Tamti, D.U. V. Nigeria Customs Service Board & Anor (2008)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

HON. JUSTICE UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI. J.C.A.

This appeal is against the Judgment of the Federal High Court Abuja, presided Over by Hon. Justice S.J. Adah in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/697/2004 delivered on the 24th May, 2006.

The Appellant as the plaintiff instituted the action against the Respondents as Defendants, claiming the following reliefs as per paragraph 27 of the statement of claim:-

1. A declaration that the 2nd Defendant lacked competence to set up investigation panel and disciplinary committee to investigate and discipline the plaintiff for the allegation of illegal authorization of the release of and permitting the removal of 270 packages of cargo seized from Swift Freight International flight No. BRQ 1302F from NACHO shed at Murtala Mohammad Airport Command Lagos.
2. A declaration that the letter of suspension dated the 13th day of July,2004 and signed by Nwokocha, E.O. (Mrs.) for The Comptroller-General, Nigeria Customs Service is null, void and of no effect whatsoever.
3. A declaration that the Retirement of the plaintiff from service, on the ground of gross misconduct is unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect as the plaintiff was not afforded fair hearing as provided by the Constitution.
4. An order directing the Defendants to re-instate of (sic) the plaintiff to his rank and post.

The facts of the case as can be gleaned from the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced before the trial court was that, the Appellant until his retirement, on the 19th/11/2004 by the Nigeria Custom Service Board was a Superintendent of Customs on grade level (HPPSS11). He joined the service of the Nigeria Customs on the 3rd April, 1989 as an Assistant Superintendent of Customs on Salary Grade, level 08 Step. II and was severally promoted the last being the rank of Superintendent of Customs.

On or about the 27th day of May 2004, 395 packages of cargo on Swift Freight International flight No.3RQ, landed at Murtala Mohammad Airport. The Nigeria Customs Airport Command Ikeja detained the packages for contravening the Federal Government Importation prohibition Order and Fiscal Policy measures for the year 2004.

After the detention, a stop delivery order was given and subsequently the detention and seizure orders were given on the 28th May, 2004, to the Nigeria Aviation Handling Company (NAHCO). When some days later, an attempt to move the seized goods to the Government Warehouse by the Nigeria Customs, it was discovered that the packages were 125 and not 395. The missing of the 270 packages prompted the Nigeria Customs to investigate the circumstances leading to the disappearance of the packages from NAHCO shed.

The Appellant who was then working at the courier section of the Murtala Mohammed Airport, Ikeja was posted to NAHCO Exit gate and he reported at the gate on the 1st June, 2004, The Nigeria Customs in the course of the investigation issued the Appellant with a query letter dated the 13th July, 2004 giving him 48 hours to respond. He was also on the same date served with a suspension letter with effect from 13th July, 2004 directing him to handover all Government property in his possession including uniform and ID card. Investigation was conducted and the Appellant was summoned to appear before the Management Meeting of the Nigeria Customs Service in Abuja along with the officers that investigated the matter in Lagos. A decision was reached to retire the Appellant from service and consequently the Appellant was retired from service by a letter dated 6th September, 2004, even though the letter was served on him on the 19th day of November, 2004. The Appellant is challenging his premature retirement from service as illegal, imputing lack of fair hearing among other grounds.

The Appellant testified at the hearing and tendered seven exhibits. He did not call any other witness. The Respondents also called a lone witness who testified for them and tendered one Exhibit. Both parties close their case and learned counsel addressed the court. In a considered judgment delivered on the 24th day of May, 2006, the learned trial judge granted one relief of the Appellant and dismissing all other reliefs.

The Appellant being dissatisfied with the judgment, on the 20th June, 2006 filed a notice of appeal with 8 grounds of appeal to this Honourable Court. The grounds of appeal without their particulars are hereby reproduced.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

Ground 1: The learned trial judge erred in law when in his judgment he held as follows:- “The fact that those sent to investigate were present at meeting of the management as reflected in exhibit 8 does not vitiate any step taken in that meeting.”

Ground 2: The learned trial judge erred in law in not granting the plaintiff’s relief of reinstatement back to his rank and position given the Defendants admission and non-denial of material averments in the plaintiffs Statement of Claim.

Ground 3: The learned trial judge misdirected himself and erred in law when he held that:- “…since the Board was the one that took the decision and retired the plaintiff, that decision is proper because the Board has the capacity to take decision” when there was no evidence to support such finding.

Ground 4: The learned trial judge erred in law when he failed to consider and determine the issue of involvement of the plaintiff in the illegal release of 270 packages raised before it one way or the other.