Nicon Insurance Corporation V. Mr. Ayo Olowoofoyeku (2005)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

I.T. MUHAMMAD, J.C.A.

This is an appeal against the Ruling and or order of the Federal High Court of Justice, FCT, Abuja, presided by Honourable Justice I. N. Auta, delivered on the 6/4/2000, in Suit No. FHC/ABU/CS/92/99.

The plaintiff filed this action against the defendant on the 8th day of June, 1999, claiming the following reliefs-

“(i) A declaration that the trial of the Plaintiff by the defendant’s Panel and its recommendation, finding the plaintiff guilty with the accompanying sanctions is unconstitutional, ultravires, illegal and therefore null and void.

(ii) A declaration that the Plaintiff is a public officer in the public service of the Federal Government of Nigeria and is therefore, subject to the general order regulating the affairs of the Civil Servants.

(iii) A declaration that the termination of the appointment of the plaintiff is unlawful and therefore null and void as same was done when the plaintiff was supposed to be on Interdiction or suspension or alternatively to (iii) above.

(iv) A declaration that the termination of the appointment of the plaintiff is unlawful as same was in violation of the civil service general order and the condition of service of the defendant.

(v) An order re-instating the plaintiff to his position in the defendant’s employment with the payment of all his salaries and entitlement since the termination up to when he is re-instated.

(vi) Alternative to (iv) above, payment of all the plaintiffs salaries and entitlements from the time his appointment with the defendant was terminated, up to retirement age in the civil service or alternatively, payment for the sum of N5m, as general damages for unlawful termination of the plaintiffs employment.”

The facts in the Printed Record of Appeal before this Court reveal that, the plaintiff was employed by the defendant in May, 1995. His appointment was confirmed six months thereafter.

In October, 1998, some Air Conditioners were kept in a room and in the morning, while checking the security lights in the premises, plaintiff discovered that the air conditioners were missing. He made a report of the theft to his manager, who directed him to make a written memo. After three weeks, the security Company HND went to the office, interrogated the plaintiff and was thereafter, arrested by the police who “tortured” and detained him for five days, before he was eventually charged to Magistrate Court Wuse, over the alleged theft.

During the pendency of the case in the Magistrate Court, the defendant set up a panel to investigate and try the people allegedly involved in the theft. At the end of the panels’ sitting, the plaintiff was found “guilty” of the theft.

Sequel to that, plaintiff was placed on suspension by the defendant despite an order of injunction not to do so from the Magistrate Court, After a plea by his counsel, the suspension placed on the plaintiff was lifted. He was recalled back but later, his appointment was terminated.

At the end of the trial at the Magistrate Court Wuse, the plaintiff was discharged. He then instituted the suit before the lower court. After settlement of pleadings, plaintiff gave evidence in person. Soon thereafter, the defendant filed an application for the dismissal of the suit for non-disclosure of cause of action and the application was accordingly dismissed by the lower court. Four grounds of appeal were set out in the Notice of Appeal filed before the lower court.