IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE MINNA JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT ABUJA

 

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HONOURABLE JUSTICE O. Y. ANUWE

 

Dated: 26^th March 2026                                       SUIT NO: NICN/MN/75/2024

           

Between:

 

Aishetu Usman                                                                -                         Claimant

 

And

 

1.     Honourable Attorney General of Niger State

2.     Niger State Civil Service Commission                                               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 19^th December 2024. Her claims against the Defendants are as follows:

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

2.     A declaration that the sentence “Niger State of Nigeria Secretary to the State Government Establishments and Service Matters Debt” written on the claimant’s certificate did not render the certificate invalid or null and void.

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 N3,845,934.34 as the withheld salaries of the Claimant from March 2021 to December 2024.

5.     An order awarding exemplary damages against the 2^nd 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 11^th 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 N19,999,609.56 being salaries erroneously paid to her over the period of 243 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 N2,000,000.

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 14^th April 2025, together with additional witness statement of the claimant.

 

In the proceeding of 29^th 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 17^th November 2025 while the defendants filed their final written on 9^th January 2026 but deemed on 13^th 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 she is a Civil Servant employed by the 3^rd Defendant in 1999 as Laboratory Assistant. Her entry qualification into the civil service was Course Certificate obtained from College of Administrative and Business Studies Bida. Her employment was later confirmed and she was given permanent and pensionable appointment in 2008.  The claimant attended the screening exercise in 2021 and presented her documents and appointment letters to the committee but a member of the screening committee asked why “Niger State of Nigeria Secretary to the State Government Establishments and Service Matters Debt” written on the claimant’s certificate and the claimant’s answer was that it was how the Course Certificate was issued to her. The claimant was cleared and was issued with screening registration slip. After the screening, the claimant heard from other civil servants affected by the screening that their attention was needed in the 2^nd defendant office in Minna and when she got there, they were told to exercise patience as the 2^nd defendant had set up a committee to look into their matter. The last salary she received was for the month of February 2021 in the sum of N82,302.92. She has not been paid salary since March 2021 to December 2024 which accumulated to the sum of N3,845,934.34. The 2^nd defendant has kept her at large as to whether she is on suspension, demotion or dismissed.

 

The claimant frontloaded these documents: letter of offer of provisional appointment dated 24/11/1999, Course Certificate dated July 1990, notification of appointment dated 28/7/2008, letter of permanent and pensionable appointment dated 28/7/2008, notification of appointment dated 4/10/2017, screening registration slip, pay slip for February 2021 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 into the civil service in 1999 but averred that the claimant was employed based on the false information she presented to the defendants. The appointment letters were issued to the claimant under the erroneous belief that the claimant’s entry qualification was correct. In the year 2020, the 3^rd defendant set up a screening committee. The claimant appeared before the committee and presented National Diploma certificate which was subjected to verification but it turned out to be fake. The committee wrote to the Federal Polytechnic Bida to confirm the genuineness of the claimant’s Diploma but in the reply of the school, the school said the claimant’s National Diploma Certificate was not authentic. Upon being satisfied that the claimant’s National Diploma Certificate was fake, her salary was stopped and her appointment was terminated via dismissal letter dated 17^th June 2021. At the time the claimant was given appointment in 1999, she presented a fake National Diploma Certificate. The claimant misled the defendants into paying her salaries of ND holder since 1999. Until her dismissal, the claimant had been illegally receiving the salary of ND entry level and she has so far received the total sum of N19,999,609.56 for a period of 243 from 1999 to 2021.

 

The documents frontloaded by the defendants are: letter dated 10^th February 2021 from Federal Polytechnic Bida, letter of dismissal dated 17/6/2021, letter dated 20^th February 2021 from Federal Polytechnic Bida and letter of apology dated 19/7/2022.

 

FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESS OF THE CLAIMANT

The Claimant’s Final Written Address dated 15^th November 2025 was filed on 17^th November 2025. Five 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 the purported verification of certificates/Statement of results annexed to the defendant statement of defence has complied with the provisions of section 104 of Evidence Act, as amended 2023’, Counsel submits that the purported verification of certificates/Statement of results annexed to the defendant statement of defence are public documents requiring strict certification under Section 104 of the Evidence Act. The requirements were not met, rendering the documents inadmissible and devoid of probative value.

 

ON ISSUE FIVE, ‘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 9^th 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 3^rd defendant is not in dispute in this suit. The area of dispute is whether the claimant’s employment still subsists and whether she is entitled to the arrears of salaries which she claims in this suit. This issue arose from the first claim of the claimant where she sought a declaration that her employment still subsists. The other claims sought by the claimant, particularly reliefs 3 and 4 regarding her 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 her employment still subsists.

 

In the averments in the statement of facts, the claimant pleaded that during the screening exercise in 2021, one of the members of the screening committee asked why “Niger State of Nigeria Secretary to the State Government Establishments and Service Matters Debt” written on the claimant’s certificate and the claimant’s answer was that it was how the Course Certificate was issued to her. Although she was cleared and was issued with screening registration slip, the last salary she received was for the month of February 2021 and has not been paid salary since then. The 2^nd defendant has kept her at large as to the status of her employment, whether she is on suspension or dismissed. In her defence to the counter claim, the claimant averred that she has not been dismissed from service. On their part, the defendants averred that the claimant had been dismissed from the employment and the reason for her dismissal is that the screening committee found out that the ND Certificate from the Federal Polytechnic Bida presented by the claimant was fake. The dismissal letter was frontloaded by the defendants. It is dated 15/7/2021 and issued by the 2^nd 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 her dismissal, as stated in the dismissal letter, is falsification of record under Rule 030402 of the CSR.

 

The defendants have presented a dismissal letter issued in the name of the claimant which disclosed that the claimant was dismissed from service with effect from 2/1/2021. In view of the claimant’s dismissal letter produced before the court, I cannot make the declaration sought by the claimant to the effect that her employment still subsists. Having seen 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 her dismissal in this suit and, other than to plead that her employment still subsists, she did not plead any fact which can enable the Court consider whether her dismissal, as disclosed in the letter produced by the defendants, was properly or lawfully done. The fact that she believed she her employment still subsists hold no value in view of the evidence of her dismissal shown to the court.

 

The obvious fact in this case is that the 2^nd defendant had taken a decision to dismiss the claimant from service. Accordingly, the declaration sought by the claimant to the effect that her employment subsists cannot be made. Until the dismissal is properly and successfully challenged and set aside, the claimant’s employment cannot be declared to subsist neither will she 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 the statement “Niger State of Nigeria Secretary to the State Government Establishments and Service Matters Debt” written on her Course Certificate issued by the College of Administrative and Business Studies Bida did not invalidate the certificate. In my view, it is only the school who issued the certificate that can confirm whether or not the said statement written on the certificate invalidates it or not. This court did not issue the Course Certificate and does not know the effect of the statement on the certificate. The Court cannot therefore make the declaration sought by the claimant unless and until the claimant produce evidence from the school confirming that the said statement written on the certificate emanated from it and does not invalidate the certificate. The claimant did not present any such confirmation from the school. I am therefore unable to make the declaration sought in relief 2 as the necessary evidence to enable me make the declaration has not been presented.

 

The result of the foregoing is that the claimant is not entitled to any of the claims she 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 N19,999,609.56 being salaries paid to her from 1999 to the date of her dismissal in January 2021. The basis for this claim is that at the time the claimant was given appointment in 1999, she presented a fake National Diploma Certificate. The claimant misled the defendants into paying her salaries of ND holder since 1999 and until her dismissal, the claimant had received the salary of ND entry level and she has so far received the total sum of N19,999,609.56 from 1999 to 2021. The Defendants wants the claimant to refund the total sum received by her for this period.

 

From the facts of this case, I find that the claimant did not employ herself into the service of the 2^nd and 3^rd defendants. She was given appointment by the 2^nd defendant in 1999; the appointment was confirmed by the 2^nd defendant who also promoted the claimant.  The claimant has been in the service of the 2^nd and 3^rd defendants since 1999 and she had rendered services for the defendants for which she was paid salaries. The defendants who appointed the claimant and promoted her did not conduct due diligence before appointing her. The defendants have themselves to blame for not taking proactive steps to confirm the genuineness of the educational certificates of the claimant until the screening of 2021.

 

Since the time the claimant was employed by the defendants in 1999, she worked for the defendants up till the time her employment was terminated and her salary was stopped.  The claimant has earned the salaries for the period from the date of her employment to the date of her 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 that 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