IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE MINNA JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT ABUJA

 

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HONOURABLE JUSTICE O. Y. ANUWE

 

Dated: 26th March 2026                                                   SUIT NO: NICN/MN/73/2024

           

Between:

 

Alhassan Liman                                                     -                                      Claimant        

 

And

 

1.     Niger State Civil Service Commission                                                 

2.     Honourable Attorney General of Niger State                                 Defendants         

3.     Niger State Government                           

                             

Representation:

M. T. Mohammed, with him, Godwin Ozara for the Claimant

Hauwa Jibril (Asst. Director) for the Defendants

 

JUDGMENT

The Claimant instituted this action by a Complaint filed on 19th December 2024. His claims against the Defendants are as follows:

1.     A declaration that the Claimant was duly employed into the civil service Niger State and his employment is still subsisting and valid.

2.     A declaration that the claimant’s NCE certificate is valid and authentic.

3.     A declaration that the continuous withholding of the Claimant's salaries and all other entitlements (including promotions) i? illegal, unconstitutional, null and void.

4.     An order of the Court compelling the Defendants to pay the sum of N2,826,805.06 as the withheld salaries of the Claimant from November 2020 to December 2024.

5.     An order awarding exemplary damages against the 1st defendant.

6.     And for such further order this Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances of this suit.

 

The Complaint was accompanied with a statement of facts, list of witnesses, witness statement on oath of the claimant, list and copies of documents pleaded by the claimant.

 

The defendants filed a joint statement of defence on 11th March 2025 along with a counter claim wherein the defendants claim the following reliefs against the claimant:

1.     An order directing the Claimant to refund the sum of N7,467,054 being salaries erroneously paid to him over the period of 190 months.

2.     An order directing the Claimant to tender an unreserved public apology for misleading the Counter-Claimants and the general public vide three National dailies.

3.     The cost of defending this suit (Solicitor's fees) in the sum of N3,000,000.

4.     The sum of N5,000,000 as general damages.

 

The statement of defence was accompanied with the witness statement on oath of Usman Baba, list of witnesses and list and copies of documents. The claimant filed a reply to the statement of defence and defence to the counter claim on 14th April 2025, together with additional witness statement of the claimant.

 

In the proceeding of 29th October 2024, learned counsels for the parties informed the Court that the parties have agreed to adopt the trial on procedure provided in Order 38 Rule 33 of the Rules of this Court. The request of the parties was granted and parties were directed to file their final written addresses. The written addresses of the parties were filed subsequently. The final written address of the claimant was filed on 17th November 2025 while the defendants filed their final written on 9th January 2026 but deemed on 13th January 2026 in which date the final written addresses were adopted.

 

Rule 33 of Order 38 of the Rules of this Court permits trial on records where parties, at the close of pleadings, agree or consent to adopt the procedure. The procedure in trial on records is that the parties do not call witnesses or evidence but rely only on the pleadings, the frontloaded documents and the written addresses filed on the basis of the documents on record. The parties in this suit having consented to the procedure, this suit will accordingly be determined using the facts pleaded by the parties, the frontloaded documents and the content of the written addresses.

 

CLAIMANT’S CASE:

In the statement of facts, the Claimant pleaded that he is a Civil Servant employed as a classroom teacher by the 3rd defendant in 2009. The claimant attended the civil service screening exercise in 2020/2021 where the screening committee requested for his original NCE which he gave them. One of the committee members said the NCE could be fake but the claimant was later cleared and issued screening registration slip. After the screening, the claimant continued to teach in the school without payment until his VP told him the Government has asked him to stop work. The last salary he was paid was for the month of October 2020 in the sum of N53,336.10. His unpaid salaries from November 2020 to December 2024 has accrued to the sum of N2,826,805.06

 

The claimant frontloaded these documents: letter of offer of provisional appointment dated 4/2/2009, notification of appointment dated 29/8/2012, NCE statement of result, screening registration slip, notification of appointment dated 22/8/2017, pay slip for October 2020 and solicitors’ letter dated 18/11/2024.

 

DEFENDANTS DEFENCE AND COUNTER CLAIM:

In their statement of defence, the Defendants admitted that the claimant was employed in 2009 into the civil service but averred that the claimant was employed based on the false information he presented to the defendants. The appointment letter was issued to the claimant under the erroneous belief that the claimant’s entry qualification, NCE, was correct. In the year 2020, the 3rd defendant set a screening committee. The claimant appeared before the committee and presented NCE certificate which was subjected to verification but it turned out to be fake. The committee wrote to the Niger State College of Education to confirm the genuineness of the claimant’s NCE but in the reply of the school, the school said the claimant’s NCE is not authentic. Upon being satisfied that the claimant’s NCE was fake, his salary was stopped and his appointment was terminated via dismissal letter dated 17th June 2021. At the time the claimant was given appointment in 2009, he presented a fake NCE certificate. The claimant misled the defendants into paying him salaries of NCE entry level since 2009. Until his dismissal, the claimant had been illegally receiving the salary of NCE entry level and he so far received the total sum of N7,467,054 from 2009 to 2021.

 

The documents frontloaded by the defendants are: letter dated 13th October 2020 from Niger State College of Education, letter of dismissal dated 17/6/2021 and letter of apology dated 20/7/2020.

 

FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESS OF THE CLAIMANT

The Claimant’s Final Written Address dated 15th November 2025 was filed on 17th November 2025. Four issues were formulated for the determination of the court.

 

ON ISSUE ONE ‘whether the Claimant has been given fair hearing before the purported termination of his appointment’ counsel relied on Chapter 3 Section 4 Rule 03404 of the Niger State Civil Service Rules which outlines the procedures for interdiction for an employment governed by statute, and submitted that the procedures were not followed. Citing the case of KABELMENTAL NIG. LTD vs. ATIVIE (2001) FWLR 640-846 (Pt. 66) Pg. 664 and the case of P.H.C.N PLC vs. OFFOELO (2013) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1344) Pg. 393, counsel submitted that the Claimant was not served any dismissal letter; therefore, his appointment remains subsisting. According to counsel, the claimant was not aware of his alleged dismissal, not until the Defendants made reference to it in their statement of defence.

 

ON ISSUE TWO, ‘whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought’, learned counsel for the claimant, in submitting that the appointment of the Claimant is still subsisting and valid, stated that termination in statutory employment requires strict compliance with relevant laws; and the remedy for such wrongful termination of a statutory employment is reinstatement and payment of accrued entitlements. Counsel cited amongst others, the case of MRS. AKINYOSOYE YEMISI vs. FEDERAL INLAND REVENUE SERVICES (2015) 6 ACELR Pgs. 179 and 192.

 

ON ISSUE THREE, ‘whether Niger State Civil service screening committee can investigate criminal allegation against its employee and adjudicate thereon with conclusion that the claimant’s certificate was forged’, it is counsel’s submission that the defendants cannot be a judge in their own case, and the screening committee cannot investigate or adjudicate criminal allegations such as forgery which is a criminal offense and must be proved beyond reasonable doubt in a competent court. Citing the case of APC vs. OBASEKI (2022) 2 NWLR (pt. 1814) page 282 amongst other cases, counsel emphasized that executive bodies cannot replace courts in determining criminal guilt.

 

ON ISSUE FOUR, ‘whether documents made pendente lite has probative value in law’, Claimant Counsel submits that documents attached to the defence (verification certificate and statement of results) were created after the screening exercise and during the pendency of the suit. Under Section 83(3) of the Evidence Act 2011, such documents have no probative value and are inadmissible.

 

FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESS OF THE DEFENDANTS/COUNTER CLAIMANTS

The Defendant’s Final Written Address was filed on 9th January 2026, wherein they formulated three issues for determination.

 

ON ISSUE ONE, ‘whether the Claimant has proved his case on the balance of probability to entitle him to the reliefs sought’, learned counsel for the defendants relied heavily on the case of KAKA vs. POTISKUM (1998) 3 NWLR (Pt. 540) 1 (S.C), to emphasize that the burden of proof in civil cases lies on the Claimant, who must prove his case on a balance of probabilities. Relying on Section 133 of the Evidence Act 2011 and the case of OYOVBAIRE vs. OMAMURHOMU, (1999) 10 NWLR (Pt. 621) 23 @ P. 34 Paras F-G, counsel submitted that the burden of proof is on the party who will fail if no evidence is given on either side. He also relied on the case of EWO vs. ANI (2004) 3 NWLR (Pt. 861) 611 at 630-631 Paras F-G and other authorities to submit that declaratory reliefs must be based on the strength of the Claimant’s evidence, not on the weakness or admissions by the Defendant; and that evidence must be credible and sufficient to convince the court, and mere assertions or admissions by the opposing party are insufficient. According to the defence, the Claimant has failed to produce credible evidence to support his claims, and the admission of wrongdoing via his apology letter further undermines his position.

 

ON ISSUE TWO, ‘whether in view of the circumstance leading to the dismissal of the Claimant and the provisions of the Niger State Civil Rules, the dismissal can be adjudged to be proper’, learned counsel submitted that, considering the circumstances leading to the Claimant’s dismissal and the Niger State Civil Service Rules, the dismissal was proper. By Rule 04437 of Niger State Civil Service Rules, concealment of facts or false statements regarding qualifications is sufficient ground for dismissal without notice. Counsel added that the Claimant’s act of presenting a forged certificate constitutes concealment of fact, justifying his dismissal.

Counsel reiterated that the Defendants conducted a fair hearing process, including initial Screening Committee verification, a Re-Verification Committee comprising senior educationists, legal experts, and labor representatives; and the Claimant attended all proceedings and was afforded ample opportunity to defend his certificate.

 

ON ISSUE THREE, ‘whether the Defendants/Counter-Claimants have established their Counter Claim’, Counsel submits that the Claimant illegally received salary payments based on the forged certificate. Counsel urged the Court to resolve the Counter-Claim in favour of the Defendants.  

 

DECISION ON THE CLAIMS OF THE CLAIMANT

From the facts pleaded by the parties, the fact that the claimant was employed into the Civil Service of the 3rd defendant is not in dispute in this suit. The area of dispute is whether the claimant’s employment still subsists and whether he is entitled to the arrears of salaries which he claims in this suit. This issue arose from the first claim of the claimant where he sought a declaration that his employment still subsists. The other claims sought by the claimant, particularly reliefs 3 and 4 regarding his unpaid salaries, are founded on relief 1.  Accordingly, whether the claimant is entitled to other claims sought in this action will depend on whether or not his employment still subsists.

 

In the averments in the statement of facts, the claimant pleaded that during the screening exercise in 2020/2021, the screening committee requested for his original NCE which he gave them but one of the committee members said the NCE could be fake. The claimant was later cleared and issued screening registration slip. After the screening, the claimant continued to teach in the school without payment until his VP told him the Government has asked him to stop work. The last salary he received was for the month of October 2020. On their part, the defendants pleaded that when the claimant appeared before the screening committee and presented his NCE certificate, the NCE was subjected to verification but it was found to be fake. The committee wrote to the Niger State College of Education to confirm the genuineness of the claimant’s NCE but in the reply of the school, the school said the claimant’s NCE is not authentic. Upon being satisfied that the claimant’s NCE was fake, his salary was stopped and his appointment was terminated via dismissal letter dated 17th June 2021. The defendants pleaded the dismissal letter and frontloaded it. It is dated 17/6/2021 and issued by the 1st defendant. The content of the letter disclosed that the claimant was dismissed from the Niger State Civil Service with effect from 2/1/2021 and the reason for his dismissal, as stated in the dismissal letter, is falsification of record under Rule 030402 of the CSR. In his reply to the statement of defence, the claimant pleaded in paragraph 5 thereof that his employment was not terminated and he is not in receipt of any dismissal letter.

 

The defendants have presented a dismissal letter issued in the name of the claimant. The letter was issued on 17th June 2021 but to have taken effect from 2/1/2021. The Claimant wants the Court to declare that his employment still subsists. I cannot make that declaration now that his dismissal letter has been shown to the Court by the defendants. In view of the dismissal letter, the only reason the Court will declare the claimant’s employment still subsisting is if it is shown that the dismissal is wrongful or unlawful. The claimant did not challenge his dismissal in this suit and, other than to plead that he has not been dismissed, he did not plead any fact which can enable the Court consider whether his dismissal, as disclosed in the letter produced by the defendants, was properly or lawfully done. Also, the fact that he is not in receipt of the dismissal letter does not mean that the 1st defendant has not dismissed him from the employment. It should also be mentioned that the fact that the claimant is not in receipt of or served the dismissal letter cannot be a factor to nullify or impeach the letter of dismissal produced by the defendants. The contention whether or not the claimant received the dismissal letter is a matter to be tested and determined upon receiving oral evidence and cross examination of witnesses. In view of the trial on record procedure adopted in this matter, the facts pleaded by the claimant are not enough to determine whether he received the dismissal letter or not.

 

The obvious fact however is that the 1st defendant had taken a decision to dismiss the claimant from service. The claimant himself confirmed that his salary had been stopped. In view of these facts, the declaration sought by the claimant to the effect that his employment subsists cannot be made. Until the dismissal is properly and successfully challenged and set aside, the claimant cannot be entitled to salaries for the effective period of the dismissal. Accordingly, reliefs 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 sought by the claimant fail.

 

In relief 2, the claimant wants this Court to declare that his NCE certificate is valid and authentic. In my view, it is only the school who issued the certificate that can confirm its validity and authenticity. This court did not issue the NCE certificate and cannot therefore make the declaration sought by the claimant unless and until the claimant produce evidence from the school confirming the authenticity of the NCE certificate. The claimant did not present any confirmation from the school. I am therefore unable to make the declaration sought in relief 2.

 

The result of the foregoing is that the claimant is not entitled to any of the claims he sought in this suit.

 

DECISION ON THE DEFENDANTS’ COUNTER CLAIM

In the counter claim, the defendants sought an order directing the Claimant to refund the sum of N7,467,054 being salaries paid to him from 2009 to 2021. The basis for this claim is that the claimant, at the time he was given appointment in 2009, presented a fake NCE certificate and thereby misled the defendants into paying him salaries of NCE entry level since 2009. Until his dismissal, the claimant had illegally been receiving the salary of NCE entry level and he has so far received the total sum of N7,467,054 from 2009 to 2021. The Defendants said they are entitled to refund of this sum received by the Claimant.

 

From the facts of this case, I find that the claimant did not employ himself into the service of the 1st and 3rd defendants. He was given provisional appointment by the 1st defendant in 2009, the appointed was confirmed and the claimant was promoted. The claimant has been in the service of the 1st and 3rd defendants since 2009 and he had rendered services for the defendants for which he was paid salaries. The defendants who employed the claimant did not conduct due diligence before employing the claimant in 2009 and in the period that the claimant was in service, the defendants never took steps to find out the authenticity of the claimant’s NCE until 2021. The defendants have themselves to blame for not taking proactive steps to confirm the genuineness of the educational certificates of persons they employ into the 3rd defendant’s civil service.

 

Since the time the claimant was employed by the defendants in 2009, he worked for the defendants up till the time his employment was terminated and his salary was stopped in 2021. The claimant has earned the salaries for the period from the date of his employment to the date of his dismissal. The result of the foregoing is that the defendants are not entitled to their claim in relief 1 of the counter claim. I also find the defendants did not make out any case to entitle them to reliefs 2, 3 and 4 sought in the counter claim. Consequently, the Counter claim fail and it is dismissed.

 

In conclusion, this suit is liable to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed.

 

Parties shall bear their costs.

 

Judgment is entered accordingly.

 

 

Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe

Judge