Media
- Home
- Details
Abuja – His Lordship, Hon. Justice Simisola Adeniyi of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, sitting in Abuja, has validated the dismissal of Osim Livinus and Ukujede Felix by the Civil Defence, Fire, Immigration & Prison Services Board for serious misconduct of dereliction of assignment and insubordination.
The court held that the unjustifiable defiance by the Claimants’ of the Controller General of Prisons (CGP) lawful orders is, to say the least, reckless and grave and clearly undermined the relationship of confidence which should exist between an employer and an employee especially being a para–military or regimented agency.
In summary, the Claimants were senior officers of the Nigeria Prison Service (2nd Defendant) until they were dismissed on 16/08/2016 for serious misconduct. It was the Claimants’ case that their actions did not constitute serious misconduct as alleged by the Defendants to warrant their dismissal. They further alleged that due process was not followed by the Defendants and that they were not accorded fair hearing before they were dismissed; hence they contend that the dismissal by the Defendants was wrongful and unlawful.
The claimants Sought against defendant among others; An Order of the Honourable Court for immediate re-instatement, An Order of the Honourable Court directing the Defendants to pay the Claimants all their outstanding salaries and benefits.
Likewise, The sum of Two Million Naira (N2,000,000.00) only as general damages.
The Claimants testified that their boss had issued a directive stating that his personal mails should not be collected on his behalf from anybody that the office of the Deputy Controller General of Prisons has a clerk who receives letters/mails for the office.
The Claimants testified that the letter of retirement which their boss had refused to acknowledge was sent by the CGP for them to receive and sign but they refused to acknowledge it based on their boss’ earlier directive; and advised the bearer to either serve it personally on their boss or on the clerk of the office who were both in the office at the material time.
The witnesses testified further that they were immediately summoned by the Controller General of Prisons, to explain the reason for refusing to accept the letter; they explained that the refusal was based on the directive of their boss, and were issued queries.
Defendant testified that the CGP is the most superior officer in the 2nd Defendant and being a regimented organization, his instructions supersedes that of any other officer below him that the failure of the Claimants to carry out lawful instruction/directive of the most superior officer amounts to insubordination and flagrant disobedience of extant rules.
That their failure to carry out lawful instruction from the CGP, as the most superior officer of the 2nd Defendant was an indicator that they had divided loyalty between their immediate boss who was an Assistant Comptroller General and who was lower in rank to the CGP.
Queries were issued to them and they were subsequently dismissed by the 1st Defendant based on the recommendation of the Investigative Committee.
The Defendants contended that the Claimants were dismissed for serious misconduct and that due process was accorded to them before they were dismissed.
On his own part, Learned Claimants’ counsel argued that retirement letter is a personal letter that is addressed to a person in his personal name and not in his official capacity and as such, the proper person to sign and receive a retirement letter is a person the letter was addressed.
After careful evaluation of all the processes filed, and the submissions of the learned Counsel from both sides. The Court presided by Hon. Justice Simisola Adeniyi expressed thus;
“From the above evidence, the Claimants acknowledged the fact that their immediate boss is lower in rank to the CGP but yet they chose to obey the instructions of their boss against that of the CGP.
“Serious acts of misconduct include divided loyalty and any other act unbecoming of a Public Officer.
“In the present case, I find no reason to fault the decision of the Defendants that the action of the Claimants is serious misconduct. The directive by the CGS is lawful within the parameters of the terms and conditions of their employment.
“In the final analysis, what the Court had demonstrated, through the evidence led on record and the totality of the circumstances of this case is that the dismissal of the Claimants from service by the Defendants is valid.
“The final result, therefore, is that the case of the Claimants must and hereby fails in its entirety. It is hereby accordingly dismissed.” His Lordship rules
