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 FRIDAY THE 2ND DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

 

SUIT NO: NICN/PHC/21/2025


BETWEEN:
CSP UGOCHA PASCAL…………………………………………CLAIMANT
 
AND
 
 1. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
2. POLICE SERVICE COMMISSION……………………. DEFENDANTS
 
 

JUDGMENT

This suit was commenced by the Claimant via a Complaint filed on the 28th day of March 2025, brought pursuant to Section 254C(1)(a) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).
 
 The Claimant seeks the following reliefs against the Defendants:
 
1. A DECLARATION that his dismissal from the Nigeria Police Force is unlawful, null, and void.


 2. An ORDER directing the Defendants to reinstate the Claimant with all rights, privileges, and entitlements.


 3. General damages in the sum of N5,000,000.00 (Five Million Naira) against the Defendants.


4. Any other order(s) that this Honourable Court deems fit to make in the interest of justice.

In support of his claim, the Claimant filed a Statement of Facts, a Verifying Affidavit, a Witness Statement on Oath, and a List of Documents to be Relied Upon.

 The Defendants were duly served with the originating processes. The 3rd Defendant filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection and a Statement of Defence, while the 1st and 2nd Defendants failed to file any process or enter an appearance.
 
 CLAIMANT'S CASE:
 
 The Claimant's case, as contained from his Complaint and Witness Statement on Oath, is that he was a Chief Superintendent of Police (CSP) in the Rivers State Police Command until his unlawful dismissal. He was appointed as a Cadet ASP on 15th August 2002 and promoted to the rank of CSP on 30th May 2018.
 
 The Claimant averred that he was falsely accused of involvement in a vegetable oil transaction, which he only facilitated by introducing a buyer to a seller. He was unlawfully arrested and detained for 21 days from October 13, 2023, to November 3, 2023. He was subsequently suspended, interdicted on January 8, 2024, and referred to the Force Disciplinary Committee (FDC) on January 22, 2024. The Claimant contends that he was never given a fair hearing before the FDC. He stated that the disciplinary process was a conspiracy to frustrate his career progression to the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police. 

In proof of his case, he adopted his witness statement on oath and tendered seven documents in evidence, which were admitted and marked as Exhibits C1 to C7, including his letters of appointment and promotion, and various awards he received while in service.
 
 3RD  DEFENDANT ( THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION):
 
 The 3rd Defendant filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection on the 20th day of June 2025, challenging the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court to hear and determine the suit as constituted. The grounds for the objection were that:
 
 1. The Claimant's suit can be properly, completely and effectually determined without joining the 3rd Defendant.
 2. The 3rd Defendant is not a necessary party for the just and proper determination of this suit.
 3. The Claimant's averments in the Complaint did not disclose any reasonable cause of action against the 3rd Defendant.
 
 In a Ruling delivered on the 11th day of November 2025, this Court, upon the application of the 3rd Defendant which was not opposed by the Claimant, struck out the name of the 3rd Defendant from the suit.
 
 ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:
 
 Having considered the processes filed, the evidence adduced, and the submissions of the Claimant's counsel, this Court adopts a sole issue for the determination of this suit:
 
"Whether, from the evidence adduced, the Claimant has proved his case to be entitled to the reliefs sought against the 1st and 2nd Defendants?"
 
PARTIES' SUBMISSIONS:
 
 The 1st and 2nd Defendants, despite being served with all originating processes and hearing notices, failed to file any defence or appear in court throughout the proceedings. Consequently, no submissions were made on their behalf.
 
 The Claimant, through his counsel, E. U. Nwankwo, Esq., submitted a Final Written Address dated 11th May 2026. Counsel argued that the Claimant's evidence, which was unchallenged and uncontroverted, remains credible and ought to be accepted by the Court. He relied on the cases of Omoregbe v. Lawani (1980) 3-4 SC 108 and Ighreriniovo v. S.C.C. Nigeria Ltd (2013) LPELR-20336 (SC) to submit that unchallenged evidence is sufficient proof.
 
 Counsel acknowledged that declaratory reliefs are not granted automatically and that a claimant must succeed on the strength of his own case, citing APC v. Udom (2023) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1988) 459. He submitted that the Claimant has satisfied this burden by tendering documentary evidence and giving credible oral testimony. He urged the Court to grant all the reliefs sought.
 
COURT'S DECISION:
 
 The Claimant, a former Chief Superintendent of Police, was dismissed from the Nigeria Police Force following a disciplinary process that he alleges was flawed and violated his right to fair hearing. The 1st and 2nd Defendants, being his employers, failed to defend the action despite being served. The 3rd Defendant was struck out as a party to the suit.
 
 This Court is mindful of the provisions of Order 38, Rule 2(1) of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017, which provides that where a cause is called for hearing and the Claimant appears but the Defendant is absent and has not filed any defence, the Claimant shall be entitled to judgment as far as he can prove his case. 

The Defendants in this suit, having been served and having failed to appear or file any defence, are deemed to have admitted the Claimant's case. See Obinna Brick & Stone (Nig.) Ltd. v. ACB Ltd. (1992) 3 NWLR (Pt. 229) 260 and Jemile v. Awani (2007) FWLR (Pt. 62) 1937.
 
 However, the mere absence of a defendant does not automatically entitle a claimant to judgment. The Claimant bears the burden of proving his case on a balance of probabilities, as required by Sections 131 and 132 of the Evidence Act, 2011. This is especially critical where declaratory reliefs are sought. The law is settled that declaratory reliefs are not granted by admission or default; the Claimant must establish his entitlement to the declaration on the strength of his own evidence. See Nigeria Airways v. Ahmadu (1991) 6 NWLR (Pt. 198) 992 and Skye Bank Plc v. Adegun (2024) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1945) 1.
 
 In evaluating the evidence, this Court has a duty to assess the credibility of the Claimant's testimony and the documentary evidence tendered. Evidence that is unchallenged, uncontroverted, and credible must be accepted by the Court. See Ighreriniovo v. S.C.C. Nigeria Ltd (supra). The burden of proof, though initially on the Claimant, becomes minimal when the evidence is unchallenged. See Faseun v. Pharco (Nig.) Ltd. (1965) 2 All NLR 216.
 
 Now I proceed to resolve the sole issue for determination which is whether the Claimant has proved his case to be entitled to the reliefs sought.

 The Claimant's claims are for a declaration that his dismissal is unlawful, an order for reinstatement, and general damages.
 
 The law is settled that an employer is not bound to give reasons for terminating an employment relationship, but where reasons are given, the employer has a duty to establish the reason to the satisfaction of the Court. See Shell Petroleum Development Co. Ltd   V. Chief Victor Sunday Olarewaju (2008) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1118) 1. The Claimant's evidence is that he was dismissed following a disciplinary process that breached the rules of natural justice as he was not afforded a fair hearing.
 
 The Claimant testified that he was not given a fair hearing before the Force Disciplinary Committee. The Defendants did not provide any evidence to counter this claim. The Claimant's uncontroverted evidence establishes that the disciplinary process was fundamentally flawed. In Skye Bank Plc v. Adegun (supra), the Supreme Court held that where an employee was not afforded a fair hearing during a dismissal process, the dismissal is wrongful.
 
 However, the Claimant seeks a declaration that his dismissal is "unlawful, null, and void" and an order for reinstatement. The law regarding the remedy for wrongful termination depends on the nature of the employment. There are three categories of employment: master and servant, employment at the pleasure of the master, and employment with statutory flavour. See Azever V FBN Mortgages Ltd (2018) LPELR-46851.
 
 The Claimant's employment with the Nigeria Police Force is governed by statute, the Police Act and Public Service Rules. This gives his employment a statutory flavour. In cases of employment with statutory flavour, a dismissal that is carried out in violation of the procedure laid down in the relevant statute or regulations is null and void. See Damisa v. U.B.A. (2025) 19 NWLR (Pt. 1993) 409. The Claimant's uncontroverted evidence that he was dismissed without a fair hearing, in violation of the Police Act and Public Service Rules, is sufficient to establish that his dismissal was unlawful and null and void.
 
 Consequently, the Claimant is entitled to a declaration that his dismissal is unlawful and null and void. The logical consequence of a dismissal being declared null and void is that the employee is entitled to be reinstated to his position. The Claimant is therefore entitled to an order for reinstatement with all rights, privileges, and entitlements.
 
 With respect to the claim for general damages of N5,000,000.00, the Claimant did not lead any evidence to prove the specific damages he suffered beyond the loss of his employment. The primary remedy for unlawful dismissal is reinstatement, not damages. While the Claimant suffered emotional and financial hardship, the award of damages in such circumstances is discretionary. Given that the Claimant did not particularize or prove the damages, the claim for general damages fails.
 
 In conclusion this Court finds that the Claimant has proved his case on a balance of probabilities. His uncontroverted evidence establishes that his dismissal from the Nigeria Police Force was carried out in violation of his right to fair hearing, and is therefore unlawful, null, and void. The 1st and 2nd Defendants, having failed to defend the suit, are deemed to have admitted the Claimant's case.

The sole issue for determination is therefore substantially resolved in favour of the Claimant against the Defendants.
 
 Consequently, judgment is entered in favour of the Claimant as follows:
 
1. A DECLARATION is hereby made that the dismissal of the Claimant, CSP Ugocha Pascal, from the Nigeria Police Force is unlawful, null, and void.


 2. AN ORDER is hereby made directing the 1st and 2nd Defendants to reinstate the Claimant to his position as Chief Superintendent of Police with all his rights, privileges, and entitlements.


 3. The claim for general damages of N5,000,000.00 is hereby DISMISSED for lack of proof.


 4. There shall be no order as to costs.



                                  HON. JUSTICE BUHARI SANI
                                                      JUDGE
 

 

LEGAL REPRESENTATIONS:

  1. U. Nwankwo,Esq, for the Claimant.
  2. E.Ogwu(Mrs),Esq, For the 1st and 2nd Defendants.