NICN - JUDGMENT
IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA
IN THE
ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION
HOLDEN
AT ABUJA
BEFORE
HER LADYSHIP HON. JUSTICE O.A. OBASEKI-OSAGHAE
DATE: OCTOBER
2, 2024
SUIT
NO: NICN/ABJ/207/2017
BETWEEN
INNOCENT UWAKWE AJEGBA CLAIMANT
AND
1.
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR
ARTS AND CULTURE
2.
CHAIRMAN, GOVERNING
BOARD NATIONAL
COUNCIL FOR ARTS
AND CULTURE DEFENDANTS
3.
THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL
OF THE
FEDERATION
REPRESENTATION:
John Abutu for the
Claimant, with John Arugu, T.C. Nnadi.
Tinuola Babalola
(Assistant Chief State Counsel) for the 1st and 2nd
Defendants.
Abimbola Akinnifesi
for the 3rd Defendant.
JUDGMENT
Introduction and Claims
[1] The Claimant filed this Complaint
the Defendants on 11th July 2017. By an amended statement of acts
filed on 3rd December 2021 together with the accompanying processes,
the Claimant is seeking for the following reliefs:
B. A Declaration that the Claimant as a
staff of the 1st Defendant is entitled to payment of all his arrears
of monthly salaries for the month of 1st day of November, 2014 to 31st
day of December, 2014 (two months arrears of monthly salaries for 2014) 1st
day of January, 2015 to 31st December, 2015 (twelve months arrears
of monthly salaries for 2015), 1st day of January, 2016 to 31st
December, 2016 (twelve months arrears of monthly salaries for 2016), 1st
day of January, 2017 to 31st December, 2017 (twelve months arrears
of monthly salaries for 2017), 1st day of January, 2018 to 31st
December, 2018 (twelve months arrears of monthly salaries for 2018), 1st
day of January, 2019 to 31st December, 2019 (twelve months arrears
of monthly salaries for 2019), 1st day of January, 2020 to 31st
December, 2020 (twelve months arrears of monthly salaries for 2020), 1st
day of January, 2021 to the determination of this suit and thereafter in the
particular sums of monthly salary set out by the 1st Defendant and
paid to the claimant herein to wit; 25th of June 2014 (N49,993.06)
22nd July, 2014 (N78,091.53). 26th August, 2014
(N61,970.71) 25th, September, 2014 (69,877.21) and 28th
October, 2014 (61,970.71) by the 1st Defendant and inclusive of all
increment in monthly salaries by the 1st Defendant since November,
2015 till date and continuously payment of monthly salaries to the Claimant
till the determination of this suit and for the entire duration of his working
service with the 1st Defendant.
C. An Order of the Honourable Court,
commanding and/or directing the Defendants to pay the Claimant herein all his
arrears/outstanding monthly salaries for the month of November, 2014 to 31st
December 2014 (two month arrears of monthly salaries for 2014), 1st day of January, 2015 to
31st day of December, 2015
(twelve months arrears of monthly
salaries for 2015), 1st day of January, 2016 to 31st
day of December, 2016 (twelve months arrears of monthly salaries for 2016), 1st day of January, 2017 to 31st
day of December, 2017 (twelve months arrears of monthly salaries for 2017), 1st day of January, 2018 to
31st day of December, 2018
(twelve months arrears of monthly
salaries for 2018), 1st day
of January, 2019 to 31st day of December, 2019 (twelve
months arrears of monthly salaries for
2019), 1st day of
January, 2020 to 31st day of December, 2020 (twelve
months arrears of monthly salaries for
2020), 1st January, 2021
till date and continuously payment of monthly salaries to the Claimant
till the determination of this suit and thereafter continuous payment of monthly salaries to the claimant by the 1st
Defendant for the entire duration of his working service with the 1st
Defendant.
D. A Declaration that the unilateral
act/decision of the 1st and 3rd
Defendants in the removal and/or deletion of the Claimant name from the payroll
and IPPIS Platform of the 1st Defendant, deletion of the Claimant’s
name from the nominal roll of the 1st Defendant by the 1st
Defendant and layoff as contained in the 1st Defendant’s Governing
Board resolution of 25th day of June, 2015, without compliance with
disciplinary procedure under the public service rules 2008, is ultra vires,
illegal, unlawful, arbitrary and unconstitutional and same null and void and of
no effect whatsoever.
E. A Declaration that the 1st
Defendant constructively dismissed or dismissed the Claimant vides its letter
dated the 9th day of December, 2015 and attachment list thereto,
authorizing the permanent deletion of the Claimant from its payroll and IPPIS Platform and also
vides its Governing Council/Board resolution of 25th day of June,
2015 authorizing the removal of the claimant’s name from the nominal roll, the
payroll/IPPIS Platform and layoff and the 1st Defendant’ stoppage of
the Claimant salaries, despite his letters of appointment and assumption of
duty into the service of the 1st Defendant, on ground of fraud
without a prior notification, investigation and query to the Claimant amount to constructive dismissal or
dismissal and constitute breaches of the public service Rules, 2008,
particularly rule 30307 (i), (v), (vi), (vii), rule 03030401, rules 160501 and
160502 or the entire disciplinary
procedures outlined in section 3 of chapter 3 of the Public Service rules, 2008
and same amount to abuse of due process of law and a breach of the twin
cardinal principles of natural justice, audi alteram patern and nemo judex in
causa sua.
F. A Declaration that the Claimants
appointment/employment into the service of the 1st Defendant and
enrollment into the payroll/IPPIS platform (integrated payroll personnel
information system of the 1st Defendant is valid and subsisting till
date.
G. A Declaration that the Proceedings of
the 1st Defendant’s Fact Finding Committee offended and compromised
the rule of natural justice, audi alteram partem, when it failed to invite the
Claimant and the 1st Defendant’s Former Director General/Executive
Director/Chief Executive Officer, MM. Maidugu, under whose administration the
Claimant was employed by the 1st Defendant into its service to
appear before it and explain his roles in the 1st Defendant’
employment exercise of 2013/2014, which resulted to the Claimant employment
into the service of the 1st Defendant, but relied on the damaging
testimonies of Mallam Burbra and Francis Oshomegie, who testifies against him
and Aliyu Husseini before the Committee on the 8th day of May, 2015
and 13th day of May, 2015, respectively, without affording him and
Aliyu Hussieni the right to cross-examine Mallam Burbra and Francis Oshomegie.
H. A Declaration that the 1st
Defendant demonstrated unfair labour practice, discrimination, inequity and
bias in retaining some of the Claimant’s colleagues employed at the same timed
with the Claimant into its employment till date while at the sametime alleged
that the Claimant employment into its service is fraudulent and illegal.
I. An Order of the Honorable Court
holding that Aliyu Husseini who signed the Claimant’s letter of offer of
Appointment and letter of Notification of Assumption of duty is a
staff/Employment/Servant/Agent of the 1st Defendant.
J. An Order of
the Honorable Court precluding/estopping the 1st Defendant from
denying/reneging on the contractual employment it entered with the Claimant
herein.
K. An Order of the Honorable Court setting
aside and nullifying the Internal Circular dated the 19th day of
June, 2015, the press release on the website of the Council on the 16th
day of July, 2015, the 1st Defendant letter dated 9th day
of December, 2015 to the 3rd Defendant and a letter dated 21st
December, 2015, 1st Defendant’s Governing Board resolution of 25th
day of June, 2015, letter dated the 21st day December, 2015 to the 1st
Defendant from the Federal Ministry of Information and restoring the name of
the Claimant into the nominal roll and the payroll and IPPIS (integrated
payroll personnel information system) of the 1st Defendant.
L. An Order of the Honorable Court,
reinstating the Claimant herein as Staff/Employee into the service of the 1st
Defendant (National Council for Arts and Culture) with all his salaries,
allowances, benefits, pension contributions amongst other perquisites of his
office and without loss of seniority.
M. An Order of the Honorable Court, setting
aside, quashing and nullifying any existing administrative decision of the 1st
and 3rd Defendants herein, deleting, suspending, stopping and
preventing the payments of all the arrears of monthly salaries of the Claimant
for the month of 1st day of November, 2014 to 31st
December, 2014 (two months arrears of monthly for 2014), 1st day of January, 2015 to
31st day of December, 2015
(twelve months arrears of monthly
salaries for 2015), 1st day of January, 2016 to 31st
day of December, 2016 (twelve months arrears of monthly salaries for 2016),
1st day of January, 2017 to 31st day of December,
2017 (twelve months arrears of monthly salaries for 2017), 1st day of January, 2018 to
31st day of December, 2018
(twelve months arrears of monthly
salaries for 2018), 1st day
of January, 2019 to 31st day of December, 2019 (twelve
months arrears of monthly salaries for
2019), 1st day of
January, 2020 to 31st day of December, 2020 (twelve
months arrears of monthly salaries for
2020), 1st January, 2021
till the determination of this suit and thereafter continuous payment of monthly salaries to the claimant by the 1st
Defendant for the entire duration of his working service with the 1st
Defendant.
N. One
Billion Naira only as general
damages to the Claimant.
O. Twenty Million Naira only as Cost of this
suit.
[2] The 1st and 2nd
Defendants filed an amended statement of defence and a counter claim together
with the accompanying processes on 22nd March 2022. They counter
claimed as follows:
(i) A
Declaration that the Claimant was unlawfully paid salaries/allowances entered
against his name.
(ii) An
Order of this Honourable Court that the Claimant mentioned above refund
unlawfully paid salaries/allowances entered against their names enumerated in
paragraph 3(iii) above.
(iii) An
Order of this Honourable Court that the Claimant mentioned above pay 20% post
judgment interest per annum on the unlawfully paid salaries/allowance entered
against their name as stated above to the federal Government Treasury until
same is fully liquidated by the aforesaid claimants.
(iv) Cost
of prosecuting this suit.
[3] The 3rd
Defendant filed its statement of defence and a counter claim on 9th
May, 2022. The 3rd Defendant counter claimed as follows:
a.
A Declaration that the claimant was unlawfully paid
salaries/allowances entered against his name.
b.
An Order of this Honourable Court that the Claimant pays the sum
of Ten Million naira as cost to the 3rd defendant having wasted her
time for two years with all form of flimsy excuses.
c.
An Order of this Honourable Court that the Claimant as mentioned
above pay 50% post judgment interest per annum on the unlawfully paid and
received salaries/allowance entered against their name as stated above to the
federal Government Treasury until same is fully liquidated by the aforesaid
claimants.
d.
Cost of prosecuting this suit.
[4] The Claimant filed a reply
and a defence to both counter-claims on 16th November, 2022.
Case of the Claimant
[5] The Claimant’s case on the pleadings is that sometime in 2013, he applied
for employment into the service of the 1st Defendant. The Claimant
stated that he was interviewed by the 1st Defendant in the cause of
the employment exercise it conducted in 2013/2014 and the fact of his interview
is in the letter of offer of appointment issued to him by the 1st
Defendant and signed by its employee Aliyu Hussaini. The Claimant stated that
the 1st Defendant offered him appointment into its service by a
letter dated 22nd July 2013 and he accepted the 1st
Defendant’s offer of appointment. He further stated that upon his acceptance
the 1st Defendant invited him to begin the process of documentation.
He stated that he was documented and enrolled into IPPIS Platform of the 1st
Defendant in the first quarter of 2014 by the 1st and 3rd
Defendants. The Claimant averred that the 1st Defendant proceeded to
issue a letter of Notification of Assumption of Duty dated 22nd July
2014 and he promptly reported to duty in accordance with the directive, and he
was issued with an identity card.
[6] The Claimant averred that he did not procure employment fraudulently
into the service of the 1st Defendant, that rather the 1st
Defendant and its Governing Board employed him in 2013/2014 with the consent of
its Governing Board. He stated that he wrote a handwritten application for
employment and submitted it to the 1st Defendant at its Pension unit.
The Claimant stated that he followed the laid down procedures of the 1st
Defendant in line with the Public Service Rules and that the disparities in the
dates in his letter of assumption of duty and offer of appointment issued by
the 1st Defendant is caused by the 1st Defendant who is
the author of the letters. He averred that the 1st Defendant got a
waiver for the employment exercise it carried out in 2013/2014 as stated in the
report of the verification exercise.
[7] The Claimant stated that he was not fraudulently enrolled/captured
into the payroll/IPPIS Platform of the 1st Defendant; that the 1st
Defendant IPPIS Committee and the 3rd Defendant’s IPPIS Desk
officers captured him into the payroll/IPPIS Platform of the 1st
Defendant in the enrolment/capturing exercise in 2014. The Claimant stated that
the total sum of Three Hundred and Seventy Four Thousand, Five Hundred and Two
Naira only (N374, 502.00), to wit; 25th June 2014 (N49,993.08), 22nd
July, 2014 (N78,091.53), 26th August, 2014 (N61,970.71), 25th
September, 2014 (69,877.21) and 28th October, 2014
(N61,970.71), November, 2014 (N61,970) and 26th May, 2014
(N50,032.15), 25th June, 2014 (N49,993.06), 22nd July,
2014 (N78,091.53), 26th August,2014 (N61,970.71), 25th
September, 2014 (69,877.21), 28th October, 2014 (61,970.71),
received from the 1st Defendant’s payroll/IPPIS platform/personnel
cost account were salaries paid to him by the 1st Defendant
consequent upon his employment, enrollment into the payroll and IPPIS Platform
of the 1st Defendant and on assumption of duty into the service of
the 1st Defendant.
[8] The
Claimant stated that he did not breach the Public Service Rules, and he was not
queried on ground of fraudulent employment or fraudulent and illegal
infiltration into the 1st Defendant payroll and IPPIS Platform. He
further stated that he did not face any disciplinary action from the Defendants
that will warrant non-payment of his monthly salaries till date and deletion of
his name from the 1st Defendant payroll and IPPIS Platform. He
averred that the 1st and 3rd Defendants without following
disciplinary procedures outlined in the Public service rules, and the approval
of the Governing Board deleted his name from payroll and IPPIS Platform. The
Claimant averred that he did not offer money for his employment. The Claimant
stated that there was a verification exercise carried out by the 1st
Defendant, and that he attended the verification exercise.
[7] The
Claimant (CW) testified. He adopted his statements on oath. They were in terms
of the pleadings. In cross examination, the Claimant told the Court that he
followed the procedure of the 1st
Defendant in the course of the recruitment exercise of 2013. CW informed the
Court that he wrote an application letter and was interviewed by the Panel of
the 1st Defendant. He stated that after he was given the employment
letter, he was called for documentation and capturing into the IPPIS Platform;
and that this was in collaboration with the IPPIS desk officer and the 3rd
Defendant. CW told the Court that he was
posted to the Accounting Department (Audit Office). He agreed that there is a
disparity between the date on the letter of appointment and the date on the letter
of notification of assumption of duty. CW said he was not in a position to
explain the disparity, and that the 1st Defendant could explain the
disparity. That he attended the staff verification carried out in November,
2014. He informed the Court that it is not his duty to enquire whether the 1st
Defendant was acting in compliance with the Public Service Rules.
[8] CW
told the court that he was not aware Aliyu Hussaini had stated that his
signature on the disputed employment letters was forged. CW told the Court that
he was captured on the IPPIS Platform in the office of the Accountant-General.
He said he could not remember the name of the person who called him to capture,
and that he was not the only person captured. CW stated that the 1st
Defendant issued him the capturing certificate. He said he did not know his
IPPIS number off head, but he was aware that after capturing you will be given a number. CW said he did not know the number
off head; and that nobody specifically gave him the IPPIS number. CW told the
court he did not have a pay slip. He stated that he was given an appointment
letter in 2013, and started receiving salary in June 2014 till September 2014. CW
told the Court that he was paid salary before he assumed duty; and that after
his salary was stopped he complained to the Director Finance.
Case of the 1st and
2nd Defendants
[9] The
1st and 2nd Defendants case on the pleadings is that they
did not issue the Claimant a letter of offer of employment dated 22nd
July 2013, or at any other date. The 1st and 2nd
Defendants averred that the Claimant is not a staff of the 1st and 2nd
Defendants and was never invited for documentation to be enrolled on its
Payroll IPPIS Platform. They averred that employment is in accordance with the
Public Service Rules (PSR); and that this alleged employment does not comply
with the PSR. The 1st and 2nd Defendants further averred
that the purported letter of employment dated 22nd July, 2013 was
not authorized or issued by the 1st Defendant to the Claimant, neither
did the 1st Defendant issue a letter of notification of assumption
of duty to the Claimant a year after the alleged offer letter was issued. The 1st
and 2nd Defendants stated that it is not the practice in the Public
Service or the 1st Defendant’s employment regulations for a person
offered employment to assume duty one (1) year after, as the Claimant alleged.
[10] The
1st and 2nd Defendants averred that they never authorized
the notification for assumption of duty of the Claimant on the 22nd
July 2014 as his employment ab initio was illegal and without its
authorization. That at all material times the 1st Defendant did not
liaise with the 3rd Defendant to capture the Claimant’s name and
account data. The 1st and 2nd Defendants averred that they
did not invite the Claimant to the Headquarters for Bio Metric capturing nor
did they authorize the inclusion of his name and his account data in its Payroll
and Integrated Payroll Personal Information System (IPPIS) as the Claimant is
not an employee of the 1st Defendant. They averred that the Claimant
was not enrolled for tax payment,
National Housing Fund, Pension Scheme during its Bio Metric Data capturing done
for its genuine staff. The 1st and 2nd Defendants stated
that they never issued an official identification card to the Claimant.
[11] The
1st and 2nd Defendants averred that sometime in October
2014, the 1st Defendant was faced with lack of sufficient funds in
its personnel cost account in the Office of the Accountant General to pay
legitimate staff salaries. On further inquiry from the office of the Accountant
General of the Federation, it was given the list of persons on its Payroll/IPPIS
which was far more than the authorized and budgeted number of persons under the
appropriation for Personnel cost for 2014. The 1st and 2nd
Defendants discovered that several persons including the Claimant fraudulently
procured employment into the service of the 1st Defendant. The 1st
and 2nd Defendant stated that some errant agents of the 3rd
Defendant who conducted the IPPIS registration colluded with some of the staff
of the 1st Defendant who ran an employment scam to illegally include
names of some persons, among which is the Claimant. The 1st and 2nd
Defendant stated that the Claimant was unlawfully and fraudulently enrolled
into the IPPIS Platform and the total sum of Three Hundred and Seventy Four
Thousand, Five Hundred and Two Naira only (374,502.00) paid by the 1st
Defendant was as a result of fraudulent misrepresentation given.
[12] They
stated that upon obtaining knowledge of the fraudulent appointment of the
Claimant and others, they immediately activated the disciplinary process against
Aliyu Husseini and others suspected of being involved in the employment scam.
Aliyu Husseini was dismissed from its service. The 1st and 2nd
Defendants stated that by the Federal Government regulations for Biometric Data
capturing for IPPIS purposes, only the Biometric Data of staff or employees of
the 1st Defendant can be captured for IPPIS purposes and not non
employees. They averred that as at January 2014 when the Claimant alleged to
have been captured by the 3rd Defendant, he was not a staff or
employee of the 1st Defendant because he had not assumed duty at the
1st Defendant’s office. The practice is that newly employed staff of
the 1st Defendant must first submit their letters of acceptance and
be issued letters of assumption of duty into various departments before being
captured for payment of salary. They stated that the Claimant did not submit an
application for employment to the office of the 1st Defendant, and
he was not interviewed by the 1st Defendant as required by the
Public Service Rules. There was no acceptance of the purported letter of offer
of appointment as prescribed by the said letters; and the alleged letter of
assumption of duty is dated 12 months from the date of purported letter of
offer.
[13] The
1st and 2nd Defendants stated that there was a
verification exercise for staff, and the report of the exercise showed that the
Claimant did not attend the verification exercise. The report on the exercise disclosed that the Claimant in addition
to other persons were wrongfully, without due process or authorization by 1st
and 2nd Defendants issued the alleged letters of appointment dated
22ndJuly 2013 and letters of notification of assumption of duties
dated 15th November 2013 and 13th March 2014
respectively. The 1st and 2nd Defendants stated that the
Governing Board of the 1st Defendant authorized that the Claimant
and other illegal persons on the 1st Defendants Payroll/IPPIS
Platform should be offloaded accordingly. That based on the Directive of the
Governing Board, the 3rd Defendant was written a letter directing it
to permanently offload all those illegal persons from the 1st
Defendant’s Payroll. They stated
that the removal of the Claimant’s name from the IPPIS Platform was by due
process after the report of the fact-finding committee. The 1st and
2nd Defendants averred that
the name of the Claimant was forwarded to the 3rd Defendant and the
IPPIS for removal from the payroll.
[14] On
the counter claim, the 1st and 2nd Defendants averred that
the sum of N374,502.00 (Three Hundred
and Seventy-Four Thousand, Five Hundred and Two Naira) was unlawfully deducted
without due process and knowledge of management of the 1st and 2nd
Defendants from the over blown payroll provided from IPPIS to the 1st
Defendant.
[15] The witness for 1st and 2nd
Defendant is Habib Muhammad Bako (DW1). He adopted his statement on oath. It was in terms of the
pleadings. Under cross-examination DW1 told the Court a verification
exercise committee was set up and that the purpose of the Committee was to
validate the employment exercise conducted in 2013. DW1 informed the court that
the major reason for the validation was that the Council could not pay staff
salaries and this gave rise to questions regarding the payroll. DW1 informed
the Court that the names of those validated are not in his statement on oath
and that the overblown payroll is not before the Court.
Case of the 3rd Defendant
[16] The
case of the 3rd Defendant on the pleadings is that he is
not responsible for direct financial inflow into IPPIS; and that the Central
Bank of Nigeria facilitates actual payment of salaries as prepared by various
MDA’s and validated by IPPIS at his Office. The 3rd Defendant stated
that the 1st and 2nd Defendants by a letter dated 30th
December, 2013 requested for the conduct of biometric data capturing for
enrollment into its Payroll IPPIS Platform of some of its staff at stated
designed States capitals of Nigeria. The 3rd Defendant further
stated that he received a letter from the office of the 1st and 2nd
Defendants dated the 9th December, 2015 titled: Request for Deletion
of Names Already under suspension on our IPPIS Platform. The 3rd
Defendant stated that its Office acted on the request by deleting the persons
listed; and further stated that the Claimant’s monthly salary was stopped
because his employment was illegal. The 3rd Defendant stated that his
Office does not act on its own with respect to enrollment and deletion of names
of any staff and payment of salary to an employee without receiving
instructions from the appropriate MDA.
[17] The 3rd
Defendant stated that the payment of salaries and wages to a Federal Government
employee by IPPIS is based on the submission of his/her name by the Ministry
Department or Agency to the Office, and enrolment by the employee in to the
IPPIS data base. The 3rd Defendant averred that it is not the
employer of the Claimant and does not owe him a duty to inform him before
deleting his name from the payroll. That it is the statutory duty of the 3rd
Defendant to disburse money from the Federation Account in line with the
provisions of Section 80, 81, 82 and 83 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended)
as well as Section 162 and 163. The 3rd
Defendant stated that the Claimant failed to disclose any reasonable cause of
action against him in this suit; and that the Claimant did not in any way show
any claims or injuries caused by the act of the 3rd Defendant
whether directly or indirectly as to warrant instituting or joining it in this
suit. He averred that the Claimant’s suit can continue and be concluded without
the 3rd Defendant.
[18] The 3rd Defendant counter-claimed against the Claimant stating that the Claimant unlawfully
had his name placed on the payroll/IPPIS platform of the 1st
Defendant with the collusion some unknown persons without any authorization
from the 1st and 2nd Defendants. The 1st and 2nd
Defendant did not submit the name of the Claimant to the IPPIS office for
payment of salaries, allowances and any other financial benefits. The 3rd
Defendant stated further that the Claimant received salaries from the 1st
Defendant’s Personnel Cost Account which would be considered as unlawful monies
collected by the Claimant on his alleged employment on Grade Level 08 step 2.
The total monies deducted without due process on a monthly salary of N 62,417.66 for six months and paid over to the Claimant is N 374,502.00 (Three Hundred and Seventy
Four Thousand, Five Hundred and Two Naira).
[19] The 3rd Defendant’s witness is Idowu
Bamidele (DW). He adopted his statement on oath. In cross examination, DW2 told
the Court that he joined the service in 2004 was posted to the office of the
Accountant General in 2006. DW stated that he is a staff of the Accountant
General and he was not a member of the team that did the enrollment of the
staff of the 1st Defendant in 2014. DW told the Court that the
report of the verification exercise conducted in 2014 is not before the Court. He
informed the Court that the documents the Claimant was to submit was not part
of the database; and that this shows that he was not one of the legitimate
staff of the 1st Defendant captured. DW said he did not know if the
database is before the Court. He confirmed that payment of salaries must be
authorized by the 1st Defendant, being the owner of the payroll.
Final Address
[20] The 1st and 2nd Defendants’ final
address is dated February 06, 2024 and filed on February 07, 2024. The 3rd
Defendant’s final Address is dated April 08, 2024 and filed on April 12, 2024.
The Claimant’s final address is dated April 29, 2024 and filed on the same day.
[21] The 1st
and 2nd Defendants submitted one issue for determination as follows:
Whether
from the totality of evidence before the Honourable Court, the Claimant has
successfully established a prima facie case to merit the grant of the reliefs
sought in this suit.
[22] Learned Counsel submitted that the
Claimant has not made out a cogent and credible case, such as to move the Court
to grant the reliefs sought. He stated that Rule
010101 of the Public Service Rules states that it shall be the duty of every
officer to acquaint himself/herself with the Public Service Rules, other
regulations and extant circulars. Counsel argued that the Claimant’s lack of
knowledge regarding the 1st Defendant's adherence to the Public Service Rules,
does not in any way whatsoever, invalidate, disprove or negate the assertions
of the 1st and 2nd Defendants, concerning the non-adherence to the Rules during
the recruitment process for the 1st Defendant's office in the period under
review. He submitted that there is no cause of action against the 1st
and 2nd Defendants, citing SPDCN Ltd. v. Nwawka [2003] 6 NWLR
(Pt. 815) at P. 184, S.C. He submitted that where a statute provides
unambiguously for an act to be done in a particular manner, failure to perform
that act in the prescribed manner amounts to non-compliance and its effect
cannot be waived citing Effiong v. Ikpeme [1999] 6 NWLR (Pt. 606) at P. 260.
[23] Counsel
submitted that a trial Court has a duty to refuse to admit inadmissible
evidence and that the Court is not permitted to admit and act on legally
inadmissible evidence. The Court must reject it when giving its final judgment
even if that amounts to overruling itself to do so, citing Ojeh v. FRN [2023]
5 NWLR (Pt. 1876) 1 S.C. He submitted that the purported letters of
appointment and assumption of duty, tendered by the Claimant in this suit,
allegedly linked to Jerry Ichaba and Shedi Zakari, are not admissible and
should be expunged being public documents referring to Section 102(b) and
104(1) of the Evidence Act 2011 citing the National Council for Arts and
Culture, citing GT Investment Ltd v. WITTBUSH Ltd [2011] 8 NWLR (Pt. 1250) at
P. 500.
[24] Learned
Counsel argued that where a contract is made subject to the fulfillment of certain
specified terms and conditions, the contract is not formed and not binding
unless and until those terms and conditions are complied with or fulfilled citing
Tsokwa Oil Marketing Company v. B.O.N. Ltd. [2002] 11 NWLR (Pt. 777) 163.
He submitted that the disparity
in the Claimant’s alleged employment documents violates the specified terms of
conditions of the employment delineated by the 1st and 2nd
Defendants, and therefore, no contract of employment can be said to have been
validly formed between the Claimant and the 1st & 2nd
Defendant. That the Claimant is precluded from seeking justification for a
conspicuous anomaly evident in his employment documentation by seeking to
implicate purported and presumed staff, who remain in the employment of the 1st
Defendant, with the intention to legitimize the established irregularity found
in his own records.
[25] Learned
Counsel submitted that in paragraph 16 of the Claimant’s amended witness
statement on oath, he claims that he submitted a handwritten copy of his
application letter, precisely at the Pension Unit of the 1st
Defendant’s office, however during cross-examination, the Claimant provided a
different response to the question, stating that he submitted his application
letter to the “admin office.” He argued that there is a clear inconsistency in
the evidence of the Claimant for which there is no satisfactory explanation,
citing Ifeadi v. Atedze [1998] 13 NWLR (Pt. 581) at P. 205. That where
witnesses for a party give inconsistent and/or contradictory testimonies
especially on material facts, their evidence on the point must be disregarded
as unreliable and rejected as such citing Sakare v. Bello [2003] 17 NWLR
(Pt. 848) at P. 154. Counsel in conclusion urged the Court to dismiss the Claimant's
suit in its entirety for lacking merit.
[26] The 3rd
Defendant formulated two issues for determination as follows:
i.
Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs
sought against the 3rd Defendant from the totality of evidence before
the Honorable Court.
ii.
Whether the doctrine of natural justice
was observed in the processes leading to the dismissal of the Claimant.
[27] Learned
Counsel to the 3rd Defendant submitted that in consideration of all
evidence in this case, the Claimant has not made out a cogent and credible case
against the 3rd Defendant, such as to move Court to grant the
reliefs sought in this suit. Counsel argued that it is evident from the Claimant’s
testimonies during cross examination that his enrolment and capturing in to the
IPPIS platform is fraudulent. She submitted that the Claimant has been
inconsistent in his evidence for which no satisfactory explanation has been
furnished, citing Ifeadi v. Atedze [1998]
3 NWLR (Pt. 581) at P. 205.
That the law is trite on the need for Counsel not to approbate and reprobate,
citing Canal Inv. Ltd v. Tourist
Countryside Resorts Ltd [2017] 2 NWLR (Pt. 1553) at P. 411.
[28] Learned
Counsel submitted that it is an entrenched principle of law that the burden of
proof to any suit lies on the person who will fall if no evidence at all is led,
relying on Section 132, Section 138 and
148 of the Evidence Act 2011; N. E. Nigeria Limited v. Ibafon Oil Ltd
[2016] ALL FWLR (Pt. 815) 336-339. She submitted that the burden of
proof is entirely on the Claimant. She argued that the Claimant has not been
able to prove that he was not part of the employment scam with his name
illegally enrolled in to the IPPIS platform. Counsel argued that having acted within the scope of its authority
granted to it by the 1st Defendant, the 1st Defendant is
vicariously liable for any act or omission of the 3rd Defendant in
relation to this proceeding, citing Ifeanyi
Chukwu (Osondu) Co. Ltd V Soleh Boneh (Nig) Ltd. [2000] LPELR 1432. That the Claimant’s claim/suit
before the Court is a gross abuse of Court process, citing Usman v. Baba [2005] 5 NWLR (Pt.917) 113 E-G. Counsel urged the Court to dismiss
it with cost, citing C.B.N v. Ahmed [2001] 11 NWLR (Pt.724) 369.
[29] Learned
Counsel submitted on issue two that the twin pillar of natural justice; audi
alteram partem, and Nemo Judex in causa sua apply not only to Courts of law or
tribunals but also to administrative bodies acting judicially in the
determination or imposition of decision that are likely to affect the civil
rights and obligations of a person, citing
National Judicial Council v.
Aladejana [2015] ALL FWLR (Pt.772) P. 19798 at 1809. She argued that looking at all the processes
before the Court, is glaring that the Claimant was never a staff or an employee
of the 1st Defendant to have been given the privilege to be heard.
That fair hearing is granted to an employee who was legitimately employed
following due process of law and the Public Service Rules citing Eferakorho v. D.S.J.S.C [2015] ALL FWLR (Pt.
779) P. 1184 at 1187. Counsel
in conclusion urged the Court to dismiss this suit.
[30] Learned Counsel to the Claimant raised two issues for determination:
1.
Whether from the Claimant’s pleadings,
the totality of oral and documentary evidence before the Honourable Court, the
Claimant is entitled to his reliefs herein.
2.
Whether the Defendants are entitled to
their defences and counter-claims.
[31] Learned
Counsel submitted on issue one that the Claimant is entitled to all his reliefs
as set out in the amended General form
of Complaint and amended statement of facts. Counsel argued that the law is
settled that when a party approaches the Court for a declaration, the burden of
proof is on that party to establish his claim by evidence before the Court. That
the burden of proof on the Claimant is heavy in the sense that declaratory
reliefs are not granted even on admission by the Defendant, citing Faturoti
v. University of Lagos [2016] 65 N.L.L.R Pp.820-821, Paras. E-D. He submitted
further that the law is settled that a Claimant who approaches a Court for a
claim under contract of employment must prove his relationship with the
employer. That the onus of proving that he has an employment relationship with
the Defendant rest on him, citing Emokkpaye v. University of Benin [2002] 17
NWLR (Pt.795) 139 P.90 Paras. B-C. That
the Claimant has discharged the onus by oral and documentary evidence before
the Court, particularly by exhibits C1, C2, C4, C5, C6, C7, C18, C19 and C28
and met the requirements of the law as expected by Sections 131, 132, 133, 134,
135 and 136 of the evidence Act 2011.
[32] Learned
Counsel submitted that the oral and documentary evidence were not challenged
nor contradicted by the 1st Defendant. That it is trite law that
unchallenged, uncontradicted and uncontroverted evidence is deemed admitted as
true facts, citing Mangranht v. Oduba [2004] 4 NWLR (Pt. 863) 279 at 283, Lawal
Osula v. UBA Plc [2003] 5 NWLR (Pt. 813) 376 at 383. He argued that where
oral evidence is corroborated with relevant and credible documentary evidence,
it ought to be believed, citing Anyogu v. Nnamani [2006] 16 NWLR (Pt. 981)
160 at 170. He submitted that the failure of the 1st Defendant
and its Governing Board to place before the Court the approval for recruitment
exercise for few persons in 2013/2014 to the exclusion of the Claimant rendered
the 1st Defendant’s contention of non-approval of the Claimant’s
appointment and illegality on this ground speculative. That it is a well-established principle of
law that a Court cannot speculate on the content of document which is not
before it, citing FCMB v. ATS Abatcha (Nig) & Ors [2017] LPELR-43452
(CA) 41, PARA D. That the 1st Defendant failed to produce in
evidence before the Court its payroll which contained the alleged names of the
over four hundred (400) persons or seven hundred (700) persons on its payroll
that were not authorized by it and its Governing Board.
[33] Learned
Counsel submitted that the failure of the 1st Defendant to produce
the report containing the list of its staff captured by its IPPIS Committee and
the 3rd Defendant’s IPPIS Desk Officers for the 1st
Defendant in 2014 to the exclusion of the Claimant in support of its allegation
amount to withholding evidence for which the Court can invoke presumption of
withholding evidence against the 1st Defendant and its Governing
Board, citing Section 167 (d) of the
Evidence Act 2011; Okpalangwu v. Federal Republic Of Nigeria [2021] JELR
109397. That the presumption being that, if the said evidence or document
had been produced in Court, the same would have been unfavourable to the party
that hoarded or withheld it, citing Azubuike
v. The State [2019] LPELR-48238 (CA).
[34] Learned
Counsel submitted that the Claimant’s employment is not grounded on fraud but
is legal, legitimate and followed due processes and procedures deployed by the
1st Defendant in the conduct of its employment exercise of
2013/2014. That fraud is a criminal or quasi-criminal offence, if it is alleged
in a civil case, the standard of proving it must be beyond reasonable doubt and
not on balance of probabilities, citing Section 135 (1) of the Evidence Act,
2011; Nwafornso v. Taibu [1992] 1 NWLR (Pt.219) 619. Counsel argued that
the law is settled that a party who executes agreement with others with his
eyes wide open, and after taking advantage of its benefits with full knowledge
of its contents cannot belatedly go to Court to castigate its genuiness, citing
Denis Nwoye Okafor v. Igwito & 2 Ors [1997] 11 NWLR (Pt.527) 36.
[35] Learned
Counsel submitted that Claimant’s employment into the 1st Defendant
and his enrollment into the payroll/IPPIS Platform of the 1st
Defendant are insulated with the presumption of regularity under Section 168
(1) and (2) of the Evidence Act, 2011. That the Claimant’s employment into the
service of the 1st Defendant and his enrollment into the
payroll/IPPIS Platform of the 1st Defendant duly complied with
formal requisites for its validity by the 1st Defendant and all
employees/staff/agents of the 1st Defendant involved in the process
of employment 2013/2014 and enrollment into its payroll/IPPIS Platform in 2014
were duly appointed to so act. Counsel submitted that the
dismissal/termination/or layoff of the Claimant on the 25th day of
June, 2015 and removal of his name from the Nominal Roll and payroll/IPPIS
platform of the 1st Defendant on grounds bothering on illegal
employment, illegal enrollment into its payroll/IPPIS, fraud,
forgery, extortion and purchase of
his contract of employment as purported by the 1st Defendant
without compliance with the procedures laid down under Rule 030307 (i)
(vi) , (vii) and Rule 03030401 of the Public Service Rules 2008, Section 36
(1-4) of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria and extant laws constitute an abuse
of due process of law, rules and a denial of fair hearing to the Claimant, citing Agbiti v. Nig. Army [2011]
45 NSCQR 388 at p. 439, 442.
[36] Learned
Counsel submitted on issue two that the 1st Defendant is not
entitled to its Counter-claim; and that facts bothering forgery of exhibits C1
and C2 in final address were not pleaded. Counsel argued that the law is
settled on facts not pleaded, cannot be acted upon by the Court, citing N.B.C.
v. Alfijir Mining Nig. Ltd [1993] 4 NWLR (Pt. 287) 346; and facts on an
issue not pleaded goes to no issue, citing Petrojessical Enterprises Ltd
& Anor v. Leventis Technical Co. Ltd (1992) LPELR-2915 (SC). He
submitted that where a person asserts a commission of a crime in any civil
proceeding and the criminal act is directly in issue, that person must prove
the commission of that crime beyond reasonable doubt, citing Benson Ikoku v.
Enoch [1962] FSCNLR 307.
40] Counsel
argued that the law is settled that a cause of action is disclosed in action by
reference to the writ and statement of Claim, citing Seven Up v. Abiola [2001]
6 (Pt.2) NSCQR 905. That the Claimant by his pleadings and reliefs as
contained in the said amended complaint and amended statement of facts
disclosed a cause of action against the 1st Defendant and its
Governing Board.
Decision
[37] I have carefully considered the originating processes, the evidence, the
submissions of counsel and authorities relied on in the final address; and I
briefly restate the case of the parties. The Claimant’s is that the 1st and 2nd Defendants
employed him, and he was constructively dismissed by the decision of the 1st
Defendant to the 3rd Defendant to delete his name from its Payroll
and IPPIS platform. The 1st and 2nd Defendants is that
the Claimant is not an employee of the 1st Defendant employee, and
that his name was illegally/fraudulently included in its Payroll and Ippis
platform without its knowledge and authorization. The 3rd
Defendant’s position is that it is not the employer of the Claimant, and that
his name was fraudulently placed on the Payroll/Ippis platform of the 1st
Defendant without any authorization from the 1st Defendant.
[38] It is the law that whoever desires the
Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the
existence of facts which he asserts must prove those facts exist, section 131 (1)
& (2) of the Evidence Act 2011, Calabar
Co-operative Ltd v Ekpo [2008] 1-2 SC 229 at 255, Uwah v. Akpabio [2014] 7 NWLR (Pt. 1407) at 489. Civil suits are decided on the balance
of probabilities, on the preponderance of evidence. The burden of proof is not
static but shifts from side to side. The onus of adducing further evidence is
on the person who will fail if such evidence is not adduced, Danjuma v S.C.C. Nig Ltd [2017] 6 NWLR (Pt
1561) 175 at 206 para C, Faloughi v First Impression Cleaners Ltd (2014) 7 NWLR
(Pt 1406) 335, Osuji v Ekeocha [2009] 16 NWLR (Pt 1166) 81 at 116, Fadlallah v
Arewa Textile Ltd [1997] 8 NWLR (Pt 518) 546 at 556.
[39] The claims of the Claimant
are in the main declaratory. The burden of proof in establishing declaratory
reliefs to the satisfaction of the Court is heavy in the sense that such
declaratory reliefs are not granted even on admission of the Defendant where
the Claimant fails to establish his entitlement to the declaration by his own
evidence. In other words, a declaration of right sought by the Claimant against
the Defendants cannot be made on admission, or in default of pleadings by the
Defendants. The Claimant has to succeed on the strength of his own case only if
the Court is satisfied by cogent and credible evidence, and not on the weakness
of the Defendant’s case. See Yau-Yau v APC
(2024) 8 NWLR (Pt 1941) 403, Mohammed v Bormu (2023) 4 NWLR (Pt 1874) 343, GE
International Operations Nig Ltd v Q Oil & Gas Services Ltd [2016] 10 NWLR
(Pt 1520) 304, Dumez v Nwakhoba (2008) 18 NWLR (Pt 1119) 361 at 373-374.
[40] The issues for
determination are as follows:
1. Whether
the Claimant is a bona fide was employee of the 1st Defendant?
2. Whether
a cause of action is disclosed against the 3rd Defendant?
3. Whether the Claimant is entitled
to the reliefs he is seeking?
[41] The 1st and 2nd
Defendants assert that the Claimant fraudulently procured employment as he did
not submit an application letter for employment to the office of the 1st
Defendant, and the 1st Defendant did not interviewed him. The
Claimant asserts that he followed the strict procedure of the 1st Defendant in
the course of the recruitment exercise of 2013 as he wrote an application
letter and was interviewed by a panel of the 1st Defendant. There is
no evidence of the receipt or acknowledgement of the application letter, nor is
there a letter from the 1st Defendant inviting the Claimant for an
interview.
[42] The Claimant has placed
before the Court his letter of offer appointment and notification for
assumption of duty (exhibits C1 and C2), payroll data capture certificate
(exhibit C4), identity card (exhibit C5), Public Service Rules (exhibit C34).
He has also placed before the Court the 1st Defendant’s letters of
offer of appointment addressed to Obaje Jerry Ichaba (exhibit C6), and Shedi
Zakari (exhibit C7). Learned counsel to the 1st and 2nd
Defendants has raised an objection to the admissibility of exhibits C6 and C7.
This was ruled upon at the trial and ought not to be raised again as they were
properly admitted. The only issue is the probative value/weight if any to be
given to exhibits C6 and C7. They are letters of appointment of Obaje Jerry
Ichaba, and Shedi Zakari, persons who are not parties to this suit, neither
have they been listed as witnesses. The letters are private and confidential to
them. I therefore attach no weight to exhibit C6 and C7 and discountenance
them.
[43] The Claimant’s offer of appointment (exhibit C1) is dated 22nd
July 2013, and some portions are reproduced:
INNOCENT UWAKWE AJEABA
OFFER OF
APPOINTMENT
Sequel to your application for
employment and subsequent interview held with you, I am directed to offer you
appointment into the Council’s Services as Auditor II on salary grade 08/2 with
effect from the date you will assume duty.
3. Please inform the Council in
writing within one month if this offer is acceptable to you.
4. You are to report at Council’s
Headquarters at No 1370 Ukpo Close, off Aro-Ago Crescent, (By Old CBN), Garki
Abuja, for further instructions on your assumption.
Aliyu Hussaini
For: Executive Director/CEO
[44] The evidence of DW is that Aliyu Huissaini, the signatory in exhibit
C1 and C2 together with some other staff was involved in an employment scam
that led to the overloading of its nominal roll; and the 1st
Defendant activated its disciplinary process against them. Before the Court is
the query (exhibit C10) issued by the 1st Defendant to Mr Aliyu
Hussaini on “fraudulent and illegal money-for-employment scam between 2013 to
2015”; and the minutes of the Senior Staff establishment Committee (exhibit D3)
where Mr Aliyu Hussaini “denied the allegation claiming that although signing
of appointment letters has been part of his schedule, the signatures on the
disputed letters were forged.” In other words, the signature on exhibit C1 and
C2 is forged, and not his. This corroborates the assertion of the 1st
and 2nd Defendants and the evidence of DW1 that the letter of offer
of appointment and the letter of notification of assumption of duty issued the Claimant
was wrongfully issued without due process or authorization. The Claimant has
not placed any evidence before the Court in proof of his written acceptance of
the said offer within one month. The letter of notification for assumption of
duty (exhibit C2) is dated 22nd July 2014 and is also signed by
Aliyu Hussaini. It is the evidence of the Claimant that he assumed duty in
2014. This is one year after he was given the offer letter.
[45] The Claimant has placed before the Court a data capture certificate
(exhibit C4) signed on January 31, 2014 that bears his name and other identification
details and an identification card (exhibit C5). The Claimant asserts that it
was the decision of the 1st Defendant to call him and request that
he participate in the enrolment into its IPPIS platform. It is the evidence of
DW that the 1st Defendant did not invite the Claimant who
is not its employee to its Headquarters for Bio Metric capturing or authorize
the inclusion of his name and data in its Payroll and Integrated Payroll
Personal Information System (IPPIS) platform, neither did the Claimant resume
duty or carry out any designated duties. It is also the evidence of DW that the
1st Defendant did not enroll the Claimant for tax payment, National Housing
Fund and Pension during its bio-metric data capturing as it did for its genuine
staff; and that by Federal Government regulations and practice, newly employed
officers must submit their acceptance letters, be issued letters of assumption
of duty before being captured for payment of salary. The evidential burden
shifted to the Claimant, but he failed to discharge the shifted burden by
giving contrary, cogent, and credible evidence on personnel practice and procedure
in the 1st Defendant, and in the Federal Civil Service Commission.
See Mohammed v Bormu supra, Dumez v
Nwakhoba supra.
[46] There is no evidence placed before the Court by the Claimant showing
that the 1st Defendant invited him for bio-metric capturing; nor is
there evidence to show that as an employee of the 1st Defendant he
paid income tax, deductions were made from his salary in respect of National
Housing Fund and contributory Pension. Under cross-examination, the Claimant
stated that he could not remember who called him for the capturing exercise,
and that he was captured in the office of the 3rd Defendant. Some of
his evidence is reproduced:
I was captured on the IPPIS
platform in January 2014. I was taken to the Accountant-General Office where we
met the desk Officer……
I am aware that after capturing
you will be given a number. I do not know the number off head. Nobody gave me
specifically the IPPIS number. I do not have a pay slip………
My first salary was in June 2014.
October salary was paid. I received five months salary. I did not collect pay
slip. Yes, the 1st Defendant paid me salary before I assumed duty.
[47] I find from the evidence that the letter of offer of employment
dated 22nd July, 2013 was unauthorized and the signature on the
letter was forged; the Claimant received an unauthorized notification for
assumption of duty dated 22nd July 2014 one year after he was given
the said offer letter; the Claimant was purportedly captured on the 1st
Defendant’s Payroll IPPS platform before he was issued the notification to
assume duty; the Claimant began receiving salary before he resumed duty and he
does not have a pay slip. From the Claimant’s bank statement (exhibit C28), he
was paid different sums of money as monthly salary. In June 2014 he was paid N49,993.08;
July 2014 N78,091.53; August 2014 N61,970.71; September 2014 N69,877.21; October
2014 N61,970.71. The Claimant failed to produce evidence of his enrolment by
the 1st Defendant; and also failed to explain to the court the
disparity in the sums he received monthly having been placed on salary grade
08/2.
[48] The
1st and 2nd Defendants admit that they obtained approval
to organize a recruitment exercise for a limited number of persons only. The
evidence of DW is that an employment scam by some staff of the 1st
Defendant and agents of the 3rd Defendant was discovered wherein
they illegally included names of other persons far more than the budgeted
number of persons under the appropriation for 1st Defendant’s
personnel cost. A verification exercise
was conducted for all persons employed from July 2013. The report on the
verification exercise (exhibit D2) is in evidence. There is no evidence that
the Claimant did not attend the verification exercise. The Committee in its report
state as follows:
OBSERVATIONS
It
was observed during the verification exercise that there are some abnormality
in the entry method of most of the newly employed persons within this period…
7.
Furthermore, the IPPIS capture dates and venue of capture of some were doubtful
and irregular as some of them were captured before assumption and some captured
at un-official venues…..
8.
In addition, some were captured before they got their appointment letters, some
others were captured and started receiving their salaries before assuming duty
in their place of posting, notably those through the staff of IPPIS, which is
illegal.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The
entire verification exercise for the period under review has revealed some
abnormality which are notably questionable, particularly as evident in the
Method of Entry, Dates and Venue of Capturing.
[49] The
Governing Board of the 1st Defendant at its meeting held on 25th
June 2015 (exhibits D5 & C25) resolved that the names of all persons illegally
and without due authorization recruited into the service of the Council between
1st July 2013 and 31st December 2014 should be expunged
from the Council’s nominal roll and payroll/IPPIS platform and be laid off as
they are not legitimate staff of the Council. In furtherance of this, the 1st
Defendant wrote a letter dated 9th December 2015 to the 3rd
Defendant (exhibit D7) requesting for the permanent deletion of the names
already under suspension on its IPPIS platform which included the Claimant’s name.
From the evidence of DW2, the 3rd Defendant upon the request
of the 1st Defendant who is the owner of the payroll acted in line
with its statutory duties and deleted the names of all the persons listed
including the Claimant.
[50]
From the totality of the evidence, it is apparent that the 1st and 2nd
Defendant did not authorize the employment of the Claimant. The Claimant has
failed to prove to the satisfaction of the Court the that he is a bona fide
employee of the 1st Defendant and that he is entitled to the
declarations he is seeking, see Onubogu v
Anazonwu (2023) 17 NWLR (Pt 1914) 425, Mohammed v Bormu supra, Dumez v Nwakhoba
supra. I hold that the employment of the Claimant is unauthorized, illegal,
null and void.
[51] Consequently,
all the Declarations sought in reliefs A, B, D, E, F, G, H, must fail. They are
hereby refused. The Declarations having failed, all the ancillary orders sought
in reliefs C, I, J, K, L, M, N, and O, must also fail having no foundation, see
Olayemi v. FHA (2023) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1872)
445 at500, Para E (SC); Ogoke v. Nduka (2020) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1715) 509 at 529,
Paras A-G (CA); Sunko (Nig) Ltd v. Skye Bank Plc (2017)12 NWLR (Pt. 1579) 237
at 270, Paras F-H (CA); Nwaogu v Atuma (2013)11 NWLR (Pt. 1364)117 at 156, Para
D (SC). The case against the 1st and 2nd Defendants
is dismissed in its entirety.
[52] The 3rd Defendant has averred that there
is no reasonable cause of action disclosed against it. A cause of action is a
group of operative facts giving rise to one or more basis for suing; a factual
situation that entitles one person to obtain a remedy in court from another
person. It is a fact or facts that gives a person usually the Claimant a right
to judicial redress or relief against the other party named as the Defendant,
see Ekeng v Polaris Bank Ltd [2021] 2
NWLR (Pt 1761) 395 at 412 – 413 Para E-F, H-C, Esuwoye v Bosere (2017) 1 NWLR
(Pt 1547) 256, Kolo v F.B.N. Plc (2003) 3 NWLR (Pt 806) 216 at 232 Para F-G,
Sani v President FRN [2010] 9 NWLR (Pt 1198) 153. The cause of action is to
be determined from the facts in the pleadings of the Claimant raising issues in
dispute and questions that are fit for determination, see Egbe v Adefarasin (1987) 1 NWLR
(Pt 47) 1.
[53] A careful perusal of the Claimant’s complaint, and the
averments in the pleadings does not
disclose any cause of action against the 3rd Defendant, neither does
it raise any question against the 3rd Defendant. There is no employment
relationship between the Claimant and the 3rd Defendant; the 3rd
Defendant owes him no duty to inform him before deleting his name from the 1st
Defendant’s Payroll and IPPIS platform as directed by the 1st and 2nd
Defendants. Thus, no cognizable action can lie against the 3rd
Defendant who has no employment relationship with the Claimant, see Chief
S.A. Dada & Ors v Otunba Adeniran Ogunsanya & Anor (1992) LPELR- 908
(SC). Consequently, the case against the 3rd Defendant is
dismissed.
[54] From the totality of the evidence before the
Court, both the counter claims filed by the Defendants have been proved. I hereby
declare and make the following orders:
1. It is declared that the Claimant was unlawfully
paid salaries and allowances entered against his name.
2. It is ordered that the Claimant refund the sum of
N374,502.00 paid to him as salaries and allowances to the Federal Government
Treasury within 60 days.
Costs in the sum of N100,000 awarded each Defendant.
Judgment is entered accordingly.
______________________________
Hon
Justice O. A. Obaseki-Osaghae