Imogie Solomon v Permanent Secretary Federal Ministry Of Power,works And Housing Headquartersand Federal Civil Service Commission

• Judge: Hon. Justice B. B. Kanyip, Phd
• Judgment Date: 02 September 2020
• Respondent: Permanent Secretary Federal Ministry Of Power,works And Housing Headquartersand Federal Civil Service Commission
• Appellant: Imogie Solomon
• Docket Number: NICN/ABJ/143/2018
• Counsel: John Onuche, for the claimant. N. B. Shani, Principal State Counsel, with A. J. Reuben-Nnwoka, Senior State Counsel, and Tobi Oladele, for the 1st defendant.
• Court: National Industrial Court (Nigeria)

1. The claimant took out this action vide a complaint filed on 21st May 2018 together with the accompanying originating processes. To this, the defendants filed their respective defence processes. By order of Court, the originating processes of the claimant were amended. Accordingly, by his amended statement of claim, the claimant is praying for the following reliefs against the defendants:
(a) A declaration that the suspension was wrong.
(b) Re-instatement of the claimant back to his work and all salaries and promotion arrears paid till date.
(c) An order for the payment of Thirty Million Naira (N30,000,000.00) as general damages.
(d) One Million Naira (N1,000,000.00) cost of this suit.

2. There is a slight difference in the reliefs claimed by the claimant in his complaint dated 1st March 2019 but filed on 11th March 2019 with the reliefs in the statement of claim also dated 1st March 2019. As already shown, relief (a) as per the statement of claim is for a declaration that the suspension is wrong. This relief (a) is not reflected in the reliefs the claimant is claiming as per the complaint. Relief (b) as per the statement of claim is for both reinstatement, on the one hand, and for salaries and promotion, on the other hand. In the complaint, these reliefs are put as reliefs (a) and (b) respectively. Reliefs (c) and (d) in both the complaint and the statement of claim coincide. By Daniel Holdings Ltd v. UBA Plc [2005] LPELR-922(SC), relying on Overseas Construction Ltd v. Creek Ent. Ltd [1985] 3 NWLR (Pt. 13) 407:
The law is that a statement of claim supersedes a writ of summons. A claim made on the writ of summons, which is not repeated in the statement of claim or which is varied in the statement of claim will be deemed abandoned or varied.
See also Coutinho Caro & Co. Nig Ltd v. Obioha Investment Ltd [2013] LPELR-21464(CA). I shall accordingly restrict myself to only the reliefs claimed as per the statement of claimant.

3. At the trial, the claimant testified on his own behalf as CW and tendered the following documents:
(1) A copy of the employment letter (Exhibit 1).
(2) A copy of letter of suspension (Exhibit 2).
(3) A copy of letter of the claimant’s counsel for re-instatement (Exhibit 3).
(4) A copy of letter of reminder from the claimant’s counsel to the Ministry of Works (Exhibit 4).
(5) A copy of the claimant’s appeal letter for re-instatement (Exhibit 5).

4. For the 1st defendant, Williams Ememeroru Etenubro, a Chief Executive Officer in the Human Resources Department of the 1st defendant, testified as DW. He tendered the following documents:
(1) Revised Guidelines for Appointment, Promotion and Discipline 2004 (Exhibit D1).
(2) Internal Audit (Four-Man Investigative) Committee Report 2014 (Exhibit D2).
(3) Minutes of meeting of Senior Staff Committee Discipline) 18th May 2014 (Exhibit D3).
(4) Federal Civil Service Commission’s Letter of Approval of Suspension dated 30th May 2017 (Exhibit D4).
(5) Acknowledgement Copy of the Ministry’s Letter of Referral to the Police dated 27th March 2017 (Exhibit D5).
(6) Ministry’s Letter of Response to the Claimant’s Solicitor dated 3rd April 2018 (Exhibit D6).

5. The 2nd defendant only filed their defence, but failed to appear for their defence, wherein the claimant’s counsel applied for it to be foreclosed, which application was granted by the Court. The 2nd defendant, however, cross-examined the claimant when he testified as CW.

6. At the close of trial, the defendants were to file first their respective final written address, but they did not — the 1st defendant would in Court on the day of adoption of written final addresses inform the Court that he simply relies on his evidence and exhibits. Both defendants were accordingly foreclosed from filing any final written address as enjoined by Order 45 Rule 12 of the National Industrial Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2017 (NICN Rules 2017) given that the claimant filed his in accordance with Order 45 Rule 11 of the NICN Rules 2017.

THE CASE BEFORE THE COURT

7. To the claimant, he is a Principal Executive Officer I in the Federal Ministry of Power, Works and Housing having been posted there from Federal Ministry of Education, where he was first employed. That after working for over 20 years, an unsubstantiated allegation was laid on him as to forgery of promotion papers for officers in Benin, which allegation was never investigated or substantiated. That a query was issued to him, which he answered in the negative. Afterward, a suspension letter was issued to him on 19th July 2016, which suspension is still subsisting and it is not termination, all contrary to Part V(v) of the Federal Civil Service Guideline, which stipulates that under no condition should an interdiction or suspension be made to last more 3 months in the first instance and the extension of 3 months subject to the approval by the 2nd defendant. That the claimant has not received any money from the 1st defendant on the work that still subsists from July 2016 till date. The claimant went on that he did not appear before any panel to defend himself before the suspension letter was issued to him. That he wrote several letters of appeals but all to no avail. In consequence, that he suffered and is still suffering because of the unending suspension that was issued to him whereby his salary was stopped since July 2016.

8. To the 1st defendant, contrary to impression created by the claimant, where a misconduct committed by a civil servant is criminal in nature, suspension may last beyond 3 months until the Police conclude their investigation in line with Part V, para. 8 of the Revised Guidelines for appointment, promotion and discipline issues by the 2nd defendant in 2004. That the Internal Audit Department of the Ministry discovered that the claimant forged and issued fake promotion and conversion letters to 12 officers of the Ministry in Edo State Field Office, and a four-man investigative committee chaired by the Director, Human Resources investigated the allegations and indicted the claimant and recommend disciplinary action against the claimant. That the case was then referred to the...