Lagos – His Lordship, Hon. Justice B. B. Kanyip of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, sitting in Lagos, on Wednesday 20th March 2019 in a judgment set aside letter of suspension and dismissal of Mr Eluyoye Joseph Oyewole (claimant) by the Lagos State Government, ordered Lagos State Govt to forthwith reinstate the claimant without any loss of benefit including the arrears of his salaries and all his other entitlements.
By the complaint and statement of facts, the claimant sought against defendants among others; A declaration that the Lagos State Government –(1st defendant’s) letter of suspension with Ref No. SHMB/888/S.l/VOL.IV/109 dated the 29th of November 2005 purporting to suspend the claimant indefinitely from the employment of the 1st defendant contravenes the 1st defendant’s Civil Service Rules as well as the rules of natural justice and is therefore null and void and of no effect whatsoever and an order setting aside the letter of suspension.
Likewise, An order directing the 1st defendant to pay to the claimant the sum of N2,013,494.17 being the sum total of the claimant’s salaries, allowances and annual leave bonus unlawful withheld during the period of the purported indefinite suspension which commenced in October 2005 to May 2009 i.e. three years ten months.
An order directing the 1st defendant to the immediately reinstate the claimant into the position of Higher Executive Officer (Accounts), Grade Level 08 of its civil service.
To the claimant, he joined the civil service of 1st defendant in 1983. In 2005, investigations led to the discovery that fictitious accounts had been opened in certain banks by officials of the 1st defendant and payments made to impostors through the fictitious accounts.
A panel was constituted to investigate the matter, and the police investigation was to the effect that there was no evidence that linked claimant to the fraud. Similarly, the HSC panel did not come up with evidence of indictment against the claimant.
That contrary to Civil Service Rules in September 2005 the claimant was sent on indefinite suspension, not interdiction as required and the claimant was not paid any salary during the indefinite suspension in contravention of Civil Service Rules.
After series of petitions, meetings, and negotiations, the claimant was reinstated into the Civil Service on 14/7/09 and redeployed to the Ministry of Works and Infrastructure.
That series of Personnel Management Board (PMB) disciplinary meetings regarding the allegation of fictitious accounts and illegal withdrawal of funds took place and exonerated the claimant from “any specific act of fraud or misconduct”.
That in spite of this, the defendants continued to make the claimant undergo further disciplinary hearings where the allegations against claimant could not be substantiated and was served a letter of dismissal dated 12/2/13.
It is thus the claimant’s case that his suspension without pay and dismissal contravene the defendant’s Civil Service Rule which regulates the claimant’s employment and the rules of natural justice.
The defendants submitted for determination whether the claimant has discharged the onus placed on him to prove the claim for special damages being the accrual right allegedly flowing from the indefinite suspension without pay from the 1st defendant’s employment in the circumstances of this case.
The defendants argued that the claim for salaries and allowances for the period the claimant served the indefinite suspension from October 2005 to May 2009, is statute-barred and so not recoverable by the claimant.
The defendants also argued that the claimant was notified of the offence was given fair hearing in the process leading to the termination of his employment. To the claimant, it is not just that the claimant was given fair hearing, but he must be found guilty of the offence complained against him by the panel set up to investigate the allegation.
However, the defendants further argued that the claimant is not entitled to be paid salary for the period he was purportedly suspended which they claimed letter of reinstatement nullified.
After careful analysis of all the processes filed, and the submissions of the learned Counsel from both sides. The Court presided by Hon. Justice Benedict Kanyip held that claimant claim is within the limitation period and expressed thus;
“The claimant supplied no document evidencing the respective salaries and allowances upon which he calculated his claims, his letter of offer of employment does not bear any of the sums he used as salaries and allowances. As it is, the claimant cannot be said to have proved how he came by the sum he claims as to be entitled to.
“It is even the submission of the defendants that the reinstatement of the claimant vide letter of reinstatement was to cure the error they made in suspending the claimant. So if the defendants made an error in suspending the claimant, then they must pay for the period that the claimant served out the indefinite suspension. It is not enough rectitude that they reinstated him; this must be marched with due financial recompense.
The court declared inter alia that the 1st defendant’s letter of suspension with Ref No. SHMB/888/S.l/VOL.IV/109 dated 29th November 2005 purporting to suspend the claimant indefinitely from the employment of the 1st defendant contravenes the 1st defendant’s Civil Service Rules as well as the rules of natural justice and is, therefore, null and void and of no effect whatsoever, and the said letter of suspension was set aside.
His lordship also set aside the said letter of dismissal and ordered the 1st defendant to forthwith reinstate the claimant without any loss of benefit including the arrears of his salaries and all his other entitlements.
