IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE IBADAN JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT IBADAN

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE J. D. PETERS

 

DATE: 20^TH MAY 2026          

SUIT NO: NICN/IB/68/2024

 

BETWEEN

Mr. Adeleke Adeniyi Amos                                                    -                              Claimant       

                                                                        

AND

1. The Executive Governor of Oyo State 

2. Hon. Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice, Oyo State

3. The State Commandant, Oyo State Security Network Agency 

(Operation Amotekun)                                                                 -                   Defendants

REPRESENTATION 

Chief P. O. Alamu for the Claimant

Dr. T. A. Dairo, Director with R.O. Omitoyinbo, State Counsel & O.P Akindele-Oscar State Counsel, Min of Justice for the Defendants

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

1.        Introduction

1.        Mr. Adeleke Adeniyi Amos approached this Court via his General Form of Complaint dated the 21^st day of November, 2024 but filed on the 26^th November, 2024 along with a statement of facts, list of witnesses, witness statement on oath as well as list and copies of documents to be relied upon at trial. Claimant sought the following reliefs against the Defendants-

 

1.  A Declaration by this Honorable Court that the purported summary dismissal from duty of the Claimant with the Oyo State Government without any letter, reason or formal communication of such summary dismissal of a pioneer member like the Claimant by the Defendants is null and void, ineffectual and unlawful by reason of the effusion of time, gross irregularity, lack of reasonable cause, denial of natural justice and non-compliance with the Oyo State Civil Service Commission Regulation Part 6, Sections 36, 39, 41, 42, 44, 48, 49 & 56 Laws of Oyo State 2000.

2.  An Order of this Honorable Court setting aside the unceremonious and biased disengagement of the Claimant from the Amotekun Corps without making recourse to Sections 22(1), 23 & 24 of the Amotekun Corps Enabling Law which is for discipline of the Corp members and also specify procedures for investigation before the Defendants purportedly dismissed the Claimant.

3.  A Declaration that it is only the office of the head of service that can exercise disciplinary and dismissal power on the Claimant as at the time of his unlawful dismissal, but not the office of the 3rd Defendant, through phone conversation asking the Claimant to drop his uniform at the Corps office without any query issued by the 3rd Defendant on the Claimant null, void, illegal, ultra vires, unlawful and contrary to Section 0300103 of the Oyo State of Nigeria Public Service Rules Volume I of 2013.

4.  A Declaration that no actual allegation was levied against the Claimant or any allegation sustained against him for criminal behaviour When he was summarily dismissed via telephone call.

5.  A Declaration that the Claimant is entitled to remain and continue in employment of the Oyo State Security Network Agency (Operation Amotekun).

6.  An Order of this Honorable Court setting aside the purported summary dismissal of the Claimant and restoring all his rights and benefits; including the right to collect all his outstanding salaries and his right to continue in the employment of Oyo State Security Network Agency (Operation Amotekun) until he attains the age of retirement as prescribed by the law or until he is otherwise earlier retired on ground of ill-health or other lawful cause.

7.  An Order of this Honorable Court directing the Defendants to reinstate the Claimant to his rightful post and pay all his outstanding salary arrears and allowances from September, 2021 when he was summarily dismissed via telephone call.

8.  An Order for the payment of General Damages to the Claimant by the Defendants.

9.  An Order for the payment of the cost of this action.

 

2.        The Defendants entered an appearance to this suit on 28/11/24 and filed their defence processes on 13/1/25. These include the statement of defence, list of witnesses, witnesses’ statements on oath as well as list and copies of documents to be relied upon at trial.

2.   Case of the Claimant

3.        Claimant opened his case on 13/5/25. He testified in chief as CW1, adopted his witness deposition of 26/11/20 as his evidence and tendered 8 documents as exhibits. The documents were admitted in evidence and marked as Exh. AA1 – Exh. AA8. The case of the Claimant in brief is that he was an employee of the Defendants having been recruited to serve with the 3^rd Defendant. It is the case of the Claimant that he was not given a fair treatment by the Commandant who used and dumped him against all the letters and spirits of the law of the 3^rd Defendant and that till date he has not been formally disengaged from the services of the 3^rd Defendant.

 

4.     While being cross examined Claimant stated that he was not given appointment letter by the Defendant; that his recruitment, detention and release all happened between 2020 and 2021; that he was voted by members as a Coordinator of his Command; that after he was released from detention, he was removed from the Amotekun Corps members; that after he was released from detention, he kept going to work; that between May and August, he was at work; no Panel was set up for him in 2021; that he was in the premises of the Amotekun Corps Headquarters in Ibadan in September 2021 because the Amotekun Lawyer told him to bring his uniform so that he would help him settle the matter; that Mrs Akinbode, the Amotekun Lawyer did not do anything to settle the matter; that on 8/2/23 he appeared before a Panel at the Amotekun headquarters and he was given opportunity to talk at the Panel.

 

3. Case of the Defendants

5.     The Defendants commenced their defence on 16/6/25 and called one Ogundele Opeolu as their DW1. The witness adopted his witness deposition of 13/2/25 as his evidence in chief and tendered a document which was admitted in evidence and marked as Exh. D1.

 

6.    During cross examination, DW1 stated that he is not in a position to determine the employment of the Claimant; that he knows as a fact that Oyo State Government in 2020 established Amotekun Corps to compliment the effort of the Police and other security agencies; that Claimant was a member of the Amotekun Corps; that he was at a point appointed as the Coordinator; that he was in a position to give directives on the Amotekun operations; that he did not give directives to the Claimant; that he could not and did not query the Claimant on whatever he did; that he was not the person who reported the claimant to the Commissioner of Police; that he was not connected with those who paid the salary of the Claimant; that he was not a member of the disciplinary committee to look into the case of the claimant; that Claimant knew about Exhibit D1; that Claimant voted for himself while the remaining officers voted against him and made the report in Exhibit D1 and that he does not have any letter showing that the Claimant had stopped working for Amotekun Corps nor a letter that he seeks reabsorption. 

 

7.    The Defendants called Idris Alagbe as their DW2. The witness adopted his witness statement of 13/1/25 as his evidence in chief.

 

8.    In cross examination, DW2 stated that he is a member of Amotekun Corps; thathe knows the Claimant as an Ex-Amotekun Corp; that was a temporary staff of Amotekun Corps; that he is not in a position to determine the employment of the claimant; that was not the person who handed Claimant over to the Police when there was crisis in the Amotekun Corps; that Claimant informed them that he was arrested, interrogated and eventually locked up by the Police as a result of the Igangan crisis; that Claimant was eventually exonerated by the Police; that Claimant brought his uniform to the Commandant in 2021; that nobody asked him to bring the unform; that during Claimant’s temporary employment, he was paid =N=47,000 monthly; that he was the one who removed his name from the payroll the Finance Department did; that he was a member of a Panel where Claimant brought a complaint and he was being questioned. 

 

9.        Sunday Abegunde was called as DW3. DW3 simply adopted his witness statement on oath of 13/1/25 as his evidence in chief. Witness did not tender any document as exhibit. 

 

10.      During cross examination, DW3 stated that he is not a member of the Amotekun Corps; that he knows the Claimant; that the Claimant was the former Coordinator of the Ibarapa Central Local Government; that he does not have the power to sack the Claimant; that he did not take the Claimant to the Commissioner of Police for investigation and interrogation; that  Claimant was taken to Commissioner of Police Oyo for investigation; that Claimant was eventually released by the Police; that he never gave any directive to the Claimant; that he was at a point involved in investigating the Claimant on some issues brought to the Headquarters; that he was not involved in payment of Claimants salary; that Claimant’s salary was stopped because of a report from his Command that he stopped reporting for work after his release by the Police; that he does not know how much Claimant was paid when he was relieved of his duty; that nobody in the Management of the Amotekun Corps asked the Claimant to submit his uniform; that he was there on the day Claimant submitted his uniform.

 

 4. Final Written Addresses

11.      On 2/7/25, the Defendants filed a joint final written address.  It was dated 1/7/25. In It learned Counsel set down these 9 issues for determination – 

1.        Whether the Claimant’s appointment with the Oyo State Security Network Agency (Operation Amotekun) has statutory flavour.

2.        Whether the Claimant’s relationship with the Oyo State Security Network Agency (Operation Amotekun) before he left its services was not master and servant relationship subject to the power of hire and fire.

3.        Whether the Claimant cannot be fired by the Oyo State Security Network Agency (Operation Amotekun) who was his master before he resigned voluntary from its services.

4.        Whether the Claimant was fired by the Oyo State Security Network Agency (Operatuion Amotekun) or he voluntarily left the said services by himself.

5.        Whether the Claimant was given fair hearing.

6.        Whether the 3^rd Defendant as sued herein is a juristic person.

7.        Whether proper parties are sued in this suit.

8.        Whether the 1^st & 2^nd Defendants are not nominal party (sic) in this case.

9.        Whether the Claimant in this case is entitled to the reliefs he is claiming before this Honourable Court.

 

12.      Learned Counsel submitted that the fact that an employer is a creation of statute or a statutory body does not without more raise the legal status of its employees over and above the normal Common Law master and servant relationship; that it depends on the interpretation of the applicable statute citing Alhassan v. ABU, Zaria (2009) LPELR-8138(CA); that the law is settled that where the conditions for appointment or determination of a contract of service are governed by the provisions of a statute such that a valid determination or appointment is predicated on satisfying such statutory provisions, such contact enjoys statutory protection and the statutory flavour gives the holder of the office a special status over and above master and servant relationship citing Bamigboye v. University of Ilorin (2001)FWLR (Pt. 32) 12 at 72-74; that in public service where there is a pensionable employment there is a presumption that an employee is not to be terminated except in proven misconduct or other specific reasons citing Igwillo v. CBN (2000) FWLR (Pt. 18) 265 at 300-301; that the evidence led by the Claimant did not support the assertion that his employment with the Oyo State Security Network Agency was statutory; that Claimant testified in cross examination that he was not given any letter of employment; that Claimant’s employment is not statutory in nature and same could not be determined based on the Oyo State Civil Service Commission Regulation Part 6 Section 36,39,41,42,44,48,49 & 56, Laws of Oyo State of Nigeria Public Service Rules Volume 1 of 2013 and that Claimant failed to show in what manner the terms of employment were breached by his employer citing Okomu Oil Palm Co. Ltd v. O.S Isehienrhien (2001) FWLR (PT. 45) 670 at 683 (SC). Counsel urged the Court to resolve this issue in favor of the Defendants.

13.      Learned Counsel argued issues 2, 3 & 4 together and submitted that the Claimant testified during cross examination that he was never given an appointment letter; that DW1 also in cross examination admitted that Claimant was a temporary staff of the Amotekun Corps; that it is outside the province of the Court to look for terms for determination other than contract of service; that since there was not terms in the instant case, Claimant’s employment is at the pleasure of his employer citing Nigeria Texaco Plc v. Kehinde (2002) FWLR (Pt.94) 143 at 157; that since the Claimant failed to state the terms of his employment, the employment could be terminated at any time citing Isievwore v. NEPA (2002) NWLR (2002) NWLR (Pt. 124) 398 at 409. Counsel prayed the Court to hold in favour of the Claimant.

 

14.      On issue 5 Counsel submitted that Claimant admitted under cross examination that he appeared before the Panel and that he was given a fair hearing. Learned Counsel urged the Court to hold as such in favour of the Defendants.

 

15.      On issue 6, Counsel submitted that a non-juristic person cannot sue or be sued and where a non-juristic person in made a party, the action is rendered incompetent citing T.M Lewin (Nig.) Ltd v. Smartmark Ltd (2017) LPELR-43136; that Section 3 of the Oyo State Security Network Agency Law creates the Oyo State Security Network and conferred it with perpetual succession, common seal and power to sue and be sued in its corporate name and that 3^rd Defendant is a corporate entity with capacity to sue and be sued citing Trustees P.A.W Inc v. Trustee, A.A.C (2002) 15 NWLT (PT. 1700) 424. Counsel prayed the Court to resolve to resolve this issue in favour of the Defendants.

 

16.      On whether proper parties are before the Court, learned Counsel submitted on behalf of the Defendants that issue of parties is a condition precedent for a Court of law to assume jurisdiction over a matter citing Plateau State v. A.G Federation (2006)3 NWLR (Pt. 967) 3; that there is no person known to law referred to as State Commandant, Oyo State Network (Operation Amotekun) and that 3^rd Defendant could not be sued as State Commandant not being a juristic person citing Registered  Trustees of Iroyin Ayo Baptist Church v. Sanusi & Anor (2019) LPELR-47720(CA).   

 

17.      Issue 9 is whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought.  On this, learned Counsel submitted that the burden of proof is on the Claimant who asserts in the affirmative citing Onyenye & Ors v. Chief Gbere & Ors (2024) All FWLR (Pt. 219)981 at 995; that the confidence between the Claimant and Operation Amotekun has sunk to a very low ebb with the allegation of dishonesty that has brought the Claimant under cloud citing Afribank v. Osisanya (1999) LPELR-5206(CA); that damages claimed as recoverable for legal wrongs owe their existence to the legal wrong which results in award of damages; that damages being a function of liability, where a Plaintiff fails to establish the liability of the Defendant, such a Plaintiff is not entitled to award of damages citing Akinterinwa & Anor, v, Oladunjoye (2000) LPELR-35 and that Claimant has failed to establish his claims before the Court. 

 

18.      Finally, learned Counsel prayed the Court to dismiss the case of the Claimant in its entirety.

 

19.      A 12-page final written address dated 16/9/25 was filed on behalf of the Claimant.  It was filed on 29/9/25.   In it learned Counsel adopted the 9 issues set down for determination by the Defendants as follow-

 

1.        Whether the Claimant’s appointment with the Oyo state Security Network Agency (Operation Amotekun) has statutory flavour.

2.        Whether the Claimant’s relationship with the Oyo State Security Network Agency (Operation Amotekun) before he left its services was not a master and servant relationship subject to the power of hire and fire.

3.        Whether the Claimant cannot be fired by the Oyo State Security Network Agency(operation Amotekun) who was his master before he resigned voluntarily from its services.

4.        Whether the claimant was fired by the Oyo State Security Network agency (Operation Amotekun) or he voluntarily left the said services by himself?”

5.        Whether the Claimant was given fair hearing.

6.        Whether the 3^rd Defendant as sued herein is a juristic person.

7.        Whether proper parties are sued in this suit.

8.        Whether the 1^st & 2^nd Defendants are not nominal party(sic) in this case.

9.        Whether the Claimant in this case is entitled to the reliefs he is claiming before this Honourable Court.

20.      On issue 1, learned Counsel submitted that the Oyo State Government created the Operation Amotekun under a statute as a result of the Fulani Herdsmen menace under which the Claimant was employed and governed by the said statute. Counsel cited Alhassan v. ABU, Zaria & Ors (2009) LPELR-8138 & Bamigboye v. University of Ilorin (2001) FWLR (Pt. 32) 12A. Counsel urged the Court to so hold.

 

21.      On issue 2, learned Counsel submitted that with the creation of Operation Amotekun under the laws of Oyo State Government, the appointment of the Claimant is automatically statutorily flavoured citing Bamigboye v. University of Ilorin.

22.      With respect to issue 3 learned Counsel submitted that Claimant could not be fired without recourse to Oyo State Government, and that 1^st & 2^nd Defendants must observe the normal protocol through which an employee could be relieved of his employment citing Bamigboye v. University of Ilorin.

 

23.      Counsel submitted that Claimant was forced or cajoled to tender his letter of resignation by agent of 1^st & 2^nd Defendants; that no fair hearing was given to the Claimant by the Defendants; that 1^st & 2^nd Defendants are Heads of organization who are prone to sue and be sued and that both parties are familiar with the entity envisaged in a writ of summons and could not have been misled or have any real doubt or misgivings as to the identity to justify striking of an action citing The Registered Trustees of Airline Operations v. Nigerian Airspace Management Agency  (2014) 57 (Pt. 2) NSCQR 659 at 689.

 

24.      Counsel submitted on issues 7, 8 & 9 that the parties before the Court are necessary being employee and employers; that the Defendants being the employers of the Claimant are the parties to be sued so that judgment in this suit will not be made against a person who is not a party directly concerned or represented in this suit and that the Claimant has sued the Defendants who would be directly affected by the decision of this Court because they are all sequential employers of the Claimant against whom his claims are channelled.

 

25.      Counsel added that 1^st & 2^nd Defendants are not nominal but rather necessary parties; that 1^st & 2^nd Defendants are legal personalities who could be sued in their official capacity as they are necessary parties; that defence witnesses did not tender any document to indict the Claimant of any alleged offence and there is no evidence to support the unjustified action of the Defendants; that Claimant has not contravened section 030401 of the Public Service Rule, vol. 1, 2013 of Oyo State. Counsel prayed the Court to order the reinstatement of the Claimant.

 

6.        Decision

26.      The case of the Claimant is that he was an employee of the 3^rd defendant – an agency of the Oyo State Government. Claimant alleged that he was not fairly treated and that he was used and dumped by the Defendants despite showing an unalloyed commitment. Claimant alleged that he was summarily dismissed; that his summary dismissal is null, void, ineffectual and wrongful by reason of effluxion of time, gross irregularity, lack of reasonable cause and denial of natural justice and non-compliance with the Oyo State Civil Service Commission Regulation Part 6 Sections 36,39,41,42,44,48,49 & 56 Laws of Oyo State, 2000. Accordingly in this suit Claimant sought five declaratory reliefs and four orders of Court.

 

27.      I have read and clearly understood all the processes filed by the Claimant and the Defendants. I patiently heard the oral testimonies of the witnesses called at trial, watched their demeanor and carefully evaluated all the exhibits tendered and admitted. Having done all this, I set down one issue for the just determination of this case thus –

Whether the Claimant has led sufficiently cogent and credible evidence in support of his case to be entitled to a grant of all or some of the reliefs sought against the Defendants.

 

28.      The law remains trite that the Claimant or Plaintiff in an action continues to bear the burden of proof of the allegations he levies. For it is that he who asserts must prove. Therefore, in discharging this burden, a Claimant is expected to adduce cogent, credible and admissible evidence in support of his claims. The requisite evidence may be oral, documentary or both. It is however conventional for the Court to place high premium on documentary evidence over and above oral evidence. Thus in the instant case, the Claimant Mr. Adeleke Adeniyi Amos is under both statutory and caselaw requirement to adduce credible evidence in support of his case to have a positive disposition from this Court.

 

29.      Reliefs 1, 3, 4 & 5 sought by the Claimant are declaratory in nature. Indeed, the first relief is instructive and a decision on it one way or the other will go a long way as to what becomes the remaining reliefs sought. I reproduce same here thus –

      “A   Declaration by this Honorable Court that the purported summary dismissal from duty of the Claimant with the Oyo State Government without any letter, reason or formal communication of such summary dismissal of a pioneer member like the Claimant by the Defendants is null and void, ineffectual and unlawful by reason of the effusion of time, gross irregularity, lack of reasonable cause, denial of natural justice and non-compliance with the Oyo State Civil Service Commission Regulation Part 6, Sections 36, 39, 41, 42, 44, 48, 49 & 56 Laws of Oyo State 2000”.

 

30.      The state of the law in relation to the grant of a declaratory relief is clear and unambiguous. It is trite that a declaratory relief is a call on the Court by a party to exercise its discretionary power in its favor. It is not granted as a matter of course. It is not simply a question of ask and you shall receive. The Court approached must be convinced and indeed be satisfied that the Applicant merits same based on the evidence led.

 

31.      In Attorney General of Rivers State v. Attorney General of the Federation & Anor (2022) LPELR-57708(SC), commenting on the nature and the granting of declaratory relief, Ogunwumiju, J.S.C said –

"A declaratory relief is a procedural device for ascertaining and determining the rights of parties or for the determination of a point of law. Although the power to make a binding declaration of right is a discretionary power, the Plaintiff must establish a right in relation to which the declaration can be made. The claim to which the declaratory relief relates must be substantial. Thus, a declaration will only be granted where there is a breach of a right. It is the practice that a declaratory relief will be granted where the Plaintiff is entitled to relief in the fullest meaning of the word. Furthermore, the relief claimed must be something which it would not be unlawful or unconstitutional or inequitable for the Court to grant. It should also not be contrary to the accepted principles upon which the Court exercises its jurisdiction." 

 

32.      The same position was taken by Uchechukwu Onyemenam, JCA in Solomon U. Salami v. Okogbo Community Bank Limited & Ors (2022) LPELR-57584(CA) when his lordship stated emphatically that a declaratory judgment is discretionary and that it is granted only where the plaintiff is able to convince the Court, that where all facts are taken into account, he will be entitled to the exercise of the Court's discretion in his favor.

 

33.      The Claimant in his first relief calls on the Court to declare his summary dismissal null and void, ineffectual and unlawful as well as being irregular. Going by the decision of Ogunwumiju, JSC above, Claimant must convince the Court that he is entitled to the relief in the fullest meaning of the word. In order for the Claimant the conditions enunciated by His Lordship, it imperative for him to exhibit the contract of employment between him and the Defendants or any of them. Of a truth, the contract will state clearly the terms and conditions of employment which both sides are to comply with. The contract will also state if and when the relationship can be ended and the consequences which follow.

 

34.      In Onyeukwu v. First Bank of Nigeria Plc (2015) LPELR-24672(CA), Ndukwe-Anyawu, JCA citing NITEL Plc v. Akwa (2006)2 NWLR (Pt. 964) 391, Nigerian Gas Co. Ltd v. Dudusola (2005)18 NWLR (Pt. 957) 292 & Amodu v. Amode (1990)5 NWLR (Pt. 150) 356 held that –

 

“In employment cases, the terms and conditions of Contract of Service are the bedrock of any case. Where the issue of wrongful termination of employment calls for determination it should therefore be pleaded and tendered”.

 

35.      In that case, the Appellant who had complained of wrongful termination of her employment failed to plead, prove or exhibit her contract of employment at trial. Failure to plead and prove same was held to be fatal to the case of the Appellant.

 

36.      In the instant case, the Claimant did not plead or prove his contract of employment with the Defendants. Claimant did not prove the terms and conditions of his employment. Claimant did not exhibit any Staff Handbook showing what either side must comply with during the relationship. The terms and conditions in this case could only be proved by looking at the contract of employment. It must therefore as a matter of importance be pleaded. It is this document that this Court as a trial Court will comb with a tooth comb to determine whether, indeed, the employer has breached any of the terms of employment. Having failed to plead and prove his contract of employment therefore, this Court has document to work on. Having failed and prove the contract of employment the Claimant has not in the fullest meaning of the word proved his entitlement to the first declaration sought. Accordingly, I refuse and dismiss the first relief. I also refuse and dismiss reliefs 3, 4 and 5 for the simple reason of lack of proof as required by law. 

 

37.      The first relief is the foundation upon which the entire case of the Claimant rests. Its success or failure determines what fate befall the remaining reliefs. The declaratory reliefs sought, especially the first relief, is the foundation upon which the remaining reliefs must build. Relief 1 is weak. It has failed. It failed to succeed. It collapsed along with all other declarations sought. Having collapsed, there is nothing left to sustain the rest of the case of the Claimant. In the words of Lord Denning MR, of blessed memory, in UAC Ltd v. MacFoy (1962)AC 159, you cannot place something on nothing and expect it to stay there. It will collapse. Certainly, the entire case of the Claimant is destined to collapse. It has collapsed. I accordingly refuse and dismiss same for lack of proof.

 

6.        Conclusion

38.      Finally, for the avoidance of doubt and for all the reasons as contained in this Judgment, the case of the Claimant fails. I dismiss it in its entirety.

39.      I make no order as to cost.

40.      Judgment is entered accordingly.

 

____________________

Hon. Justice J. D. Peters

Presiding Judge