IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE KADUNA JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT KADUNA

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE BASHAR A. ALKALI

DATE: THURSDAY 21^ST MAY, 2026

SUIT NO: NICN/KD/23/2019

BETWEEN:

 

JONATHAN MOSES……………………………………………..CLAIMANT

 

AND 

 

1. KADUNA STATE GOVERNMENT 
2. MINISTRY OF EDUCATION, SCIENCE

AND TECHNOLOGY, KADUNA STATE                                                        DEFENDANTS

AND COMMISSIONER FOR JUSTICE 

 

REPRESENTATION

E.N. Ogbu Esq for the Claimant

The Defendant is not represented

JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

The Claimant commenced this suit by the Complaint filed on the 25^th of July 2019 under Order 3 Rule 2 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedures) Rules 2017 whereat the Claimant claims against the Defendants the following reliefs:

 

 

 

 

 

The Claimant predicated his claims on the Statement of Fact and Witness Statements on Oath filed on the 5^th of July 2019. The Defendants filed Statement of Defence on the 23^rd of January 2020

At the plenary hearing held on the 23^rd of May 2024 where the Claimant called his witness. The Claimant who testified for himself hereinafter referred to as CW1 identified and adopted his Depositions made on Oath on the 5^th of July 2023 as his evidence in support of his case. CW1 thereafter tendered the following documents as follows:

1. Offer of temporary appointment dated the 19^th of January 2009; admitted and marked Exhibit CW001.
2. Allocation of government quarter dated the 22^nd of June 2015; admitted and marked Exhibit CW002.
3. Solicitors' Letter from Auta Maisamari & Co dated the 17^th of February 2016; admitted and marked Exhibit CW003.
4. Staff matters (Query) dated the 24^th of February 2016; admitted and marked Exhibit CW004.
5. Response to Query dated the 25^th of February 2016; admitted and marked Exhibit CW005.
6. Complaint filed at the NICN in Suit No. NICN/KD/08/2016 on the 26^th of February 2016; admitted and marked Exhibit CW006.
7. Query letter dated the 25^th of June 2019; admitted and marked Exhibit CW007.
8. Reply to the query dated the 26^th of June 2019; admitted and marked Exhibit CW008.

The Defendants were served with series of Hearing notices to appear before this Court so as to cross-examine CW1 and also defend this matter but to no avail, which made this Court to foreclose the Defendants. 

After the close of the hearing of the suit, on the 26^th of February 2026, the matter came up for the adoption of the Final Written Addresses filed by Counsel. Counsel for the Claimant, E. N. Ogbu, Esq identified his Final Written Address filed on the 14^th of January 2026 and adopted the same as his legal submission in the aid of the case of the Claimant while urging this Court to grant the claim of the Claimant.

CASE OF THE CLAIMANT

The facts of the claim of the Claimant as stated in the Statement of Fcats of this suit is that the Claimant is a member of staff of the 1^st Defendant working as an Education Officer/Teacher at the Government Girls' Secondary School (Senior), Independence Way, Kaduna. Sometimes in the year 2009, he was employed by the 1^st Defendant as an Asst. Education Officer/Teacher and his employment with the 1^st Defendant was conveyed to him vide a letter Reference No. KDS/TSB/APP/5930/Vol.I dated 19^th January, 2009. Upon being served with the appointment, the Claimant wrote to accept the same hence a contract of employment was formed between the Claimant and the Defendants.

The Claimant was posted by the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants after the crystallization of the contract of employment to teach at the Government Girls' Secondary School (Senior), Independence Way, Kaduna. While serving the Defendants as a Teacher at Government Girls' Secondary School (Senior), Independence Way, Kaduna, the Defendants allocated a house to the Claimant at the Queen Amina College, Kaduna vide a letter reference No: KDS/E.43275/VOL.I/41 dated the 22^nd of June,2015. 

The Claimant moved into the house and was leaving from Queen Amina College, Kaduna to discharge his functions at Government Girls' Secondary School (Senior), Independence Way, Kaduna without any complaint of low productivity from the Defendants. Sometimes in 2015, the Defendants came up with a Policy of forcefully ejecting Teachers from their official residence who live in the quarters of a school but are teaching in a different school. They consequently set up an Ejection Task Force to that effect. When the Ejection Task Force came to the house of the Claimant, they forcefully removed the Claimant's properties from the house and locked it thereafter. Till this date, the Claimant's personal effects were carted away by some persons unknown to him due to the action of the Defendants.

The Claimant caused his Solicitors, AUTA MAISAMARI & CO, to write a letter of complaint to the Governor of Kaduna State. The Governor of Kaduna State did not respond to the letter of Complaint and the Claimant's complaint was not addressed by the Defendants consequent upon which the Claimant filed an action in the National Industrial Court complaining about the ill-treatment meted to him by the Defendants. Before the Claimant went to court, however, the Defendants had written a Query dated 24/2/2016 alleging misconduct during the visit of the Ejection Task Force Committee. The Claimant responded to the Query by his answer thereto. 

The Case which has suit No. NICN/KD/08/2016 is still pending before this Honourable Court. The Claimant has suffered so much sponsoring this case from Kano where it was first heard down to Kaduna where it is now pending before the Defendants took the decision to query him for daring to sue them before this Honourable Court.

The Defendants conveyed their query to the Claimant vide a letter Referece No. KDS/E.43275/VOL.T/98 dated the 25^th of June, 2019. The Claimant responded to the query vide a letter dated 26^th of June, 2019. Prior to the service on the Claimant with the query, the Permanent Secretary of the 2^nd Defendant had invited him (Claimant) to her office and intimidated him with threat of dismissal. She told him that he was being deceived by lawyers who would abandon him later. The Permanent Secretary of the 2^nd Defendant assured the Claimant that they (Defendants) would certainly dismiss him from his job as nobody can contend with the Government and succeed hence this action.

DEFENCE OF THE DEFENDANTS

The defence of the Defendants is that the Claimant after accepting the offer of employment by the State Government, was posted to teach Geography/Christian Religious Knowledge (CRS) at Government Girls' Secondary School, Independence Way, Kaduna. The contract of employment formed between the Claimant and the Defendants is governed by the Public Service Rules, 2005. On the 22^nd of June 2015 the Claimant was allocated flat 1, Block 1 at Queen Amina College, Staff quarters Kakuri, Kaduna based on a letter of compassionate plea dated 19^th May, 2015. 

Subsequently after the assumption to office of the present administration and in line with the promises made to make Kaduna State great, a holistic review of all sectors in the State was embarked upon. The review brought to the fore several problems and challenges in the education sector attributed to the deplorable and falling standard of education in the State. Amongst which are the low capacity of teaching staff, the haphazard allocation of staff quarters to teachers which hampered other responsibilities assigned to teachers like the supervision of prep, lights off etc. especially in boarding schools.

Based on the identified challenges which had a negative impact on students the State Executive Council approved amongst other recommendations a new policy on housing for teachers in the State. Teachers henceforth were to be accommodated in the schools were they taught. That in line with the new policy above Circulars were issued to all Zonal Directors with reference number CNC/G.9/VLO/VOL.1/123 dated 14^th September, 2015 throughout the State. Notices was issued to all personnel affected by the new policy by their respective Zonal Directors.

The Claimant having been posted to teach at Government Girls' Secondary School, a day school on Independence Way was living at the staff quarters in Queen Amina Secondary School a boarding school and therefore was affected by the new policy. Despite the Circulars and Notices, mentioned the Claimant refused to comply with the new directives which gave all teachers affected a period of 90 days to vacate. The allocation of staff quarters to persons in employment of the State Government is not a right but a privilege. While other teachers affected by the new policy complied with the directives the Claimant despite being aware and fully informed adamantly and arrogantly refused to comply with the directives frustrating the efforts of the government.

The Claimant was subsequently invited by his Superior Officers which include the Zonal Director Schools, Deputy Director Public Schools and Director Schools and was advised to comply with the new directive but he flagrantly refused to do so. The recalcitrant behavior of the Claimant by not complying with the new directive on housing by the State Executive Council and the admonition by his superior officers was considered an act of misconduct under the Public Service Rules 2005.

After all efforts to ensure that the Claimant complied with the new directives failed, a query dated 23^rd of February, 2016 in line with the provisions of the Public Service Rules 2005 was issued to him. Subsequently a second query dated the 25^th of  June, 2019 was issued to the Claimant. Since both queries were issued to the Claimant no adverse steps has been taken against him nor his salary stopped.

LEGAL SUBMISSION OF THE CLAIMANT

Counsel for the Claimant nominated a lone issue for the determination of this suit to wit:

Whether the Claimant has proved his case on the balance of probabilities to be entitled to the reliefs sought?

Counsel submitted that the Claimant from the totality of the evidence adduced before this Court has proved his case on the balance of probabilities to be entitled to the reliefs sought. It is the law that whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts shall prove that those facts exist. This is the provisions of Section 131 (1) of the Evidence Act,2011. The instant matter being civil in nature, the standard of proof required by the provision of Section 134 of the Evidence Act, 2011 shall be discharged on the balance of probabilities.

By law it is the Claimant in the instant case who has the burden of proving the existence of his case before same is shifted, by law, to the other side. This is especially so in view of the fact that the majority of the Reliefs sought; particularly Reliefs 1 and 2 by the Claimant are declaratory in nature cited the case of ACTION PEOPLES PARTY v. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (2021) LPELR-53529 (CA) (Pp. 17-19, paras. B-A). Submitted that from the evidence led so far, the Claimant has proved his case by cogent, compelling and legally admissible evidence in line with law to be entitled to the reliefs sought. 

The Claimant testified for himself as CW1 and sole witness in this case and adopted his witness deposition of the 5^th of July 2019 and tendered and entirety of 8 Exhibits in support of his claims and graciously admitted and marked by this Court as Exhibits CW001 to CW008 respectively. A piece of evidence to add weight to the case of the Claimant and of interest are Exhibits CW006 and CW007 forming the fulcrum of the Claimants case. The Exhibits are the Claimants suit and the query issued to the Claimant for daring to institute same. The documents speak volumes for themselves and no oral evidence may be adduced to infuse extraneous meanings to the documents as presented. Cited FHOMO NIGERIA LIMITED v. ZENITH BANK PLC (2016) LPELR-42233 (CA) (Pp. 26-27, paras. F-A) 

Exhibit CW006 is the suit instituted by the Claimant against the Defendants, being a judicial proceeding, the Court was urged to take judicial notice of same pursuant to the provisions of Section 122(1)(m) of the Evidence Act, 2011 as same needs no proof. It is the institution of the said Exhibit CW006 that caused the Defendants to react, according to the Claimant, unconstitutionally and unfairly against his interest. The result being Exhibit CW007. The words as so contained in both Exhibit are clear and need no further interpretation. However, and for the avoidance of doubt, 

The words contained above are not only oppressive but sounded like the era of the military junta experienced in Nigeria where the entirety of the provisions of Chapter IV relating to the Fundamental Rights of individuals were totally and completely suspended and citizens made to face the torment and harsh realities of the "men in boots", an era never prayed for. This Court while granting the reliefs of the Claimant, to find and hold that it is unconscionable and oppressive of any law and/or actions of the Defendants to come to such a conclusion and consequently grant the entire reliefs of the Claimant sought. Section 6(6) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (As Amended) provides for judicial powers and the provisions of Chapter IV of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (As Amended) provides for the fundamental rights of all Nigerian Citizen. In a legion of authorities, the Court have been enjoined to guide and guard, jealously and zealously the provisions of Chapter IV of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (As Amended) and on the attitude of Court to statutory provisions limiting a citizen's right of access to Court, it was held in CHINEDU MUOKEBE v. ALHAJI BALA HARUNA (2014) LPELR-24240(CA) (Pp. 17-19, paras. F-C). 

Exhibit CW007 portrays no other meaning other than to curtails the rights of the Claimant to access this Court and/or any other Court as same has to do with his employers, the words contained therein being plain. Even though the Claimant was cross examined, his evidence stood strong like the rock of Gibraltar and went unshaken. The entirety of the said cross examination yield no fruits like the parable of the fig tree held religiously by those of the Christian faith which received no other consequences other than of being cursed. On the 29th day of March, 2023 the Claimant testifying as CW1 was put under the fire of cross examination and admitted that he is a classroom teacher at GSS Kabala Costain and that he was employed in 2019 and that his relationship is governed by the Civil Service Rules and that his last promotion was in January, 2022 and was last paid in February, 2022 and that he knows what a query is and that he was posted in 2019 although he could not remember the month and that a query is an inquiry to explain an action and that was all for the Claimant under cross examination.

The cross examination has failed to discredit the weighty pieces of evidence of the Claimant before this Honourable Court. The Claimant testified at paragraphs 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19 of his witness deposition representing his viva voce evidence that he responded adequately to the queries sent to him however no action was taken by the Defendants and when he initiated an action, to wit; EXHIBIT CW007, he yet received another query to face dismissal for doing so. The said fact went unchallenged and uncontroverted throughout the entire proceedings before this Court. The provisions of Section 46 (1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (As Amended). 

The said EXHIBIT CW007 portends to curtail the provisions of Section 46 (1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (As Amended), the said Exhibit CW007 is unconstitutional being inconsistent with the words and spirit of the Constitution. It is trite law that the Constitution is supreme and any law inconsistent thereto is void as to the extent of such inconsistency. The Supreme Court held on the Supremacy of the constitution and the nature of the supremacy of the Constitution cited OLUKUNLE OGHENEOVO EDUN &ANOR v. THE GOVERNOR OF DELTA STATE & ANOR (2022) LPELR - 58062(SC) (Pp. 19-20, para. E-E). 

From the totality of the evidence led so far, he has proved his case on upon the preponderance of evidence to be entitled to the reliefs sought. Even though it is trite law that unchallenged and uncontroverted evidence are deemed to be the truth of the matter it is equally the law that where the Defendant files a defence and abandons same, the Court is inclined to look at the statement of defence especially when the defendant exercises his right not to offer evidence at the trial, although his statement of defence is dead as it were but the same statement of defence is alive in the determination of the question whether the Claimant is bound to prove a particular fact. 

The entirety of the entirety of the Defendants' statement of defence has no life in it as same failed to challenged the material facts of the Claimant which are in issue to the effect that having suffered to institute Exhibit CW006 before this Honourable Court sitting at Kano Division, the Defendants sought to curtail same vide Exhibit CW007 leading to the institution of the instant suit to declare same an being unconstitutional, null and void to the extent of its inconsistency. The only defence put up by the Defendants may be gleaned at paragraph 20 of the statement of defence to the effect that even though both queries were issued to the Claimant, no adverse steps has been taken against him. Submit that the rule of law stipulates that none is above the law. In short, by the said paragraph 20 of the Defendants' statement of defence.

ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION

Having carefully read the pleadings, evidence, viz-a-viz legal submission of the Claimant, the issue for the determination of this suit is,

Whether the exercise of the civil right to seek judicial redress amounts to gross misconduct under any law that can warrant disciplinary action against the Claimant

COURT’S DECISION

It is elementary law that whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts shall prove that those facts exist. Similarly, in civil cases, the burden of first proving existence or nonexistence of a fact lies on the party against whom the judgment of the Court would be given if no evidence were produced on either side. It is this requirement of the law that is termed legal burden. See Sections 131-132 of the Evidence Act (as amended) 2023.

In OKOYE & ORS v. NWANKWO (2014) LPELR-23172 Pp 25 - 26 Paras F – E the Supreme Court reaffirmed this position of law where the Court dilated that the burden of proof in civil cases has two distinct meanings, viz: (a) The first is the burden of proof as a matter of law and the pleadings usually referred to as legal burden or the burden of establishing a case; (b) The second is the burden of proof in the sense of adducing evidence usually described as the evidential burden. While the legal burden of proof is always stable or static, the burden of proof in the second sense i.e. evidential burden of proof, may oscillate constantly according as one scale of evidence or the other preponderates. In civil cases, while the burden of proof in the sense of establishing the case initially lies on the plaintiff, the proof or rebuttal of issues which arise in the course of proceedings may shift from the plaintiff to the defendants and vice versa as the case progresses.

See also the cases of FEDERAL MORTGAGE FINANCE LTD V. EKPO (2004) 2 NWLR (Pt. 856) 100 at 130; BALOGUN V. LABIRAN (1988) 3 NWLR (pt. 80) 66; NWOSU V UDEOJA (1990) 1 NWLR (Pt. 125) 188; ELEMO V. OMOLODE (1968) NMLR 359; CHIGWU V. BAPTIST CONVENTION (1968) 2 ALL NLR 294 and ADEGOKE V. ADIBI (1992) 5 NWLR (pt. 242) 410.

It is worthwhile to note a few issues which are central to the nervous system of this suit upon which the determination of this suit lies. First of all, the Defendants filed their Statement of Defence on the 23^rd of January 2023. The matter came up on the 26^th of November 2024 for defence but the Defendants were not represented despite the service of the hearing notice on the Defendants on the 6^th of November 2024. The Defendants were foreclosed from defending this suit. The implication therefore is that the Defendants’ Statement of Defence is deemed abandoned having not called any evidence in support of their Statement of Defence. Pleadings are the body and soul of any case in skeleton form and are built and solidified by the evidence in support thereof. They are never regarded as evidence by themselves and if not followed by any supporting evidence, they are deemed abandoned. Where a defendant has, on his own volition, refused to call evidence in support of his pleadings, his statement of defence is deemed abandoned and becomes dormant or a lame duck that cannot fly. In law, an abandoned pleading becomes moribund and no reasonable court of law has the jurisdiction to revive it: see the case of MANSON V. HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES LTD. (2007) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1018) 211. In AHMED V. REGD. TRUSTEES, AKRCC (2019) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1665) 300 P. 313 paras C - E where the Supreme Court held that:

A party has a choice in the mode and manner of conducting its defence in a suit. What is paramount is that the trial court must have afforded all parties equal opportunity to present or defend their cases. The lead judgment of Jega, JCA (of blessed memory) says it all. I quote:

“It is also worthy of note that the appellant filed a one hundred and eleven paragraph averments in their joint statement of defence as amended and claimed seven declaratory reliefs. The appellant never led a dot of evidence to back the one hundred and eleven averments (sic) in their pleadings. It is trite to say that the effect of a failure to lead evidence in support of any averment in a pleading is that such a pleading is deemed to have been abandoned. 

Additionally, the Claimant called his evidence on the 23^rd of May 2024; the Defendants were not represented, the case came up on the 28^th of October 2024 for the cross-examination. Hearing notice was served on the Defendants on the 22^nd of September 2024, inexplicably, Counsel for the Defendants were not in Court for the cross-examination. The Defendants were foreclosed from cross-examining the sole witness of the Claimant. The effect of a failure to cross-examine a witness upon a particular matter is a tacit acceptance of the truth of the evidence of the witness: see the case of OLOWU V. BUILDING STOCK LTD (2018) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1601) 343 P. 398, paras. G-H.

I am not unaware of the submission of Counsel for the Claimant on paragraph 4.4 that the sole witness of the Claimant, that is, CW1, was cross-examined on the 29^th of March 2023. To the contrary, this matter started de novo and came before me for the first time on the 22^nd of January 2024. The consequence of a trial de novo is an order that the whole case should be tried anew as if no trial whatsoever had been had in the first instance. The case must be re-proved de novo and therefore the evidence previously given is completely inadmissible on the basis that prima facie they have been discarded or got rid of: see the case of BABATUNDE V. P.A.S.T.A. LTD. (2007) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1050) 113. In this instant case, whatever might have happened before I took over the proceedings of this case is dead, and it is as if nothing had happened save under Order 62 Rule 10(5) of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedures) Rules 2017, which does not arise here.

Notwithstanding all the salient points I have pointed out, which appear to be against the Defendants, that does not extinguish the burden of proof placed on the Claimant under Sections 131-132 of the Evidence Act (as amended) 2023. That means, the Court will not close its eyes to evidence of the Claimant and grant whatever the Claimant seeks on a platter of silver. The Court will still subject evidence presented by the Claimant to the crucible fire of the balance of probability. In OGUNYADE V. OSHUNKEYE (2007) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1057) 218 Pp. 246-247, paras. H-B the Court held that failure on the part of a defendant to give evidence does not automatically mean that judgment must be given in favour of a claimant, who has a duty to prove his case. Where a claimant fails to prove his case on the balance of probability or on preponderance of evidence, his case will be thrown out, even though the defendant did not give any evidence. That is the basis of the principle of law that a claimant cannot rely on the weakness of the defendant's case. 

The fact which triggered this case as contained in pleading and evidence of the Claimant is that while serving as a Teacher at Government Girls' Secondary School, the Defendants allocated housing to the Claimant at Queen Amina College, Kaduna, through a letter dated June 22, 2015. The Claimant resided there and commuted to his teaching position without any productivity complaints. In 2015, the Defendants implemented a policy to eject teachers living in school quarters while teaching elsewhere, forming an Ejection Task Force. This Task Force forcibly removed the Claimant's belongings and locked the house. The Claimant's solicitors, AUTA MAISAMARI & CO, sent a complaint to the Governor of Kaduna State, who did not respond. As a result, the Claimant filed a suit (No. NICN/KD/08/2016) in the National Industrial Court regarding the ill-treatment he experienced, which is still pending. The Defendants issued a query to the Claimant via a letter on June 25, 2019, to which the Claimant responded the next day.

Notably, it is not disputed that the Claimant is an employee of the Defendants; it is also not disputed that the Defendants issued the Claimant with a query herein referred to as Exhibit CW007. Exhibit CW007 is the premise upon which the Claimant instituted this suit. Facts admitted are deemed admitted. Where a defendant, as in this instant case, admits a fact in dispute by its pleadings, the fact so admitted ought to be taken as established. Thus, there would be no need at all for further proof thereon: see the case of CHRISTIAN V. INNOCENT (2023) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1900) 183.

The content of Exhibit CW007 reads thus:

Jonathan Moses

Government Girl's Secondary School,

Independence Way (SNR),

Kaduna.

 

Ufs:

The Director,

Quality Assurance Authority,

Kaduna, Zonal Division.

 

Query

You may recall that you were allocated Government Quarters on 15^th June, 2018 at Queen Amina College Kaduna and was subsequently relocated on 15 March, 2016 as a result of your transfer and in line with the Government policy that only Teachers teaching in the School are eligible to be accommodated in that School.

2. Some time in 2016, you sue the Governor of Kaduna State, The Kaduna State Government and the Ministry of Education Kaduna State in relation to the above.

3. One of the Serious act of misconduct is for an employee to sue his employer while in active service and in line with the PSR (2005 edition) you are to explain within 24 hours why disciplinary action should not be taken against you.

(underlined mine for emphasis)

The basis of the grievance of the Claimant is paragraph 3 of Exhibit CW007, which accuses the Claimant of gross misconduct for filing a lawsuit against the Defendants. Chapter VIII of the Kaduna State Public Service Law, 2020, contains a list of offences and penalties an employee in the service of the Kaduna State Civil Service can be charged for. Again, Paragraph 100301 of the Public Service Rule issued by the Federal Government of Nigeria contains a list of offences constituting gross misconduct. I cannot find in either of the Rules which makes filing a suit against an employer gross misconduct. The implication therefore is that the Defendants issued Exhibit CW007 out of their sheer ignorance of what constitutes gross misconduct under the Public Service.

Even if such a law exists, that law will have been made in contravention of the provision of Section 6(6)(b) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria which provides that:

(6) The judicial powers vested in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this section:

(b)        shall extend to all matters between persons, or between government or authority and to any person in Nigeria, and to all actions and proceedings relating thereto, for the determination of any question as to the civil rights and obligations of that person;

The Constitution is supreme, and what it has stipulated remains sacrosanct and immutable, and nothing can be done about it but to strictly comply therewith. The Constitution is supreme, and any law/act of a person or authority which deprives a citizen of access to justice is void. This Constitution is supreme and its provisions shall have binding force on all authorities and persons throughout the Federal Republic of Nigeria and if any other law is inconsistent with the provisions of this Constitution, the Constitution shall prevail, and that other law shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void. See Section 1(1) and (3) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

I have carefully gone through Exhibits CW004 and CW007, and I cannot find anything suggesting that the Defendants intend to dismiss the Claimant from the service of the Defendants. The Claimant led evidence to state that the Permanent Secretary of the 2^nd Defendant invited the Claimant to her office and intimidated him with the threat of dismissal. She told him that he was being deceived by lawyers who would abandon him later. The Permanent Secretary of the 2^nd Defendant assured the Claimant that they (Defendants) would certainly dismiss him from his job as nobody can contend with the Government and succeed, hence this action. The piece of evidence was unchallenged. The effect or consequence in law where the defendant elects or chooses not to call or proffer any evidence on any matter settled on the pleadings is that the issue calling for determination will be proved by minimal evidence. The unchallenged evidence of a party establishing his case is sufficient proof: see the case of ELEWA V. GUFFANTI (NIG.) PLC (2017) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1549) 233. In view of unchallenged evidence of the Claimant, the Court will have no option but to believe the Claimant where he stated that the permanent secretary of the 2^nd Defendant intimidated him with the threat of dismissal. Threatening an employee with dismissal on account of seeking judicial redress is not only asinine, but also it is a medieval act in the 21^st Century. I so hold.

Lastly, the Claimant, by Relief 3 of his claim, prays the Court to set aside (Exhibit CW004) the query dated the 23^rd of February 2016. Exhibit CW004 is a subject of litigation in Suit No. NICN/KD/08/16, between the Claimant and the Defendants, in fact, Relief 2 of the said suit touches on Exhibit CW004. Transplanting part of the claim in Suit No. NICN/KD/08/16, between the Claimant and the Defendants into this suit, is an abuse of the process of this Court. Therefore Relief 3 is refused without prejudice to Suit No. NICN/KD/08/2016. I so hold. 

Flowing from the foregoing, the Claimant succeeds in proving his case against the Defendants; the lone issue for the determination is resolved in favour of the Claimant. I so hold.

I grant the following reliefs as follows:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Judgment is entered accordingly. 

 

 

HON. JUSTICE BASHAR A. ALKALI

HON. JUDGE

NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

KADUNA JUDICIAL DIVISION