BACK

NICN - JUDGMENT

 

IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDING AT ABUJA

 

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: HON. JUSTICE E. D. SUBILIM

DATE: 14TH JULY, 2026                       

SUIT NO. NICN/ABJ/134M/2026

                                                              

BETWEEN:

DSP PETER EJIKE                                                                                           APPLICANT

AND

1. INPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

2. NIGERIA POLICE FORCE                                                          ····           RESPONDENTS

3. POLICE SERVICE COMMISSION

REPRESENTATION:

PETER EJIKE ESQ., FOR THE CLAIMANT/APPLICANT

NO APPEARANCE FOR THE DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS.

 

RULING

INTRODUCTION

1. The Applicant commenced the present enforcement action by filing a Motion on Notice dated 16 April 2026 pursuant to Order 63 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules 2017. The application seeks an order granting leave to the Applicant to commence committal proceedings against DIG Hashimu Argungu (Rtd) and Chief Onyemuche Nnamani for contempt of court. The motion is supported by a twenty-paragraph affidavit sworn to by the Applicant on 16 April 2026 and an accompanying written address. No counter-affidavit or response to this application from any of the Defendants is disclosed in the record.

2.The Applicant's application is supported by five documentary exhibits, being the judgment of this Court marked Exhibit PE1, proofs of service of the judgment marked Exhibits PE2 and PE3, and proofs of service of the reminder letter marked Exhibits PE4 and PE5. The application now comes before this Court for determination on the uncontroverted affidavit evidence and written address filed.

BACK GROUND FACTS OF THE SUIT

3.On 29 January 2026, this Court delivered judgment in Suit No. NICN/ABJ/60/2025 directing the 3rd Respondent to immediately reinstate the Applicant to his position as a Deputy Superintendent of Police and pay his outstanding salaries, allowances, and accrued benefits. Despite personal service of the judgment on the Chairman of the 3rd Respondent on 1 February 2026 and its Secretary on 19 February, 2026, followed by a reminder letter, the 3rd Respondent failed to comply with the directives. The Applicant initiated and subsequently withdrew prior committal proceedings in April 2026 upon a belief that the 3rd Respondent would comply, but no steps have been taken towards his reinstatement.

GROUNDS FOR APPLICATION

4.The grounds upon which this application was brought are 

  1. That this Honourable Court delivered a valid and subsisting judgment on 29th January, 2026 in favour of the claimant, which judgment has not been set aside or stayed;
  2. That the 3rd defendant was duly served with the said judgment and is fully aware of its contents and the obligations imposed therein;
  3. That the judgment of this Honourable Court expressly directed the 3rd defendant to immediately reinstate the claimant to his position as a Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) with all accrued benefits, emoluments, entitlements, and outstanding salaries;
  4. That the defendants has failed, refused, and/or neglected to comply with the orders of this Honourable Court.
  5. That the operation of the office of the Chairman and Secretary of the 3rd defendant are currently by DIG Hashimu Argungu (Rtd) as Chairman and Chief Onyemuche Nnamdi as Secretary, whom are majorly saddled with the responsibilities and running activities of the 3rd defendant.
  6. That there is no order of stay of execution granted by this Honourable Court or any appellate Court restraining the enforcement of the said judgment;
  7. That the filing of a Notice of Appeal does not operate as a stay of execution, and does not excuse the 3rd defendant from obeying the valid judgment of this Honourable Court.
  8. That the continued refusal of the 3rd defendant to obey the judgment constitutes willful disobedience and amounts to contempt of this Honourable Court.
  9. That the actions of the principal officers of the 3rd defendant, particularly the Chairman and Secretary, are calculated to undermine and ridicule the authority, dignity, and majesty of this Honourable Court;
  10. That it is imperative for this Honourable Court to enforce its judgment and uphold its authority by committing the responsible officers of the 3rd defendant for contempt.
  11. That granting this application will serve the interest of justice and deter further acts of disobedience to lawful Court orders. 

 

 

APPLICANT’S SUBMISSIONS

5.Learned counsel formulated a sole issue for the determination of this Court  thus;

Whether, having regard to the Applicant's Affidavit in Support, this Honourable Court ought not to grant the Claimant's application.

6. Learned Counsel to the Applicant, Henry O. Chichi, Esq., submitted that the Claimant is seeking an order granting leave to commence committal proceedings against the principal officers of the 3rd Defendant, specifically DIG Hashimu Argungu (Rtd) as Chairman and Chief Onyemuche Nnamani as Secretary, for contempt of this Honourable Court due to their willful disobedience and neglect to comply with the judgment delivered on 29th January, 2026. Counsel submitted that the judgment expressly directed the 3rd Defendant to immediately reinstate the Claimant to his position as a Deputy Superintendent of Police with all his accrued benefits, emoluments, and entitlements, and to pay all outstanding salaries, allowances, and other entitlements due to him from the date of his wrongful dismissal up to the date of his reinstatement. Counsel contended that despite being fully aware of the subsisting judgment, which was duly served on the principal officers and followed by subsequent reminder letters, the 3rd Defendant has willfully failed, refused, and neglected to comply with the court's directives.

7.Counsel submitted that it is settled law that orders of court must be obeyed, and the authority and dignity of the court depend largely on the obedience of its orders. Counsel argued that a party who is aware of a subsisting order of court and deliberately refuses to comply is liable for contempt. To support this proposition, Counsel relied on Governor of Lagos State v. Ojukwu [1986] 1 NWLR (Pt. 18) p. 621 SC for the position that the rule of law presupposes that the State and all its agencies are subject to the law and must obey court orders, and that disobedience to court orders constitutes a direct challenge to the authority of the court and must not be condoned.

8. Counsel further submitted that once a party is aware of a court order, whether by personal service or otherwise, such party is bound to obey it. Counsel relied on A.G. Federation v. Abubakar [2007] 10 NWLR Pt. 104 p. 1 @ 171 for the proposition that knowledge of a court order is sufficient to ground contempt. Counsel contended that there is undisputed proof of knowledge in this case because the judgment was duly served on the Chairman and Secretary of the 3rd Defendant, and subsequent reminder letters were equally served and acknowledged by their respective offices.

9.Counsel also submitted that rather than complying with the judgment, the principal officers of the 3rd Defendant chose to direct their legal department to file an appeal. Counsel argued that the filing of a Notice of Appeal does not operate as a stay of execution and does not excuse a party from obeying a valid court order. In support of this contention, Counsel relied on the case of Vaswani Trading Co. v. Savalakh & Co [1972] 12 SC 77; Mobil Oil Nigeria Ltd v. Assam [1995] 8 NWLR Pt. 412 p. 129 for the proposition that a party must obey a court order unless and until it is set aside, thereby rendering the 3rd Defendant's continued refusal and neglect deliberate, willful, and contumacious.

10.Counsel submitted that disobedience of court orders strikes at the very foundation of the administration of justice. Counsel relied on Ezekiel-Hart v. Ezekiel-Hart [1990] 1 NWLR Pt. 126 p. 276 for the proposition that contempt proceedings are meant to protect the dignity and authority of the court. Counsel argued that unless this Honourable Court intervenes firmly, its authority will be eroded. Counsel concluded by urging the court to resolve the sole issue in favor of the Claimant and grant leave to proceed with committal proceedings against the principal officers of the 3rd Defendant under Order 63 Rule 6 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules 2017.

COURT’S DECISION

11. The sole and critical issue adopted for determination in this application is: 

Whether, having considered the Applicant’s Affidavit in Support and the uncontroverted evidence presented, this Honourable Court is legally and equitably bound to grant the Applicant’s application for leave to commence committal proceedings. 

12.In resolving this pivotal issue, this Court is mandated to carefully examine the established threshold requirements for granting leave to initiate committal proceedings for contempt of court, and to ascertain whether the Applicant, has demonstrably established a strong prima facie case supported by credible, cogent, and entirely uncontroverted affidavit evidence. It is imperative to underscore that committal proceedings are inherently quasi-criminal in nature, directly impacting the personal liberty of the alleged contemnors. Consequently, the procedural requirements are strictly construed and technically applied. However, at this interlocutory stage of seeking leave under Order 63 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules 2017, the Applicant is not burdened with the onerous task of proving the contempt beyond reasonable doubt. Rather, the applicant is required to establish a compelling prima facie case, demonstrating with sufficient clarity and certainty: (a) the existence of a valid, subsisting, and executory order of this Court; (b) that the proposed contemnors had actual knowledge of the judgment or were duly and effectively served with its terms; and (c) that they have willfully, deliberately, and without justifiable cause disobeyed, failed, or neglected to comply with the clear and mandatory terms of the said judgment.

13.The Applicant, DSP Peter Ejike, has meticulously deposed to a twenty-paragraph supporting affidavit, which comprehensively lays out the incontrovertible facts pertaining to the 3rd Respondent's persistent and deliberate failure to comply with the judgment of this Honourable Court delivered in Suit No. NICN/ABJ/60/2025 on 29 January 2026. To substantiate this, the Applicant has produced the certified true copy of this judgment, which is annexed as Exhibit PE1. In paragraph 3 of his affidavit, the Applicant unequivocally deposed that "by the said judgment, this Honourable Court ordered the 3rd Defendant to immediately reinstate me to my position as a Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) with all my accrued benefits, emoluments, entitlements, and to pay all outstanding salaries, allowances, and other entitlements due to me from the date of my wrongful dismissal up to the date of my reinstatement;". A thorough and independent review of Exhibit PE1 irrefutably confirms that this Court indeed made these explicit, mandatory, and unequivocally executory orders, directing the immediate reinstatement of the Applicant and the payment of all associated entitlements. The judgment, therefore, remains valid, subsisting, binding, and fully enforceable against the 3rd Respondent and its principal officers.

14. To conclusively establish the essential ingredients of knowledge and effective service of the judgment, which are foundational to any finding of contempt, the Applicant meticulously deposed in paragraph 6 that "the said judgment was duly and personally served on the 3rd Defendant, through its principal officers, to wit: the Chairman on the 1st day of February, 2026; and the Secretary on the 19th day of February, 2026; and same were duly acknowledged by their respective offices;". The irrefutable proofs of service and acknowledgment are annexed as Exhibit PE2 and Exhibit PE3 respectively, leaving no doubt as to the fact of service and receipt. Furthermore, to demonstrate continued awareness and opportunity for compliance, the Applicant deposed in paragraphs 8 and 9 that reminder letters, explicitly referencing the judgment and the outstanding obligations, were subsequently served on both the Chairman and the Secretary. The acknowledgments of these reminder letters are produced as Exhibit PE4 and Exhibit PE5, further solidifying the evidence of sustained knowledge. In paragraph 17, the Applicant precisely identified the specific individuals occupying these critical offices, deposing that "the offices of the Chairman and Secretary of the 3rd Defendant are currently occupied by DIG Hashimu Argungu (Rtd) as Chairman and Chief Onyemuche Nnamani as Secretary, who are, by virtue of their positions, primarily and directly responsible for the strategic management, day-to-day operations, and crucially, the implementation of court orders binding on the 3rd Defendant;". This establishes a clear nexus between the individuals and their responsibility for compliance.

15. These critical facts, meticulously deposed to by the Applicant, stand completely unchallenged and unrefuted. The Respondents, including the 3rd Respondent and its principal officers, DIG Hashimu Argungu (Rtd) and Chief Onyemuche Nnamani, despite having been duly served with the application and afforded ample opportunity, did not file any counter-affidavit, nor did they file any written address or any other process whatsoever in opposition to this application. It is a long-standing, fundamental, and immutable rule of evidence and trial practice in our courts that where facts deposed to in an affidavit are not controverted, denied, or challenged by the opposing party, they are deemed admitted and must, as a matter of law, be accepted by the court as true, unless such facts are inherently incredible, illegal, or contrary to public policy. The principle that unchallenged affidavit evidence is deemed admitted and conclusive has been firmly and consistently established in numerous authoritative decisions of the appellate courts, including the Supreme Court in the landmark case of Babatunde v. PAS & TA Ltd (2007) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1051) 113, where it was unequivocally held that facts contained in an affidavit which are not disputed or denied by way of a counter-affidavit are deemed admitted and the court is not only entitled but obligated to act on them. Since the Respondents have deliberately chosen not to file any counter-affidavit or offer any explanation for their non-compliance, the comprehensive depositions of the Applicant stand unchallenged, unassailed, and are consequently accepted by this Court as judicially established facts.

16. The Applicant has thus unequivocally demonstrated that despite the principal officers of the 3rd Respondent being personally served with the judgment and having full knowledge of its mandatory terms, they have willfully, persistently, and without any lawful justification, failed, refused, and neglected to reinstate him or pay his accrued emoluments. In paragraph 10, the Applicant deposed that "upon the continued and deliberate refusal of the 3rd Defendant to obey the judgment, I was constrained to instruct my solicitors to initiate the issuance of Forms 48 and 49 (formerly Forms 86 and 87) on the principal officers of the 3rd Defendant. My solicitors thereafter proceeded to file committal proceedings, which were subsequently withdrawn on 1st April 2026, in the good faith belief that the 3rd Defendant would finally comply with the judgment. However, to date, no steps whatsoever have been taken to reinstate me;". This deposition powerfully illustrates that the Applicant has made diligent, reasonable, and even magnanimous efforts to seek compliance, extending a hand of accommodation by withdrawing previous committal proceedings based on a reasonable expectation of compliance. Yet, despite this forbearance, the proposed contemnors have remained utterly recalcitrant, demonstrating a clear pattern of deliberate defiance.

17. In paragraph 12 of the affidavit, the Applicant further deposed that "rather than comply with the judgment, the principal officers of the 3rd Defendant have directed their legal department to file an appeal against the said judgment;". In paragraph 13, the Applicant critically deposed that "I know as a fact, and it is trite law, that the mere filing of a Notice of Appeal does not operate as a stay of execution, and no order of stay of execution has been sought or granted in respect of the judgment of this Honourable Court;". These depositions are not merely critical; they are dispositive. They unequivocally reveal that the 3rd Respondent's principal officers are fully aware of the judgment and its mandatory directives but have consciously and deliberately chosen to ignore them under the erroneous and legally untenable pretext of having directed their legal department to file an appeal. Under our Rules, Order 64 rule 14 (3) is categorical and very clear that the mere filing of an appeal does not, by itself, operate as a stay of execution of a court judgment, nor does it in any way excuse a party from complying with a valid, subsisting, and enforceable order of court. See also Aghwefeada v. Asemota & Anor (2011) 25 NLLR (Pt. 71) 269. A party who is dissatisfied with a court judgment has a clear legal pathway: either to comply with the judgment or to obtain a formal, explicit order of stay of execution from a competent court. In the complete absence of any order staying the execution of the judgment, the 3rd Respondent and its principal officers are under a strict, absolute, and non-negotiable legal obligation to obey the judgment forthwith. The filing of a Notice of Appeal, without more, is not and cannot be a shield against contempt. To hold otherwise would be to permit litigants to render court judgments nugatory and reduce the judicial process to a mere academic exercise by the simple expedient of filing frivolous or dilatory notices of appeal. Such an approach would fundamentally undermine the authority and efficacy of the judiciary, erode public confidence in the administration of justice, and ultimately threaten the rule of law itself. As the Supreme Court authoritatively held in Governor of Lagos State v. Ojukwu [1986] 1 NWLR (Pt. 18) 621, the rule of law presupposes that the State and all its agencies are subject to the law and must obey court orders without reservation, and any act of disobedience represents a direct, frontal challenge to the authority of the court which cannot and will not be condoned in a democratic society governed by law.

18. The principal officers of the 3rd Respondent, specifically DIG Hashimu Argungu (Rtd) as Chairman and Chief Onyemuche Nnamani as Secretary, are the human agents, the "directing minds and will," through whom the 3rd Respondent, as a statutory body, acts and makes decisions. When a court issues an order directing a corporate or statutory body to perform a specific act, its principal officers, who are vested with the authority and responsibility for its management, day-to-day operations, and policy implementation, are duty-bound to ensure prompt and full compliance. If they fail to do so, they cannot seek refuge behind the corporate veil or statutory personality to escape personal liability for contempt. They are personally and directly responsible for the willful disobedience of the body they lead and control. In this case, the Applicant has conclusively established that the Chairman and Secretary were personally served with the judgment, had actual, unequivocal knowledge of its terms, and have, despite this, willfully, deliberately, and without any lawful excuse, failed to comply with the mandatory directives of this Honourable Court. Their actions constitute a direct affront to the authority of this Court.

19. This Court is therefore fully satisfied, based on the overwhelming and uncontroverted evidence, that the Applicant has established a strong, compelling, and unassailable prima facie case of contempt against DIG Hashimu Argungu (Rtd) and Chief Onyemuche Nnamani. The dignity, authority, and integrity of this Court, and indeed the entire judicial system, must be protected and upheld at all costs. This Court cannot and will not sit idly by and permit its judgments and orders to be treated with disdain, willful neglect, or deliberate defiance by any person, no matter how highly placed or powerful. Orders of court are not mere advisory opinions or suggestions; they are mandatory commands that must be obeyed to the letter, promptly and fully, unless and until they are lawfully set aside or stayed by a competent appellate court. The Applicant has fully and unequivocally satisfied all the stringent requirements of Order 63 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules 2017 for the grant of leave to commence committal proceedings. 

20. There exists no legal or factual basis whatsoever upon which this Court ought to refuse this meritorious application. To refuse this application would be to condone judicial impunity and undermine the very foundation of the rule of law.

21. On the whole, the sole issue adopted for determination is resolved decisively in favor of the Applicant, and the application succeeds in its entirety. This Court hereby makes the following peremptory orders:

(i) Leave is hereby granted to the Claimant/Applicant to forthwith commence committal proceedings against DIG Hashimu Argungu (Rtd), the Chairman of the 3rd Defendant, and Chief Onyemuche Nnamani, the Secretary of the 3rd Defendant, by issuing and serving on them the necessary committal processes (Forms 48 and 49) for contempt of this Honourable Court, arising from their willful, deliberate, persistent, and unjustified failure, refusal, and neglect to comply with the judgment of this Court delivered on 29 January 2026 in Suit No. NICN/ABJ/60/2025.

(ii) The Claimant/Applicant is directed to ensure that the committal processes, including a certified true copy of this order, are served on DIG Hashimu Argungu (Rtd) and Chief Onyemuche Nnamani personally, or by such other substituted mode of service as may be expressly permitted and ordered by the rules of this Court, to ensure their full awareness and opportunity to respond.

22. Ruling is hereby entered. There is no order as to costs.

 

………..

Hon. Justice E. D. Subilim

JUDGE