Media
- Home
- Details
Lagos –His Lordship, Hon. Justice Elizabeth Oji of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, Lagos Judicial division, has declared the purported nullification of the offer of appointment of MERCY Atewe by Nigeria Maritime Administration And Safety Agency via letter dated 14/9/2015 as null and void and of no effect, ordered payment of salaries arrears and allowances from 1stday of July 2015 till termination as contained in the letter of employment.
The court declared that NIMASA Conditions of service provides for Resignation, termination, dismissal, and retirement and no mention is made of nullification, that Defendant should comply with its conditions of service in determining Claimant’s employment, else, it continues to be indebted to Claimant.
The Claimant instituted this suit against the Defendant and sought among others; A Declaration that the purported nullification of the offer of appointment of the Claimant by letter ref: NIMASA/APD/CONF.2412/VOl. 1/25 dated 14/9/2015 is null and void and of no effect. An Order setting aside the letter of nullification of appointment ref: NIMASA/APD/CONF.2412/VOl. 1/25 dated 14/9/2015 and directing the Defendant to restore Claimant to her post as an Assistant Executive Officer.
Likewise, An Order confirming Claimant’s appointment as permanent and pensionable staff of Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency having completed or deemed to have completed the probationary period of 12 months on the 2nd day of July 2016.
By a letter of provisional appointment dated 17th June2015 the Defendant employed the Claimant as Assistant Executive Officer on Grade Level 6. The Claimant assumed duty and was deployed to Carbotage Services Department having undergone satisfactory medical examination.
By virtue of the permanent and pensionable nature of the appointment, the Claimant completed the basic processes for the pension scheme as required. The Claimant stated that she was discharging her duties until the Defendant served her a letter dated 14/09/2015 purporting to nullify the offer of provisional appointment.
Claimant contends that the purported nullification of the offer of appointment is strange to the Federal Government Public Service Rules and the Conditions of Service and not within the terms of the offer accepted by Claimant.
Acting on the letter, the Defendant failed to pay any salaries and allowances to the Claimant from the 1st day of July 2015 till date, and maintained that the purported nullification is an unfair labour practice against the Claimant, which the Court must not accept.
However, Defendant contended that the employment letter was erroneously and irregularly issued to the Claimant as it did not comply with the necessary due process that pertain to such appointment that Claimant was not entitled to payment of salary as she never resumed work, did not complete medical examination, and was never pay rolled.
Counsel submitted that the mere fact that the Defendant is a federal government agency does not imply that Claimant’s employment is governed by the Federal Government Public Service Rules.
After careful evaluation of all the processes filed, and the submissions of the learned Counsel from both sides. The Court presided by Hon. Justice Elizabeth Oji held that Claimant was duly offered provisional appointment as Assistant Executive Officer and the presumption of regularity operates in favour of the Claimant.
“The text of Claimant’s letter of appointment clearly shows that it was intended to appoint Claimant to a permanent/pensionable employment. Defendant’s witness confirmed during cross examination that Claimant’s employment, being governed by the Conditions of Service, is a pensionable one, just like his.
“Though the Court had said it takes judicial notice of the Public Service Rules, Claimant did not lead evidence to the provision of her contract that makes her subject to the Federal Public Service Rules, nor did she state the provision of the Rule that applies to her.
“Based on all the above, I find that Claimant’s employment does not have statutory flavour. Claimant’s employment is governed by the letter of appointment and the Defendant’s Conditions of Service. I so hold.
“I have gone through the conditions of employment of Claimant, and do not find any provision for nullification. Conditions of service provide for Resignation, termination, dismissal, and retirement. No mention is made of nullification.” Justice Oji stated.
In all, the court declared that the purported nullification of offer of appointment of the Claimant by letter ref: NIMASA/APD/CONF.2412/VOl.1/25 dated 14/9/2015 is null and void and of no effect.
The court also set aside the letter of nullification of appointment ref: NIMASA/APD/CONF.2412/VOl. 1/25 dated 14/9/15 and declared that the Defendant is not entitled to rely on its letter ref: NIMASA/APD/CONF.2412/ Vol. 1/25 dated 14/9/2015 to deny Claimant of the benefits of her permanent and pensionable employment with NIMASA, including arrears of salaries and allowances and her right to confirmation of employment as a permanent and pensionable staff.
On claim for restoration, his Lordship held that the prayer sought is tantamount to an order for reinstatement which the Court cannot make in the circumstance.
“Thus, while not ordering reinstatement or compelling the continued employment of Claimant, Defendant should comply with its conditions of service in determining Claimant’s employment, else, it continues to be indebted to Claimant.”
“Defendant is ordered to pay to the Claimant, her arrears of salaries and allowances from 1stday of July 2015 till termination at the rate of ₦434, 688.10 per annum as stated in Claimant’s letter of employment.” His Lordship rules
The court award the sum of One Million Naira against defendant for cost of action, and the Defendant is to comply with the terms of this judgment not later than 30 days.
