BACK

NICN - JUDGMENT

IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN IN LAGOS

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE (PROF) ELIZABETH A. OJI

DATE:  MONDAY 11TH MAY 2026             

 SUIT NO: NICN/LA/470/2021

BETWEEN

ADESUWA OBOITE                                                                             CLAIMANTS

AND

1. POLICE SERVICE COMMISSION (PSC)

2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF NIGERIA POLICE FORCE

3. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, LAGOS STATE DEFENDANTS

Representation:

Emmanuel Ogbitse for the Claimant

No representation for the Defendants

JUDGMENT

Introduction and Claims:

1.   The Claimants commenced this suit on the 13th day of December, 2021; claiming the following reliefs, against the Defendants: 

 

  1. A declaration that the decision of the panel set up on 7th of December 2015 by the order of the 2nd defendant which dismissed the claimant from the Nigeria Police Force (NPF) and denied the claimant of her right to be represented by a counsel is a denial of fundamental right to fair hearing and is therefore illegal null and void.  
  2. A declaration that the matter should have first been referred to court for adjudication and the judgment of the court be the recommendation of the Panel for the 3rd defendant to act upon.
  3. A declaration that the act of the 2nd and 3rd defendant is usurping the powers of the court and that they acted as the Judge and the prosecutor.
  4. An order of this Honourable court to set aside the decision of the panel set up by the 2nd defendant on 7th of December, 2015 and their findings thereon.
  5. An order that the Claimant re re-instated into the Nigeria Police Force (NPF) and be accorded her supposed rank and paid all salaries and benefits that has accrued to her from her date of dismissal till date.
  6. Cost of this matter.

 

2.  Despite being served the originating processes and hearing notices, the Defendants did not enter appearance nor defend this suit.   The Court’s records show that the Defendants have received various hearing notices from this Court.  Trial commenced in the suit on 26th January 2023.  The Claimant gave evidence for herself by adopting her witness statement on oath deposed to on 13th December 2021.  During the examination in chief, the Claimants tendered in evidence; nine documents which were admitted and marked as exhibits C1 – C9:

  1. Attestation form                                 -           Exhibit C1
  2. Re: Engagement rank & file   -           Exhibit C2
  3. Police Wireless message                    -           Exhibit C3
  4. Re: Engagement rank & file   -           Exhibit C4
  5. Magistrate court proceedings            -           Exhibit C5
  6. Letter to DIGP of 16/4/18       -           Exhibit C6
  7. Letter to COP of 12/11/2019  -           Exhibit C7
  8. Letter to IGP of 8/5/2020                   -           Exhibit C8
  9. Counsel’s letter to PSC of 23/6/20 -   Exhibit C9

 

The Defendants were not present to cross examine the witness.  After a couple of adjournments to enable the Defendants to cross examine CW and to defend the action and the failed, the Defendants’ right to cross examine and to defend was fore-closed on 11th October 2023 and 7th December 2023, respectively.  The matter was then adjourned for adoption of final written addresses.  The Defendants did not file any written address.  The Claimant’s final written address was deemed adopted on 24th March 2026, and the matter adjourned for judgment.

 

THE CASE OF THE CLAIMANTS

3.  The Claimants was a member of the Nigeria Police Force (NPF) Woman Sergent, Force number 022828 whose last duty post was at Nigeria Police station Akinpelu Division, Oshodi, Lagos State.  She joined the NPF on the 1st of December 2001.  She served the Force in various commands and grew through the ranks.  The Claimant’s order for dismissal was recommended by the panel headed by DSP Sunday Popoola and delivered on the 7th of December, 2015 without a right to counsel or been granted fair hearing.   The Claimant states that sometime in September 2015, whilst on duty at her station at Akinpelu Division, Oshodi, Lagos State, a woman with a child walked into the station.  The woman looked like a mad person and she could not talk.  The child with her was looking dead and malnourished.  The Claimant tried to interview the woman to obtain her statement but the woman was talking out of sense and could not make any clear statement.  Having observed that the child with her looked malnourished and was not moving, and being a compassionate individual, the Claimant immediately took the child and mother to the hospital for treatment and thereafter returned to the station post not remembering that she did not enter it into the crime diary.  Having paid for the treatment at the hospital, and having left the hospital and returned to the station, the claimant did not hear from the woman or the hospital and subsequently forgot about the incident.

4.  The Claimant states that on the 9th of November, 2015, she was called upon by her DPO whereupon, he asked her of the whereabout of the woman’s child.  She told the DPO what transpired on that day, and that she left the woman and her child at the hospital.  She was directed to call the hospital and ask the Doctor to bring the child to the station, which she did and the Doctor brought the child on the 12th of November 2015.   The child was given to its grandmother as both its parents appeared mentally unwell.   The 3rd Defendant thereupon ordered that a panel be set up to look into the matter which was done and it led to the recommendation that she be dismissed and the matter charged to court.   At the sitting of the panel, the Claimant insisted that she be represented by a counsel and that the matter be charged to court before the panel sitting and recommendation, but the request was refused.  The matter was eventually charged to court but was struck out by the court and discharged.   After the discharge, the Claimant made several efforts vide various letter asking for her reinstatement; all to no avail.  She therefore engaged counsel to write to the 1st – 3rd Defendants to reinstate her as the decision of the panel was against the interest of natural justice and equity.

SUBMISSIONS OF CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL

5.   The Claimant raised three issues for determination:

  1. Whether the Claimant does not have the right to be represented by counsel of her choice in the penal trial.
  2. Whether the defendant denying the claimant right to be represented by counsel of her choice is not a breach of right under the 1999 constitution of the federal republic of Nigeria.  
  3. Whether the defendants have the right to refuse to give the panel proceedings and thereafter the decision to the claimant despite her demand for same.

6.   The Claimant did not take the issues as listed. The Claimant argued that a disciplinary hearing must be conducted in a fairly manner, and not to deprive the other party the right to fair hearing.   That the provision of fair hearing in section 36 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria requires that an employee so accused of an act or omission must be given adequate notice of the allegation levelled against her to enable her make presentation for the defence, relying on the case of Adeyemi v. State (2011) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1239) 1.   

COURT’S DECISION

7.   This case is clearly undefended as the Defendants refused and/or failed to enter any defence despite being served the processes and various hearing notices.   This means that the Claimant’s evidence and arguments have been uncontroverted.  However, the Claimant still has the onus to prove her case by evidence.  As stated in Okonkwo v. Ezeonu & Ors (2017) LPELR-42785(CA) Per BOLAJI-YUSUFF JCA Pg. 7 at Para C-F:

The Law is settled that the onus is on the Plaintiff to prove his case with cogent and credible evidence. Where a Defendant fails to file a defence or lead evidence to rebut or challenge the evidence led by the plaintiff, the onus on the Plaintiff is discharged on a minimal proof ...

Therefore, though the Defendants led no evidence in their defence in relation to this case, it is the law that judgment would only be given to the Claimant on the strength of his case, not on the absence or weakness of the Defence - Balogun v. Labiran (1988) NWLR (Pt.80) 66. As held in Adegbite v. State, (2017) LPELR-42585(SC)

It is trite principle also that a Court should not decide a case on mere conjecture or speculation. Courts of Laws are Courts of facts and laws. They decide issues on facts established before them and on laws. They must avoid speculation. "See Ohue v. NEPA (1998) 7 NWLR (Pt.557) 187; Oguanzee V. State (1998) 5 NWLR (Pt.551) 521; Animashaun v. UCH (1996) 10 NWLR (Pt.476) 65; Adefulu v. Okulaja (1996) 9 NWLR (Pt.475) 668." Per GALINJE, J.S.C. (Pp. 13-14, Paras. C-B

8.  I have considered the processes filed in this suit, the evidence of the lone witness, the exhibits tendered and the argument of Counsel.  I adopt a lone issue for determination; “whether the Claimant has proved her case to entitle her to the reliefs she seeks?  The Claimant’s case is mainly hinged on breach of fair hearing. However, it must be noted that apart from stating that she was not allowed counsel before the panel, the Claimant made no further allegations against the Defendants.   The Claimant’s counsel tried to lead evidence on behalf of the Claimant.  For instance, the Counsel said the Claimant was not given notice of the wrong doing, that the Claimant gave evidence that no warning was served on her; that the Claimant was dismissed without being paid any entitlement nor informed of the reason for her dismissal; that the panel refused to give the Claimant a copy of the report of the panel’s report, etc.  All these were stated by Counsel to be part of the Claimant’s evidence, which is not correct.

 

9.  The law is trite that a Claimant who states that she was wrongfully or unlawfully dismissed, has the onus to establish the wrongfulness or unlawfulness.  In the case of N.E.P.A. v. Adeyemi (2007) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1021) 315, the Court held that:

An employee has the burden of proving that he is entitled to reinstatement once his dismissal is wrongful. In an action for wrongful dismissal it is necessary, therefore, to plead the contract of employment. The plaintiff is required by law to plead and lead evidence to establish the following essential facts namely, that he is an employee of the defendant, how he was appointed and the terms and conditions of his employment, who can appoint and remove him, the circumstances under which bis appointment can be terminated and the person or authority who can terminate that appointment. In the instant case, it was the respondent's duty to adduce evidence of his conditions of service. [Morohunfola v. Kwara State College of Technology (1990) 4 NWLR (Pt. 145) 506 ; Amodu v. Amode (1990) 5 NWLR (Pt. 150) 356; Nnigi v. First Bank of Nigeria Pic (1996) 3 NWLR (Pt. 435) 220 referred to.] (Pp. 334-335, paras. A-H)

 

In this case, the Claimant led no evidence whatsoever, about the terms and conditions of her employment.  She led no evidence of how the panel ought to have proceeded, which they failed to do.   All the Counsel stated in his address, do not constitute evidence and cannot be relied on to make a finding of wrongfulness or unlawfulness, of the dismissal.  There is even no document evidencing the dismissal.   

 

10.  The Claimant, in her relief one seeks for “A declaration that the decision of the panel set up on 7th of December 2015 by the order of the 2nd defendant which dismissed the claimant from the Nigeria Police Force (NPF) and denied the Claimant of her right to be represented by a Counsel is a denial of fundamental right to fair hearing and is therefore illegal null and void.”   The Claimant did not tender any conditions of service, stating the procedure a panel set up by the Defendant is expected to take.  The CFRN in section 36 (6) provides that every person who is charged with a criminal offence shall (c) defend himself in person or by legal practitioners of his own choice”.  The Claimant did not give evidence that she was facing a criminal charge, or the nature of the offence she was tried before the panel.  Her evidence suggests she was given opportunity to make her own representation, but her grouse is that she was not allowed Counsel.  Whether Counsel is allowed before the panel, all depends on the nature of the proceedings, and the Rules under which the panel sat.   There is absolutely nothing upon which this court can hinge to determine this relief one.  This relief cannot be granted for lack of proof.

 

11.  In her relief two, the Claimant seeks for “A declaration that the matter should have first been referred to court for adjudication and the judgment of the court be the recommendation of the Panel for the 3rd defendant to act upon.” The Claimant again failed to lead evidence to show that the panel acted outside its powers.  It is common knowledge that an employer has powers of discipline.  If therefore the Claimant believes the Defendants acted outside their power of discipline, it behooves on the Claimant to establish that by evidence.  The nature of the matter determined by the panel is not stated anywhere by the Claimant.  This relief also fails.

 

12.   In relief four, the Claimant seeks a “A declaration that the act of the 2nd and 3rd defendant is usurping the powers of the court and that they acted as the Judge and the prosecutor.” The Claimant failed to lead evidence as to what acts of the 2nd and 3rd defendants usurped the powers of the Court, and how they acted as the judge and the prosecutor.  This relief fails for lack of proof.

 

13.   Relief five is for “An order of this Honourable court to set aside the decision of the panel set up by the 2nd defendant on 7th of December, 2015 and their findings thereon”.   Again, there is lack of evidence of the decision referred to.  This relief also fails.  Reliefs six and seven also fail, as a consequence of the failure of reliefs one to five.

 

Judgment is entered accordingly.  

 

 

--------------------------------------------

Hon. Justice (Prof.) Elizabeth A. Oji