IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA
                   IN THE PORT HARCOURT JUDICIAL DIVISION
                              HOLDEN AT PORT HARCOURT

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP:

HONOURABLE JUSTICE BUHARI SANI……...JUDGE

ON TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

 
SUIT NO: NICN/PHC/19/2025
 
 IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 254C(1)(d) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA, 1999 (AS AMENDED)
 
AND
 
 IN THE MATTER OF THE INTERPRETATION OF SECTIONS 34, 36, AND 44 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA, 1999 (AS AMENDED) AND THE CLAIMANT'S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS TO DIGNITY OF HUMAN PERSON, FAIR HEARING, AND OWNERSHIP OF MOVABLE PROPERTY
 
BETWEEN:


 CHIBUIKE IKE-ANTHONY .................................…………...... CLAIMANT


 AND


 1. JOULES ENERGY LIMITED
 2. KINGSLEY MAKASI ....................................………...... DEFENDANTS
 
                                             JUDGMENT

This is an Originating Summons filed on the 20th day of March, 2025, by the Claimant, Chibuike Ike-Anthony, a Legal Practitioner and former employee of the 1st Defendant, against Joules Energy Limited and its Managing Director, Kingsley Makasi as 1st and 2nd Defendants.

 The Claimant seeks the interpretation and enforcement of his fundamental rights to the dignity of human person, fair hearing, and ownership of movable property as guaranteed by Sections 34, 36, and 44 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).
 
 The Claimant's grievance arises from events that occurred on January 20, 2025, when he was allegedly publicly humiliated and expelled from his workplace by the 2nd Defendant, followed by a disciplinary letter dated the same day but sent on January 22, 2025, imposing a suspension and a salary deduction without affording him a hearing. He also claims that his January 2025 salary and a portion of his 13th-month salary were unlawfully withheld.
 
 The Claimant posed three questions for determination:
 
1. Whether the 2nd Defendant's public humiliation of the Claimant constitutes a violation of his right to the dignity of the human person under Section 34(1)(a) of the Constitution.


 2. Whether the issuance of a disciplinary letter imposing a suspension and salary deduction without an opportunity to be heard breaches the Claimant's right to fair hearing under Section 36(1) of the Constitution.


3. Whether the unilateral deduction of 30% of the Claimant's 13th-month salary and non-payment of his January 2025 salary amount to an unlawful deprivation of property under Section 44(1) of the Constitution.

 Consequent upon these questions, the Claimant sought several reliefs, including declaratory reliefs for the violations, orders for the payment of the deducted 13th-month salary (N31,875.00), the withheld January 2025 salary (N263,854.17), general damages of N7,000,000.00, and costs of the suit.
 
 In response, the Defendants filed a Memorandum of Appearance on April 22, 2025, and subsequently a Counter-Affidavit and Written Address on June 27, 2025. The Defendants denied all allegations, asserting that the Claimant was not humiliated but was queried for using company resources for personal business. They claimed he was placed on a "working suspension," which he failed to honour, and that his subsequent absence amounted to a voluntary resignation, justifying the forfeiture of his January salary as payment in lieu of notice. They also contended that the 13th-month salary was a discretionary benefit.

 

 PARTIES' CASES
 
The Claimant's Case:

The Claimant's case from his Originating Summons, the affidavit in support, and his Further Affidavit, is that he was employed by the 1st Defendant on February 5, 2024, as a Governance, Ethics and Compliance Officer. He performed his duties diligently until January 20, 2025, when the 2nd Defendant, in an unwarranted fit of rage, publicly humiliated him in the presence of other employees, called him derogatory names, seized his official laptop, and ordered him out of the company premises without any prior query or disciplinary notice. He deposed that he was not given any opportunity to be heard before this humiliating act.
 
 The Claimant further stated that two days later, on January 22, 2025, he received an email to his personal address containing a disciplinary letter backdated to January 20, 2025. This letter, he averred, was an afterthought designed to cover up the unlawful expulsion. It imposed a one-week suspension and a 30% deduction from his 13th-month salary without any prior query or hearing. He also stated that the Defendants subsequently withheld his January 2025 salary. He contended that these actions by the Defendants constituted a gross violation of his fundamental rights to dignity, fair hearing, and property, as enshrined in Sections 34, 36, and 44 of the 1999 Constitution.
 
The Defendants' Case:
 The Defendants, in their Counter-Affidavit deposed to by the 2nd Defendant, denied the Claimant's allegations. Their case is that on January 20, 2025, the 2nd Defendant observed the Claimant working on litigation-related documents, which were unconnected to his official duties, on his official laptop. He was invited to the 2nd Defendant's office in the presence of the Human Resources Manager, where he was questioned about his actions. The Defendants averred that the Claimant remained completely unresponsive and mute during questioning and even attempted to delete the documents from the laptop.
 
 The Defendants contended that the Claimant was not humiliated or ejected but was simply asked to leave his laptop and take the remainder of the day off. Management subsequently decided to place him on a "working suspension" and deduct 30% of his 13th-month salary, which was a discretionary payment. The disciplinary letter was sent to his email on January 22, 2025, because he failed to report to work the next day as instructed. The Defendants further stated that the Claimant never returned to work and, after 22 consecutive workdays of absence, they reasonably concluded he had voluntarily abandoned his employment, leading to the issuance of a letter to that effect on February 19, 2025. They argued that the Claimant's January salary was forfeited as payment in lieu of the required notice for resignation, and that they had already paid all other pro-rata entitlements.
 
 
  ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
 
 Having considered the processes filed and the submissions of counsel, this Court adopts the following issues for determination:
 
1. Whether the Defendants' actions, including the alleged public humiliation, imposition of disciplinary sanctions without a hearing, and withholding of salaries, amount to a violation of the Claimant's fundamental rights to dignity, fair hearing, and property as guaranteed by Sections 34(1)(a), 36(1), and 44(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).


2. Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought, including the payment of outstanding salaries and general damages for the violation of his fundamental rights.

 PARTIES' WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
 
Claimant's Submission:
 The Claimant's counsel, submitted that the Originating Summons procedure is proper as the suit is primarily for the interpretation of constitutional provisions. He argued that the facts are largely undisputed and supported by documents.
 
 On the substantive issues, counsel submitted that the 2nd Defendant's act of publicly humiliating the Claimant and ejecting him from the premises in the presence of other employees constituted inhuman and degrading treatment, in violation of Section 34(1)(a). He relied on the case of Peter Nemi v. A.G. Lagos State (1996) 6 NWLR (Pt. 452) 42.
 
 On fair hearing, counsel argued that the Defendants imposed a suspension and salary deduction without issuing a query or giving the Claimant any opportunity to defend himself. He relied on the case of U.B.A. Plc v. Oranuba (2014) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1390) 1, where it was held that it is against natural justice to suspend an employee without a query and a fair hearing.
 
 On unlawful deprivation of property, counsel submitted that salary and allowances are movable property protected by Section 44(1) of the Constitution. He cited the case of Uzendu v. Union Bank (2021) LPELR-55353(CA) to argue that withholding an employee's salary without lawful justification is unconstitutional. He also invoked the international best practices principle under Section 254C of the Constitution.
 
Defendants' Submission:
 The Defendants' counsel, raised a preliminary objection challenging the competence of the suit. He argued that by virtue of Order 3 Rule 2(2)(b) of the National Industrial Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017, a matter relating to Section 254C(1)(d) of the Constitution that involves both interpretation and application must be commenced by a Complaint, not an Originating Summons. He relied on the case of Emenike Mbanugo v. F.B.N. Plc (2014) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1434) 621.
 
 In the alternative, counsel submitted that the Claimant's claims are an attempt to clothe ordinary employment contract claims with a constitutional garb. He argued that the right to fair hearing under Section 36(1) of the Constitution applies only to courts and tribunals, not to administrative disciplinary actions by private employers. He relied on the cases of Amaechi v. Governor of Rivers State (2022) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1858) 59 and Emeka v. Okoroafor (2017) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1577) 410.
 
 On the merits, counsel contended that the Claimant was not humiliated but was lawfully queried for misconduct. He argued that the Claimant was given an opportunity to explain his actions but remained mute. He submitted that the Claimant's subsequent abandonment of his job justified the Defendants' actions, and that the 13th-month salary was a discretionary payment, not a contractual entitlement.
 
 COURT'S DECISION


The Claimant was employed by the 1st Defendant as a Governance, Ethics and Compliance Officer on February 5, 2024. On January 20, 2025, an incident occurred between the Claimant and the 2nd Defendant, which the Claimant describes as public humiliation and unlawful expulsion, and which the Defendants describe as a query and a request to take the rest of the day off due to unresponsiveness. The Claimant was subsequently issued a disciplinary letter dated January 20, 2025, but sent by email on January 22, 2025, suspending him for one week and deducting 30% of his 13th-month salary. The Claimant's January 2025 salary was not paid. The Defendants later issued a letter on February 19, 2025, stating that the Claimant had voluntarily resigned by abandoning his employment after 22 days of absence.

The Defendants raised a preliminary objection as to the competency of the suit by originating summons.

 Order 3 Rule 2(2) of the NICN Rules, 2017, requires that a matter relating to Section 254C(1)(d) of the Constitution be commenced by Originating Summons if it relates only to interpretation, and by Complaint if it relates to interpretation and application.

 The Claimant's suit primarily seeks a declaration of the interpretation of Sections 34, 36, and 44 of the Constitution as they apply to the facts of his case. While the reliefs include consequential monetary claims, the core of the suit is the interpretation of these constitutional provisions. Also, the facts are largely documentary and undisputed. 

The Supreme Court in Oloruntoba-Oju v. Abdul-Raheem (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 83 held that where issues of fact arise in an originating summons, the proper course is to convert the matter to a complaint, not to strike it out. This Court, in the interest of justice, would have been inclined to order a conversion if it found the procedure inappropriate. However, in this case, the procedure is proper. The objection is hereby overruled.

I shall therefore proceed to determine the substantive case.
 Section 34(1)(a) of the Constitution guarantees every individual the right to respect for the dignity of his person, and prohibits subjection to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. The Claimant alleges that the 2nd Defendant publicly humiliated him by calling him derogatory names and forcefully ejecting him in the presence of other employees. The Defendants deny this, stating he was simply asked to leave for the day.
 
 The Claimant's affidavit evidence on this point is detailed and specific. He deposed that the 2nd Defendant publicly humiliated me in the presence of other employees, called me derogatory names, seized my official laptop, and ordered me out of the premises without justification. The Defendants' denial is general. The Defendants' own letter of February 19, 2025, refers to the Claimant being requested to surrender his company-issued laptop and go home for the remainder of the day. This supports the Claimant's version of being sent home. The act of being publicly ordered out of the premises can reasonably be seen as humiliating. 

In the case of G.O. Oyedele v. I.O. Ife Udo & Anor (1996) 7 NWLR (Pt. 462) 246, the court held that workplace discipline must not be enforced in a manner that strips an individual of their inherent dignity. 

I find that the manner of the Claimant's ejection from the premises on January 20, 2025, as described in his unchallenged affidavit evidence, constitutes degrading treatment in violation of Section 34(1)(a) of the Constitution.
 
 The Defendants argue that Section 36(1) of the Constitution does not apply to private employment disciplinary proceedings. This argument is a misconception of the law. The principles of natural justice and fair hearing are of general application. In the case of Bamgboye v. University of Ilorin (1999) 10 NWLR (Pt. 622) 290, the Supreme Court held that the requirement of fair hearing is not confined to courts, it applies to any authority or body having the power to decide on the rights of citizens.
 
 The evidence, in this case, shows that the Claimant was not given any opportunity to defend himself before the disciplinary action of suspension and salary deduction was imposed. The disciplinary letter was dated January 20, 2025, the same day as the incident, and was sent on January 22, 2025. There is no record of any query or invitation to a hearing before the decision was made. The Defendants claimed that the Claimant was unresponsive when questioned, but this does not equate to a formal disciplinary hearing. 

The Court of Appeal in U.B.A. Plc v. Oranuba (2014) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1390) 1 held that it is against fair hearing for an employee to be suspended or have their salary deducted without being queried and given a fair hearing. 

The Defendants' actions, therefore, clearly breached the Claimant's right to fair hearing as enshrined in Section 36(1) of the Constitution.
 
 On salary and allowances: Salary and allowances constitute movable property and are protected under Section 44(1) of the Constitution, which prohibits the compulsory acquisition of any property without due process. The Defendants withheld the Claimant's January 2025 salary and deducted 30% of his 13th-month salary. Their justification is that the Claimant abandoned his job and that the 13th-month salary is discretionary.
 
 The finding of this Court is that the Claimant did not voluntarily abandon his employment. He was unlawfully expelled from the premises on January 20, 2025, and the subsequent working suspension letter was a retrospective attempt to justify the expulsion. As the expulsion was unlawful, the Claimant's absence from work cannot be construed as abandonment. Therefore, the withholding of his January 2025 salary was an unlawful deprivation of property. The 13th-month salary was a benefit he had earned, and the 30% deduction was a penalty imposed without a fair hearing, making the deduction unlawful. See the case of Uzendu v. Union Bank (2021) LPELR-55353(CA) which supports the principle that salary is a proprietary right that cannot be withheld without lawful justification.
 
 Having found that the Defendants violated the Claimant's fundamental rights, he is entitled to the following reliefs:
 
 1.The Claimant is entitled to the declarations that his rights to dignity, fair hearing, and property have been violated.


 2.The Claimant is entitled to the payment of his withheld January 2025 salary of N263,854.17 and the unlawfully deducted 30% of his 13th-month salary amounting to N31,875.00. The total sum is N295,729.17.


 3.The Claimant has claimed N7,000,000.00 as general damages. In Skye Bank Plc v. Adegun (2024) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1960) 1, the Supreme Court held that in cases of wrongful dismissal, the award of damages is not limited to one month's salary in lieu of notice, especially where the dismissal carries a stigma that makes it difficult for the employee to find new employment. 

The Claimant was publicly humiliated and accused of misconduct. The manner of his disengagement, including the backdated letter and the withholding of his salary, has caused him emotional distress and reputational damage. An award of general damages is appropriate to compensate for the violation of his fundamental rights. I find the sum of N1,000,000.00 to be reasonable and justified in the circumstances.


 4. Costs: The Claimant is entitled to the cost of this suit, which I assess at N500,000.00.
 
 Consequently, the Claimant's case is therefore meritorious and succeed. The Defendants' actions were high-handed, wrongful, and a clear violation of the Claimant's fundamental rights. Employment, even in the private sector, is not a lawless enclave where an employer can trample upon the constitutional rights of its employees with impunity. The era of impunity is over. Employers must act reasonably, fairly, and in accordance with the law.
 
 Accordingly, judgment is entered for the Claimant as follows:
 
1. A DECLARATION that the 2nd Defendant's public humiliation and forceful expulsion of the Claimant from the company's premises on January 20, 2025, constitutes a violation of the Claimant's right to the dignity of the human person as guaranteed by Section 34(1)(a) of the Constitution.


 2. A DECLARATION that the Defendants' imposition of a disciplinary penalty (suspension and salary deduction) without prior query or an opportunity to be heard constitutes a violation of the Claimant's right to fair hearing as guaranteed by Section 36(1) of the Constitution.


 3. A DECLARATION that the Defendants' unilateral deduction of the Claimant's 13th-month salary and the withholding of his January 2025 salary amount to an unlawful deprivation of property, in violation of Section 44(1) of the Constitution.


 4. AN ORDER directing the Defendants, jointly and severally, to pay the Claimant the sum of N295,729.17 being his outstanding January 2025 salary and the unlawfully deducted 13th-month salary.


 5. AN ORDER directing the Defendants, jointly and severally, to pay the Claimant the sum of N1,000,000.00 as general damages for the violation of his fundamental rights.


 6. AN ORDER directing the Defendants, jointly and severally, to pay the Claimant the sum of N500,000.00 as the cost of this suit.


7. Post-judgment interest on the judgment sums is awarded at the rate of 10% per annum until fully liquidated.

I make no order as to the Claimant's claim for leave allowance, as it was not part of the reliefs sought in the Originating Summons.
 
 Judgment is entered accordingly.
 
 

 


 HON. JUSTICE BUHARI SANI

JUDGE 

 

APPEARANCES:

  1. O. Koko,Esq, with F. W. Osuluko,Esq, for the Defendants.

No appearance for the Claimant.