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/76/2024

           

Between:

 

Danjuma Ibrahim                                                                                  -                         Claimant

 

And

 

1.     Niger State Civil Service Commission

2.     Hon. 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 of Niger State and his employment is still subsisting and valid.

2.     A declaration that the claimant’s original NCE presented to the screening committee is genuine, 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 N3,398,172.19 as the withheld salaries of the Claimant from January 2021 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 Compliant 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 N12,817,761.08 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 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 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 2005. His entry qualification into the civil service was NCE statement of result. He was given a letter of offer of appointment and also issued personal sub-head number and control number by the 3rd defendant. The claimant attended the screening exercise in 2020/2021 and presented his original NCE certificate.  One of the members of the screening committee said the NCE certificate could be fake and the claimant was classified as a ghost worker. After the screening, the claimant continued teaching in the school without payment until his Principal told him the Government has stopped him from coming to work. The last salary he was paid was for the month of December 2020 in the sum of N67,461.92. His unpaid salaries from January 2021 to December 2024 has accrued to the sum of N3,398,172.19.

 

The claimant frontloaded these documents: letter of offer of provisional appointment dated 16/2/2005, NCE certificate, Teachers Registration Council of Nigeria Certificate of Registration, notification of appointment dated 18/2/2019, pay slip for December 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 by the 1st and 3rd defendants but averred that the employment was made under the mistaken belief that the claimant’s entry qualification, NCE, was genuine. In the year 2020, the 1st 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. As result, the claimant’s appointment was terminated in accordance with the Niger State civil service rules. At the time the claimant was given appointment in 2005, he presented a fake NCE. The claimant misled the defendants into paying him salaries of NCE entry level and since 2009, the claimant had been illegally receiving the salary of NCE entry level. Until his dismissal, the Claimant had illegally received the total sum of N12,817,761.08 over a period of 190 months.

 

The documents frontloaded by the defendants are: letter of apology dated 19/7/2022, letters dated 13th October 2020 and 2nd March 2021 from Niger State College of Education.

 

FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESS OF THE CLAIMANT

The Claimant’s Final Written Address dated 15th November 2025 was filed on 17th 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 Defendants’ 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 her 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 he’s 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 he’s certificate.

 

ON ISSUE THREE, “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” counsel repeated the same issue here as in issue no. 2; as regards his counter-claim, defence counsel submitted that a Counter-Claim is to all intents and purposes a separate and independent action in its own right. 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, a member of the screening committee said the claimant’s NCE certificate could be fake and the claimant was classified as a ghost worker. After the screening, the claimant continued to render teaching services in the school he was posted without payment. The Principal of the school later told him the Government has stopped him from coming to work. The last salary he received was for the month of December 2020. In the claimant’s reply to statement of defence, he pleaded that his employment was not terminated and he is not in receipt of any dismissal letter. On their part, the defendants pleaded that the claimant was dismissed from service. The defendants did not mention when the dismissal was done or by whom and they did not produce or frontload any letter of dismissal which relate to the claimant.

 

From the letter of offer of employment of the claimant in 2005, he was employed by the Niger State Science and Technical Schools Board into the civil service of the 3rd defendant. The 1st defendant is established by the Constitution to appoint persons to offices in the State civil service and to dismiss and exercise disciplinary control over persons employed into the state civil service. See section 197(1)a] and Third Schedule, Part II, Paragraph 2[1] of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999. By these provisions, the 1st defendant is the authority who can dismiss the claimant from the civil service of the 3rd defendant. Accordingly, the defendants who claim that the claimant has been dismissed from service are duty bound to produce the evidence of the claimant’s dismissal from service by the 1st defendant. In the absence of any dismissal letter shown to the court, there is nothing with which to believe that the 1st defendant had terminated his employment at any time up to the time of institution of this suit. I have read the letter of undertaking frontloaded by the defendants which was said to have been written by the claimant. Nothing in it suggest the claimant was dismissed from service as the reason for writing the undertaking.

 

In paragraph 14 of the statement of facts, the claimant pleaded that after the screening, he returned to his teaching duty post until later that the Principal of the school told him the Government has stopped him from coming to teach again and his salary was stopped. The information passed to him by the Principal was no more than a suspension rather than a dismissal. It was not a communication of the decision of the 1st defendant dismissing him from the employment. The result of these findings is that the claimant’s employment with the 1st and 3rd defendants has not been terminated. His employment is subsisting.

 

The claimant said he was last paid salary in the Month of December 2020 and from January 2021 to December 2024, he was not paid salaries. In view of the fact that the claimant’s employment has not been terminated, I hold that the stoppage of the claimant’s salaries, without his employment having been terminated by his employer, was unlawful. The facts of this case show that the claimant is still in the service of the 1st and 3rd defendants. He is accordingly entitled to be paid salaries during the subsistence of the employment.

 

In paragraph 20 of the statement of facts, the Claimant computed his outstanding salary from January 2021 to December 2024 to be the total sum of N3,389,172.19. His salary for the last month he was paid was the sum of N67,461.92. Based on this amount of his last paid salary, the claimant accurately computed the outstanding salaries for the years 2021, 2022 and 2023 in paragraph 20 [a], [b] and [c] of the statement of facts but in paragraph 20 [d], he mentioned the sum of N969,543.04 as the total outstanding for the year 2024. The claimant however did not explain what made the salary for 2024 different from those of the previous years. At the monthly salary of N67,461.92 pleaded by him, the total outstanding for 2024 is the sum of N809,543.04, same for the years 2021, 2022 and 2023. The total unpaid salaries for the period January 2021 to December 2024 is the sum of N3,238,129.92  and not the sum of N3,389,172.19 claimed by the claimant.

 

Having found that the claimant’s employment is subsisting, the claimant is accordingly entitled to be paid all the arrears of his salaries from January 2021 to December 2024. Again, the fact that the claimant is still in service till date, he is entitled to be paid his salaries continuously from January 2025 up to date of this judgment by the 1st defendant and 3rd defendants.

 

In relief 2, the claimant wants this Court to declare that his original NCE which he presented to the screening committee is genuine, valid and authentic. The said original NCE is not before the court. The court cannot make an assessment of a document which is not before the court. Again, it is my view that it is only the school where the claimant acquired the NCE that can confirm its genuineness, validity and authenticity. This court did not issue the NCE 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. The claimant did not present any confirmation from the school. For these reasons, I am unable to make the declaration sought in relief 2.

 

Having considered all the claims sought by the claimant, I find the claimant proved reliefs 1 and 3 while relief 4 succeeded in part. All other claim fail and are hereby dismissed. The Court makes the following orders in favour of the claimant:

1.     It is declared that the Claimant’s employment with the 1st defendant in the Civil Service of the 3rd defendant is valid and still subsisting

2.     It is declared that the stoppage of the Claimant's salaries and the continuous withholding of the Claimant's salaries and all other entitlements is illegal, unlawful, null and void.

3.     A consequential order is made directing the Defendants, particularly the 1st and 3rd defendants, to pay the sum of N3,238,129.92 to the claimant, being the total amount of the salaries of the claimant withheld from January 2021 to December 2024.

4.     The 1st and 3rd defendants are also directed to pay to the claimant all his salaries and allowances due and payable to him from January 2025 to date of this judgment.

5.     The payment to be made to the claimant in orders 3 and 4 above must be computed and paid to him within 30 days from today. Should the complete sum or any part of it remain unpaid after the period, the defendants shall pay 10% interest per annum on the sum until final liquidation of the judgment sum.

6.     The sum of N500,000 is awarded in favour of the claimant as cost to be paid by the defendants.

 

DECISION ON THE DEFENDANTS COUNTER CLAIM

In the counter claim, the defendants sought an order directing the Claimant to refund the sum of N12,817,761.08 being salaries paid to him over a period of 190 months. The basis for this claim is that at the time the claimant was given appointment in 2005, he presented a fake NCE certificate and thereby misled the defendants into paying him salaries of NCE entry level. Since 2005, the claimant had been illegally receiving the salary of NCE entry level. At the time of his dismissal, the Claimant had illegally received the total sum of N12,817,761.08 and the Defendants wants the claimant to refund the total sum received by him.

 

In my decision on the case of the claimant, I have held that the claimant was validly employed into the civil service of the 3rd defendant in 2005 and that the employment is still subsisting, having not been shown to have been terminated by the 1st defendant at any time up to date. He is accordingly entitled to the salaries paid to him during the subsistence of the employment. I have also considered the other reliefs sought in the counter claim but I do not find any merit in them. The result is that the counter claim lacks merit and it is hereby dismissed.

 

Judgment is entered accordingly.

 

 

Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe

Judge