Back

The court has exclusive jurisdiction in civil causes and matters relating to or connected with any labour, employment, trade unions, industrial relations and matters arising from workplace, the conditions of service, including health, safety, welfare of labour, employee, worker and matter incidental thereto or connected therewith.

LIVE Proceeding VIRTUAL COURT

News


[Judgment] Order of Mandamus: Industrial Court Dismisses Suit Against Nigerian Army


1204 Wednesday 18th September 2019

 

 

Abuja---His Lordship, Hon. Justice K. D. Damulak of the National Industrial Court sitting in Abuja has dismissed the suit filed by ex-army officer Peter Owoicho seeking for an order of Mandamus to compel the Nigerian Army to assess the severity of the his injury/wound rate in accordance with the Harmonised Terms and Conditions of Service for Soldiers/Ratings and Airmen, 2012 for lacking merit.

 

The court held that the Nigerian Army and the Military Pension Board cannot be compelled to do what has already been done by them.

 

The claimant also prayed among others for An order directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to pay forthwith the sum of N350, 000 only as special damages and N2,000, 000.00 only as general damages for inconveniences suffered by the complainant.

 

From fact, the claimant was enlisted into the Nigerian Army and in the cause of performing security duties, he received injury /wound in his right lower limb in 2005. The claimant was diagnosed with Chronic Foot Ulcer with Cellulitis by the Medical Board of the 1st defendant and was discharged on Medical ground from the Nigerian Army on 23rd October 2015, having served as a Soldier for 19 years 274 days.

 

Claimant submitted that the Board did not state the Degree of the Disability in terms of percentage as provided for in the Terms and Conditions of service, but only described the injury /wound as “Chronic”.

 

That upon his retirement from service, he has been collecting pension excluding disability pension.

 

The defendant on his part submitted that the Medical Board assessed the Claimant’s percentage at 20% disablement that the addition of the 20% of the medical pension of the Claimant entitles the Claimant to be paid the same pension payable to persons who had served for 20 years in the Army, assessed at 180% Gratuity and 60% pension.

 

In his final written address, the learned DR. Elijah OluwatoyinOkebukola Esq. of counsel to the defendants formulated for determination Whether based on the available evidence before the Honourable Court, the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs claimed in this suit.

 

Counsel to the claimant submitted that the claimant is entitled to disability pension, that the rates are “not less than 66%” the disability pension payable is 100% of last pay, and where the injury is described as “very severe” the assessment percentage is 100%·

 

Replying on points of law, learned defendant’s counsel submitted that the mere fact that the Plaintiff’s injury was described as “chronic” does not translate to an assessment of “very severe” under the Harmonised Terms and Conditions of Service relied on by the Plaintiff.

 

Delivering the Judgment, the presiding Judge, Hon. Justice Damulak expressed thus;

“It is to be noted that the case of the claimant is not one challenging the description or wrong assessment of his disability but the failure to record the percentage of his disability.

 

“The claimant never queried the report on his disability in this suit. It is not his claim that the assessment was wrong. His claim is simply based on failure or refusal of the 2nd defendant to assess or record the percentage of his disability and not the proper description or assessment of his disability. “

 

His Lordship held that 20% disability was awarded to the claimant and he knew about it before coming to Court, that the case before the Court is not for an upward review of the disability rating from 20% to 100% but for an order of Mandamus for the disability of the claimant to be assessed.

 

In all, the court held that the defendants cannot be compelled to do what has already been done by them and dismissed the case for lack of prove.