C.N. Okocha V. Civil Service Commission (Edo State) & Anor (2003)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

RABIU DANLAMI MUHAMMAD, J.C.A. 

Mr. C.N. Okocha, started his civil service career in 1974, as a Typist Grade III, with the then Mid-Western State, which later became Bendel State. In 1977, he was appointed a stenographer. In 1981, he was appointed Assistant Education Officer. He was promoted to the rank of Education Officer, on grade level 8, in 1983. In 1985, he was transferred to the audit department as auditor grade two. On 15/9/86, while he was on his annual leave, he received a query, whereby, he was alleged to have dubiously received the sum of N15,000.00 from the cashier of Aniocha Local Government Council.

The matter was also reported to the police. He was eventually arraigned before the Ogwashi-Uku Magistrate Court. He was also interdicted. He was subsequently discharged by the Magistrate on the advice of the D.P.P, who wrote and stated that there was no prima facie case against him. After he was discharged ,he wrote to the audit department to reinstate him. This was not done. Instead, he received two further queries, dated 13/8/87 and 25/8/87. He was accused of cover up of loss of various sums of money. He replied to the two queries. Apparently, not satisfied with his explanations, he was dismissed from service with effect from 14/12/87.

He petitioned about his dismissal and urged the civil service commission to reinstate him. The civil service commission refused. He therefore, sued the then Bendel State Civil Service Commission. During the pendancy of the case, Bendel State was split into Edo and Delta States. The plaintiff then sought and was granted leave to amend the writ of summons and the statement of claim to sue the Civil Service Commission of both Delta and Edo States.

By his amended statement of claim, the plaintiff claims the following reliefs:
“1. A Declaration that letter No.B/SS/239/40 of 17th December, 1987, dismissing plaintiff from the civil service of the then Bendel State, is absolutely void and inoperative by reason of repugnancy to the applicable regulations of the civil service commission of the then Bendel State now applicable to both Edo and Delta States and to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1979.

2. A Declaration that the decision of the civil service commission of the then Bendel State refusing or failing or neglecting to reinstate plaintiff in his service in the then Bendel State after the Director of Audit’s query No.B/SS/237/41 of 15th December, 1986, had collapsed and continuing plaintiff’s said interdiction, while searching for new offences on the basis of which to institute a fresh and altogether new disciplinary proceeding and dismiss plaintiff from defendant’s service is illegal, unconstitutional, null and void on the ground of inconsistency with the applicable regulations of the Civil Service Commission of Bendel State now applicable to the Civil Service Commission of both Edo and Delta States.

3. An order setting aside the said letter No. B/SS/239/40 of 17th December, 1987; and the preceding order of interdiction of plaintiff by the defendants.

4. An order directing the defendants forthwith to reinstate the plaintiff in his office as auditor grade II in the civil service of either Edo State or Delta as may be appropriate and to pay to plaintiff the balance of plaintiff’s half salary, from 23rd December, 1986, to 14th December, 1987, and the arrears of plaintiff’s salaries and allowances as such Auditor II from 14th December, 1987, to the date of judgment in this action and thereafter to the date of his reinstatement in that office.”

After filing the amended statement of claim, the first defendant i.e. Edo State Civil Service Commission, filed an amended statement of defence. The Delta State Civil Service Commission i.e. the 2nd defendant, did not file any defence. At the trial, the plaintiff testified on his own behalf. He was not cross-examined because the defendants were absent from court. The plaintiff did not call any other witness. The defendants did not offer any evidence.

In a reserved judgment, the trial Judge dismissed all the plaintiff’s claim except the claim that the plaintiff be paid his half salaries that were withheld. This is what he said:
“The sum total of this judgment is that all the claims fail except the claim that the plaintiff be paid his half salaries that was withheld by the 1st defendant, during the interdiction of the plaintiff as from 13/12/86 to 14/12/87 when he was dismissed.”

Dissatisfied with this decision, the plaintiff appealed to this court. He filed two original grounds of appeal. With the leave of this court, he filed two more additional grounds of appeal. The grounds of appeal read:
“1. The learned trial Judge misdirected himself on the facts when he failed to distinguish between the allegation of the defendants in respect of an alleged cover up of N2,300.00 to which the appellant made written representation in defence thereof and a separate and distinct allegation of an alleged cover up of the sum of N5,120.00 communicated to the appellant vide his dismissal letter to which the appellant was not afforded an opportunity to be heard in defence thereof which misdirection occasioned a grave miscarriage of justice.

2. The learned trial Judge erred in law and on the facts when he held that “what I understand” “cover up” to mean is that the appellant was grossly negligent as an Auditor Grade II in not seeing or reacting to what happened or would have happened to the sum of N5,120.00, when he led a team of Auditors to audit the revenue of Oshimili Local Government Council, which thereby occasioned a grave miscarriage of justice.

PARTICULARS
(a) The usage of the word ‘cover up’ meant knowingly aiding and abetting in the concealment of the loss of the sum of N5,120.00.
(b) There was no evidence before the trial court from which the court could draw the inference that the alleged cover up occurred when the appellant led a team of Auditors to audit the revenue of Oshimili Local Government Council and the trial court speculated and conjured evidence in respect of this assertion.
3. The learned trial Judge erred in law, where he held that the employment of plaintiff/appellant is also governed by common law principles.

PARTICULARS OF ERROR
(a) Not supported by evidence on record.
(b) Relied on no authority to reach such a conclusion.
4. The learned trial Judge erred in law by refusing to grant the plaintiff/appellant’s reliefs 1, 2 and 3 in the plaintiff/ appellant’s claim in view of the evidence before the court.