IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT ABUJA

 

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: HONOURABLE JUSTICE E. D. SUBILIM

 

DATE: 4^TH MAY  2026                       

SUIT NO. NICN/ABJ/360/2024

BETWEEN:

ANYABEKONG IPEH STEPHEN                                -            CLAIMANT

AND                              

 

COMMISSION                                                      DEFENDANTS    

                              

REPRESENTATION:

O. C. Ugwu, Esq.; for the Claimant

A. M. A. Adejunmobi Esq.; for the Defendants

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

5. AN ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE COURT directing the Defendants to pay the sum of 3,000,000.00 as cost of this suit. 
6. CLAIMANT’S CASE

 

The Claimant asserts that he was an employee of the 1^st Defendant, assigned to the Ogoja Unit Command, Cross River State. On March 3, 2015, while on patrol along Ikam Road with his team, led by A.R.C Nku, the Claimant, acting as an arresting Marshal, apprehended a tipper driver for the primary offence of seatbelt-use-violation (SUV). Upon inquiring about the tipper driver’s license and vehicle particulars, the driver allegedly admitted to not possessing them and offered the Claimant the sum of N500. The Claimant avers that he took this N500 to the team leader with the intention of reporting the offender for attempting to corrupt a Marshal on duty. However, the Claimant alleges that the team leader, without allowing him to fully explain, tore the money and discarded it. Shortly thereafter, a surveillance team of the 1st Defendant accosted the patrol team and inquired about what the team leader had thrown into the bush. The Claimant states that he then recounted the events that transpired between the patrol team and the tipper driver. Following this, the surveillance team provided him with a form to complete and subsequently summoned him to Abuja for questioning. He was thereafter transferred to Port Harcourt, where he continued to serve until his appointment was purportedly terminated without any prior query, formal charge, or opportunity for him to be heard in his defense.

 

The Defendants, in their Statement of Defence filed on March 19, 2025, contend that the Claimant had, on multiple prior occasions, been reprimanded by patrol team leaders for unceremonious and infamous conduct during patrols, in accordance with the Regulations on Maintenance of Discipline. The Defendants further aver that the Claimant was duly invited to the 1st Defendant’s Headquarters to appear before a properly constituted disciplinary panel. Upon the conclusion of the panel’s investigation, the Claimant and other members of the patrol team under investigation were reassigned from the Ogoja Unit Command to maintain command and control pending the final management decision of the 1st Defendant. The Defendants maintain that all due process was strictly followed in accordance with the Claimant’s terms of employment before his appointment was terminated from the service of the 1st Defendant. They assert that the Claimant, like all other Marshals employed by the 1st Defendant, underwent the Corps Marshal Basic Course (MBC), where he received primary training as an operational patrolman and was comprehensively educated on the disciplinary ethics and standing orders of the 1st Defendant prior to his employment.

 

4. The Defendants specifically aver that while the team leader was attending to a vehicle flagged down for a routine road safety check, the Claimant, in direct violation of the standing order that only one vehicle should be stopped at a time, independently flagged down a truck and allegedly extorted the sum of N500 from its driver. The Defendants state that the team leader witnessed this monetary exchange from a distance and immediately approached the scene, whereupon the Claimant signaled the truck driver to drive off. The Defendants further aver that the team leader collected the N500, tore it into pieces, and instructed the Claimant to follow him to the patrol van, thereby signaling the immediate cessation of the Claimant’s patrol activities and his return to base. The Defendants assert that a surveillance patrol team witnessed the exchange between the Claimant and the truck driver and subsequently requested the team leader to explain the incident. In accordance with the 1^st Defendant’s Regulations on Maintenance of Discipline, written statements were taken from all members of the patrol team and the unit commander. The surveillance team then compiled and submitted a detailed report of their activities, observations, and recommendations to the Corps Intelligence Office, recommending the constitution of a disciplinary committee. The 2nd Defendant statutorily constituted this panel, which invited the patrol team for proceedings. A representative of the surveillance team was also invited to present their case against the Claimant and other team members. The Defendants emphasize that the Claimant was afforded a fair hearing during these proceedings. At the conclusion of the proceedings, the panel forwarded the transcript of proceedings, findings, observations, and recommendations to the management of the Defendants. These findings were communicated to the Claimant pending the management’s final decision. Furthermore, the findings were reviewed by the Corps Legal Office and the Department of Administration and Human Resource of the 1st Defendant, in strict adherence to the conditions of service and regulations on discipline of the 1st Defendant. Consequent upon the statutory powers vested in the Defendants, the Claimant’s appointment was lawfully terminated
5. During the trial proceedings on November 13, 2025, the Court was informed by the Claimant’s Counsel that the Defendants had initiated discussions to settle the matter out of Court. These discussions culminated in the filing of their comprehensive Terms of Settlement on May 4, 2026. In alignment with the provisions of Section 20 of the National Industrial Court Act, 2006, the Court embraced this positive development for an amicable out-of-court resolution. Accordingly, all parties to this suit formally adopted their Terms of Settlement, as duly witnessed by their respective counsel. Having meticulously perused the said Terms of Settlement, the Court finds them to be in full compliance with the provisions of Order 42 of the National Industrial Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017. Consequently, these Terms of Settlement are hereby entered as the full and final Consent Judgment of this Court, binding upon all parties, as follows:

 

 

2. An Order is hereby granted that the Claimant expressly agrees that his reabsorption shall be without payment of any arears of salaries, allowances, emoluments, benefits, promotions, or any other financial entitlement whatsoever for the period from the date of termination up to the date of his reabsorption and fully abandoned all claims for salaries, damages, costs, compensation or any monetary relief whatsoever arising from or connected with his termination and/or the subject matter of this suit.
3. An Order is hereby granted that the reabsorption shall take effect from the 4^th day of May 2026 which is the date this Court adopts the terms of settlement of as its Consent Judgment and the Claimant shall resume duties as directed by the Defendant.

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                                 

 

                                                                      ………………………………… 

                                                                      Hon. Justice E. D. Subilim

JUDGE