalf of the Second Defendant for being unlawful, invalid, unconstitutional, void and of no effect whatsoever.
Likewise, AN ORDER of the Hon. Court directing my immediate reinstatement to my statutory protected employment or service in the Nigerian Army and which reinstatement is to be made effective from 9th June, 2016with all my rights and entitlements.
The case of the claimant is that he was a Colonel in the Nigeria Army, until the 9th day of June 2016, when he was compulsorily retired from the Army. He severally had served as an instructor, staff officer, and commander in the field, including appointments of higher rank in acting capacity.
He also testified that he was shocked to receive the Defendants' letter of 9th June 2016, wherein he was purportedly retired compulsorily from the services of the Nigerian Army.
The reason(s) for the purported compulsory retirement was on disciplinary grounds i.e. serious offences. he stated that the reason(s) for his purported compulsory retirement is unfounded and a ruse as he has never at any time since the date of his commission as an officer committed any act that could be viewed as amounting to indiscipline or serious offences that could warrant any disciplinary measures.
After receiving the letter, a press release was made by the Nigerian Army spokesman that the retirement affected officers who were either indicted by the Presidential Investigation Panel on the on-going arms purchase with the office of the National Security Adviser or were partisan in the 2015 General Elections.
Cross Witness stated that the acts of the Defendants offend the statutory provisions of the Armed Forces Act and the Harmonized Terms and Conditions of Service for officers 2012 (Revised).
Defendant stated that Armed forces oaths of allegiance that claimant will serve for 18 years and if the need arises he will apply for an extension, and for not following rules is a serious offence. The Armed Forces Act provide for admin and administration and not limited to the description which is not true that an officer of rank of Colonel cannot be retired without going through the disciplinary procedure.
The defendants submitted for determination Whether the claimant has established by preponderance of evidence that his employment with the 1st defendant is for 35years? or Whether the defendant has established by preponderance of evidence that the claimant employment with the 1stdefendant was for 18 years in the first instance and whether the claimant has overstayed his tenure? And Whether the claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought?
Counsel urged the court to hold that on the basis that the claimant instrument of appointment, the claimant's employment was for a fixed term, the claimant has served out the agreed term and his employment was validly determined.
Defendant submitted that the claimant is seeking for AN ORDER directing the immediate reinstatement to his statutory protected employment which will amount to a violation of the Armed Forces Act as it is unequivocal that the court has no power to do so.
After careful analysis of all the processes filed, and the submissions of the learned Counsel from both sides. The Court presided by Hon. Justice Sanusi Kado expressed thus;
“The defendants have not referred the court to any of the provisions of the Armed Forces Act or the Harmonized Terms and Condition of Service for Officers 2012, (Revised), where overstaying or serving beyond 18 years in the military was made to be a disciplinary i.e serious offences.
“The defendants seem to be under the impression that the claimant having served for 26 years, the contract of service has elapsed as at the time the claimant served for 18 years and they are acting under the assumption that the claimant is no longer entitled to be in service. The defendants may have taken the position they have taken based on their own interpretation of section 30 of the Armed Forces Act.
“At a glance the argument of the defendants appears to be attractive, but, a careful and meticulous examination of the provision of section 30 of the Armed Forces Act and Exhibit CW1B will expose the fallacy of the argument canvassed by the defendant in respect of the claimant not applying for approval for re-engagement.
“In view of lack of credible evidence to prove non-application for re-engagement, I prefer the version given by the claimant to the effect that he applied for re-engagement and same was granted.
“The defendants having failed to convince the court of the disciplinary ground for compulsorily retiring the claimant i.e serious offences, is therefore null and void and of no effect.
“The letter of compulsory retirement having been issued not in line with Harmonized Terms and Conditions of Service for Officers 2012, (Revised), is not capable of retiring the claimant as it was issued in violation of extant rules the letter is null and void and of no effect for having been issued without due process. It is hereby set aside.
“In the circumstance, I hereby ordered reinstatement of the claimant back to his post with all his rights and privileges.”
