Download PDF
JUDGMENT This action was commenced by way of complaint dated and filed the 9th day of June 2017. In his amended statement of facts, the Claimant sought the following reliefs against the Defendants: 1. A Declaration that the termination of the appointment of the Claimant from his employment in the office of the 3rd Defendant is wrongful, unlawful and void. 2. An Order for immediate reinstatement of the Claimant to his employment in the office of the 3rd Defendant. 3. A Declaration that the interdiction of the Claimant by the 3rd Defendant via letter dated 6th April 2016 is wrongful and void. 4. An Order directing the 3rd and 4th Defendants to pay the Claimant all salaries, allowances, emoluments and benefits which are due to the Claimant from 6th April 2016 when he was interdicted till date. After pleadings had been duly exchanged and intervening applications taken and resolved, trial commenced on the 14th day of November 2018. The Claimant testified for himself as CW1. One Angela Adiwu Gado, an Admin Officer in the Office of the Accountant General of the Federation testified on behalf of the 3rd and 4th Defendants as DW1. The 1st and 2nd Defendants did not call evidence, but rather rested their case on the defence of the 3rd and 4th Defendants. Hearing ended on the 17th day of October 2019 and parties were ordered to file Final Written Addresses. These were duly filed. Parties adopted their respective Final Written Addresses on the 16th day of December 2019. CLAIMANT’S CASE During the trial of the suit, the Claimant gave evidence in proof of his claims. The facts of his case, according to his averments in his amended statement of fact, the reply to the statement of defence as well as his evidence, are that he was employed as a Clerical Officer II on salary grade Level 4, via a letter dated 10th December 2012. His appointment was confirmed in a letter dated 4th September 2016 from Learning and Development Department, Office of the Head of Service of the Federation. He was a staff of the Defendants and worked in the office of the Accountant General of the Federation as a Clerical Officer until 4th April 2017 when his appointment was terminated with retrospective effect from 15th March 2017 on allegation of unauthorised disclosure of official information and divided loyalty. On 1st February 2016, he received a query from the 3rd and 4th Defendants accusing him of disclosing official information of a dismissed staff called Ogwuche Stephen Ahmed, collecting the sum of N100,000 from the dismissed staff to suppress his letter of dismissal, and exhibiting divided loyalty, which acts violated provisions of the Public Service Rules. He was required in the query to make representations why disciplinary action should not be taken against him. The 3rd and 4th Defendants also issued him a letter of interdiction from office dated 6th April 2016. After the letter of interdiction, he was never summoned or invited to any quarter or to the Junior Staff Committee of the 3rd Defendant to defend himself of any allegation before his employment was terminated. On 15th February 2015, he was arraigned together with Ogwuche Stephen Ahmed by the police with respect to the allegation made against him in the query. The case was later struck out for want of diligent prosecution and the he was discharged. He has not been convicted by any court for receiving bribe. He was not given access to the documents relied upon by the Defendants to terminate his appointment and he was denied the opportunity of responding to them. The letter of query dated 1st February 2016 did not give any particulars of acts of divided loyalty committed by him. He further averred in his reply to the statement of defence and in his further evidence that he is not a junior staff on probation but a permanent staff. His employment was confirmed and he was upgraded to the post of Clerical Officer I [GL 05]. The Defendants terminated his employment in disregard of the provisions of the Public Service Rules. The query was brought to him while he was in police detention. The 3rd and 4th Defendants knew he would not be able to respond to it while in police custody. He was in police detention till on 15th January 2016 when he was charged to court and he could not respond to the query. He never confessed to giving any dismissal letter to Stephen Ogwuche and he did not request or receive any bribe to tamper with any document. He did not write the letter of 4th February 2016 as he was in police detention on that date. Exhibits A to J were tendered in evidence by the Claimant. DEFENDANTS’ CASE The 1st and 2nd Defendants did not call any evidence in this case. The 3rd and 4th Defendants filed a statement of defence and also adduced evidence in the case. The witness for the 3rd and 4th Defendants is one Angela Adiwu Gado, Administrative Officer, Discipline, in the 3rd Defendant. It is her evidence that the Claimant was employed as a Clerical Officer on 10th December 2012. On 21st January 2016, the Claimant received the dismissal letter of one Stephen Ogwuche from the Federal Civil Service Commission but the letter got missing few hours after the Claimant received it. Following the Claimant’s confession to have given the letter of dismissal to Stephen Ogwuche after he requested for and was given a bribe of N100,000, disciplinary measure in line with the Civil Service Rules was initiated against the Claimant. He was given a query and he was interdicted. The Claimant replied the query after which the case was also reported to the police who then charged the Claimant to court. The case was however struck out for lack of diligent prosecution. Following the ruling of the court, the Claimant wrote to request that he should be called back to resume his duties. Based on the provisions of Rule 030411 of the Public Service Rules and the fact that the criminal case was not concluded, the Claimant was dismissed from service. DW1 said further that the 3rd and 4th Defendants acted in line with the Public Service Rules which set out the procedure for punishing erring officer in Rule 030402 [i], [j], [s]. The Claimant was a Junior Officer on GL 04 and he was still on probation. The 3rd and 4th Defendants have the authority under the Public Service Rules to exercise disciplinary action against the Claimant. Exhibits K to N were tendered in evidence by DW1. 3RD AND 4TH DEFENDANTS FINAL ADDRESS In their final written address, learned counsel for the 3rd and 4th Defendants formulated the following issues for determination: 1. Whether in view of the evidence of the Claimant and that of the 3rd and 4th Defendants in this suit, the Claimant has proved his case to warrant the Honourable court entering judgment in his favour or granting him the reliefs sought. 2. Whether the doctrine of natural justice was not accorded and observed in the process leading to the dismissal of the Claimant. On Issue One, learned counsel for the 3rd and 4th Defendants placed reliance on Section 32 of the Evidence Act 2011 and submitted that since the Claimant is the party who would fail if no evidence is given in this matter and not the Defendant, the burden of proof is entirely on him. Counsel further referred the court to Sections 138 and 148 of the Evidence Act 2011 arguing that the Claimant’s assertion that he was forced to write some statements and was detained in the station for 3-4 days do not have any evidential value before the law. Counsel urged the Court to discountenance same and attach no value to it. See N. E. NIGERIA LIMITED vs. IBAFON OIL LTD (2016) All FWLR (Pt.815) 336-339. On Issue Two, Counsel submitted that a combination of the facts and evidence before the court leaves no doubt that the Claimant was accorded with reasonable opportunity to be heard against the allegation of conspiracy, forgery and taking gratification in respect of official act (disclosure of official information). Counsel argued that it is not in all cases that oral hearing is deployed to satisfy the doctrine of fair hearing. Counsel placed reliance on the court’s pronouncement in the case of EFERAKORHO vs. D.S.J.S.C (2015) All FWLR (Pt. 779) Pg. 1184 @ 1187 and NATIONAL JUDICIAL COUNCIL vs. ALADEJANA (2015) All FWLR (Pt. 772) Pt. 1798 @ 1809 which counsel submitted are in pari-materia with the case of the Claimant. Counsel urged the court to hold that the principle of fair hearing is in tandem with the provision of the Public Service Rules and was adhered to in the disciplinary procedure adopted, leading to the dismissal of the Claimant for the offence of conspiracy, concealment of official information/correspondence and collecting monetary gratification in discharging official duties. Counsel urged the Court to resolve the issues canvased against the Claimant and in favour of Defendants and dismiss this suit with substantial cost. CLAIMANT’S FINAL ADDRESS In the Claimant’s final written address, learned counsel for the Claimant formulated the following issues for determination: 1. Whether the termination of Employment of the Claimant is wrongful, unlawful and void. 2. Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought. On Issue One, learned counsel for the Claimant submitted that the termination of the Claimant’s appointment is unlawful because the 3rd and 4th Defendants failed to follow the requisite rules for the termination of appointment of a civil servant with statutory flavor. Counsel placed reliance on Rule 030401 and Rule 03404(i) of the Public Service Rules 2008 which defined serious misconduct and provides that Disciplinary Procedure for serious misconduct shall be in accordance with Rules 030302 to 030306 of the Public Service Rules. Counsel made reference to the evidence before the court and submitted that the Claimant’s termination was based on mere allegations of unauthorized disclosure of official information and Acts of divided loyalty. Counsel emphasized that the termination of Claimant’s appointment is unlawful as it offends Section 36(1) of the CFRN 1999 because the Claimant was not given fair hearing by the Defendants as prescribed by the Constitution and the Public Service Rules. Counsel submitted that the provisions of Rule 030302 were not observed as the query meant for the claimant was sent to him while he was in police detention. Counsel referred the court to paragraph 10 of the written statement on oath in support of the Claimant’s reply to statement of defence and submitted that the 3rd and 4th Defendants should have observed the provisions of Rule 030304 a. Further, counsel submitted that the said query offended the mandatory requirement of 03037(1) and argued that it was in their statement of defence that the Defendants stated the circumstances of the alleged offence of unauthorized disclosure of official information. Counsel also submitted that no investigation was carried out nor proven in line with Rules 030311, 030305 and 030401 and even the disputed reply to the query was not considered by the 3rd and 4th Defendants in terminating the Claimant’s appointment. Counsel added that the query given to the Claimant by the Defendant did not give the particulars or the circumstances of the act of divided loyalty leveled against the Claimant or was any evidence given on the alleged offence of unauthorized disclosure of official information. Counsel urged the court to resolve Issue One against the 3rd and 4th Defendants and find that no prima facie case had been made out against the Claimant to warrant the termination of his appointment. On Issue Two, Counsel submitted that the Claimant has been able to prove on the preponderance of evidence that the Defendants, especially the 3rd and 4th Defendants did not terminate his employment in accordance with laid down rules which govern the parties. Counsel further submitted that the Defendants’ reasons for the termination of the Claimant’s appointment were not justified by the Defendants. See ANGEL SHIPPING AND DYING LTD vs. AJAH (2000) 13 NWLR (Pt. 685) 551 CA. Counsel urged the court to resolve all the issues in favour of the Claimant and against the Defendants and grant the Claimant all the reliefs sought. COURT’S DECISION In paragraph 5 and 6 of the Claimant’s amended statement of facts, he averred that he was employed as a clerical officer in the office of the 3rd Defendant. The Claimant’s appointment letter is Exhibit A. The appointment letter discloses that the Claimant was appointed by the 3rd and 4th Defendants on 10th December 2012. The appointment was said to be service in the Federal Civil Service and it was subject to the Public Service Rules. The PSR is as a subsidiary legislation and it confers a status of employment protected by statute on the Civil Servant. See FUT, YOLA vs. MAIWUYA (2013) All FWLR (Pt. 677) 753 at 762. In view of the condition of service applicable to the Claimant’s employment, it is not in doubt that the Claimant’s appointment enjoyed statutory flavour. Therefore, his removal from the employment ought to be done in compliance with the provisions of the Public Service Rules. The issue to consider at this point is whether the Claimant has proved that the termination of his employment was done in violation of the Public Service Rules. The parties in this case pleaded facts showing that the Claimant’s employment was regulated by the Public Service Rules but none of them tendered the Public Service Rules in evidence. However, since the Public Service Rules is a legislation, I am entitled to take judicial notice of it. The Claimant said in his evidence that he was in Grade Level 05 as at the time of his removal from service. He said he was promoted to this grade level vide the 3rd Defendant’s letter dated 20/6/2016 which is Exhibit G. In the letter, the Claimant was upgraded from Grade Level 04 to Grade Level 05 with effect from 1st January 2015. Rule 010103 of the Public Service Rules defines a junior officer to mean an officer on GL 06 and below. By this provision of the Public Service Rules, the Claimant was a junior staff as at the time of termination of his appointment. In Rule 030103 of the Public Service Rules, the Federal Civil Service Commission has delegated full disciplinary powers to permanent secretaries and heads of extra-ministerial offices in respect of officers on GL 13 and below, but the power of dismissal is delegated only in respect of officers on GL 06 and below. That is to say the power of the 3rd and 4th Defendants to dismiss or terminate employment of civil servants under their control is delegated to them by the Federal Civil Service Commission, only in respect of officers on GL 06 and below. Accordingly, the 3rd and 4th Defendants have the authority to terminate the employment of the Claimant, being a junior staff. However, where a staff in the public service of the Federation is to be removed from service for any act constituting serious misconduct, the Public Service Rules has set out the procedure to be followed before the termination of the employment of the staff or his dismissal can result. The procedure is contained in Rules 030302 to 030307 of the Public Service Rules as directed in Rule 030403. The summary of the procedure prescribed in these provisions is as follows: i. The officer is issued a written query stating the grounds on which he is to be disciplined and requested to make a written representation in defence of the allegations. ii. In case of dismissal, the officer must be given access to documents used against him. iii. if necessary, the officer may be interdicted. iv. After considering the written representation of the staff and the superior officer is not satisfied that the staff has not exculpated himself and considers that the officer should be dismissed, such action shall be taken accordingly. v. Where necessary, a board of inquiry may be set up to investigate the officer; the officer shall be invited to appear to defend himself; the officer shall be allowed to put questions to witnesses, where any was called; the officer shall be given copies of documents used against him vi. if after considering the report of the board of inquiry, it is decided to remove the officer, such action shall be taken. The above procedure in the Public Service Rules is meant to give the officer facing the disciplinary action a fair hearing before the dismissal or termination of his employment. It is an established principle that a civil servant can only be validly removed from service if the procedure prescribed by the Public Service Rules is followed and he is given fair hearing. In his evidence, the Claimant said his appointment was terminated on 4th April 2017 with retrospective effect from 15th March 2017 on allegation of unauthorised disclosure of official information, receiving bribe and divided loyalty. Before the termination of his employment, he was given a query and a letter of interdiction. He was never summoned or invited to any quarter or the Junior Staff Committee of the 3rd Defendant to defend himself of any allegation before his employment was terminated. He was not given access to the documents relied on by the Defendants to terminate his appointment. In his further evidence, he said he did not have the opportunity to respond to the query because it was given to him when he was in detention in police custody. He also said the Defendants terminated his employment in disregard of the provisions of the Public Service Rules. From the evidence of the Claimant, he has alleged that he was not given fair hearing and that the procedure for termination of employment in the Public Service Rules was not followed. These allegations shift the burden to the 3rd and 4th Defendants to prove that the Claimant was given fair hearing in accordance with the Public Service Rules before his employment was terminated. The witness for the 3rd and 4th Defendants said in her evidence that the disciplinary measures initiated against the Claimant was in line with the Public Service Rules. The Claimant was a junior officer in GL 04 and he was still on probation. The 3rd and 4th Defendants have the authority under the Public Service Rules to exercise disciplinary action against the Claimant. The 3rd and 4th Defendants acted in line with the PSR which set out the procedure for punishing erring officer in Rule 030402 [i], [j], [s]. DW1 also said the Claimant was given a query and he was interdicted. The Claimant replied the query and based on the provisions of Rule 030411 of the Public Service Rules and the fact that the Criminal case was not concluded, the Claimant was dismissed from service. I have earlier stated that the Claimant, in view of Exhibit G, was in GL 05 as at the time of termination of his employment and not GL 04 alleged by the 3rd and 4th Defendants. The Claimant was still a junior staff when his employment was terminated. The 3rd and 4th Defendants are right when they aver that they have the authority under the Public Service Rules to exercise disciplinary action against the Claimant but their claim that Rules 030402 [i], [j], [s] of the Public Service Rules provided the procedure which they followed to terminate the Claimant’s appointment is not valid. Rule 030402 merely mentioned offences which amounted to serious misconducts in the civil service. Items [i], [j], [s] mentioned serious misconduct of unauthorised disclosure of official information, bribery and divided loyalty respectively. The rule did not prescribe or set out any procedure for disciplinary action. The 3rd and 4th Defendants also averred that they dismissed the Claimant pursuant to Rule 030411 of the Public Service Rules. This rule did not prescribe the procedure for termination of employment of a civil servant. Its provision is to the effect that disciplinary proceedings can be commenced against an officer whether or not a criminal case has been initiated against the officer. The rule specifically provided in sub rule [c] that where an officer acquitted in criminal proceedings initiated against the officer is to be disciplined, the usual procedure is to be followed. Thus, nothing in rule 030411 prevented the 3rd and 4th Defendants from following the procedure for disciplinary action stipulated in the Public Service Rules. The Claimant said he was issued a query on 1st February 2016 accusing him of disclosing official information, collecting the sum of N100,000 as bribe and exhibiting divided loyalty which acts violated the provisions of the Public Service Rules and that he should make a representation why disciplinary action should not be taken against him. The query is Exhibit B. The Claimant did not mention in his statement of facts whether or not he replied to the query. In their statement of defence, the 3rd and 4th Defendants aver that the Claimant replied the query and the reply was tendered in evidence. It is Exhibit K. In response to these averments of the 3rd and 4th Defendants, the Claimant stated in his reply to the statement of defence that he didn’t respond to the query because the query was brought to him while he was in police custody and he was not able to respond to it. It is not in dispute that the Claimant was served a query in respect of the misconducts for which his employment was terminated. The dispute is whether or not he replied to the query. When the Claimant was cross examined by counsel for the 3rd and 4th Defendants on this issue, he gave conflicting response. At a point he said he replied to the query and later he said he didn’t reply to the query. He also said he did not sign Exhibit K which the 3rd and 4th Defendants allege is the Claimant’s reply to the query. The query, Exhibit B, is dated 1st February 2016. The Claimant said he received it same date. The Claimant was given 72 hours to reply to the query but he did not reply to it. According to him, it was given to him in police station. But he didn’t tell the court the date he was arrested or taken into the custody of the police. He pleaded however in paragraph 8 of his reply to the statement of defence of the 3rd and 4th Defendants that “he was in police detention till he was charged to court on 15/1/2016…” He said the same thing in paragraph 10 of his additional evidence. The Claimant said he received the query on 1st February 2016. That is to say, in view of his averment in paragraph 8 of his reply to statement of defence, he was already out of police detention by several days when he received the query. Accordingly, his excuse that it was his detention by the police that prevented him from reply the query holds no water. There was no impediment that prevented the Claimant from responding to the query but he didn’t, that is according to him, even when his was inconsistent in his response to questions on this issue under cross examination. The 3rd and 4th Defendants have contended that the Claimant replied the query. They tendered the reply in evidence. It is Exhibit K. The Claimant said he did not make it under cross examination. I have examined this document. It is dated 4th February 2016 and it was in respect of the query dated 1st February 2016 issued to the Claimant. In view of the time and sequence of events, it is observed that the Claimant had the opportunity and the time to make the reply. The signature on it matches the signature of the Claimant in his witness statements filed in this case. The Claimant mentioned the query served on him in paragraphs 10 and 13 of his amended statement of facts but he did not plead anywhere in the amended statement of facts that he did not reply to it because he was in police detention at the time. His averments in the reply to the statement of defence that he did not reply to the query because he was in police detention is clearly an afterthought. He actually submitted a reply the query, which is Exhibit K. The letter by which the Claimant’s employment was terminated is Exhibit D dated 4th April 2017. It is from the 3rd Defendant. It reads thus: TERMINATION OF APPOINTMENT FROM SERVICE. MR. MOSES A FRIDAY CLERICAL OFFICER II SGL. 04 I am directed to inform you that the Junior Staff Committee of the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation, at its meeting held on 26th January 2017 considered the allegation of unauthorised disclosure of official information and act of divided loyalty and found you culpable. Consequent upon that, the Accountant-General of the Federation has approved the termination of your appointment from service for misconduct with effect from 15th March 2017. Please acknowledge receipt. Signed: A.O. Agi. Deputy Director, For: for Accountant-General of the Federation. The content of this letter shows that the Junior Staff Committee of the 3rd Defendant met on 26th January 2017 and considered the allegation of unauthorised disclosure of official information and act of divided loyalty against the Claimant. It was this committee, after its deliberations that concluded that the Claimant was guilty of the allegations. It was upon their recommendations that the 4th Defendant approved the termination of the Claimant’s appointment. Let me mention that it is clear from the content of the termination letter that the decision to terminate the Claimant’s appointment was not taken on the basis of his reply to query. That is to say, notwithstanding his reply to query, there was a further proceeding on the case against him. His case was referred to the Junior Staff Committee to consider and make a finding. The Claimant said in his evidence that he was never summoned or invited to appear before the Junior Staff Committee of the 3rd Defendant to defend himself of any allegation before his employment was terminated. Under cross examination, DW1 stated that a Junior Staff Committee was set up but the Claimant was not invited to appear before the committee. It is a fact therefore that the 3rd Defendant set up a Junior Staff Committee to consider the allegations against the Claimant. The Claimant was not invited to appear before the Junior Staff Committee but the committee, in the absence of the Claimant and without hearing the Claimant in defence of the allegations against him, considered the allegations against the Claimant and concluded that he was guilty of the allegations. By the provisions of Rule 030307 [iii] of the Public Service Rules, the Claimant’s appointment could be terminated by the 3rd and 4th Defendants on the basis of his reply to query if they find his response unsatisfactory; but where they decided to set up a disciplinary committee to consider the allegations against the Claimant, the procedure in sub rule v to x of Rule 030307 must be followed. That is, the Claimant must be given fair hearing by the disciplinary committee. Besides the provision of the Public Service Rules, fair hearing is also a constitutional right of the Claimant. The Claimant is entitled to fair hearing before the 3rd and 4th Defendants can lawfully remove him from his employment on disciplinary grounds. In JUDICIAL SERVICE COMMISION OF CROSS RIVER STATE vs. YOUNG (2013) LPELR 20592 (SC), the Supreme Court held as follows: “It is basic that where a body, whether judicial, quasi-judicial, Administrative or Executive in inception, acts judicially in the sense that it is to determine the civil rights and obligations of a person, or to find him guilty or liable of a fault, he must be given a hearing before the issue can be properly decided. This is as enjoined by the provision of Section 36(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 – the grundnorm. Even then, adjudicating bodies like tribunals, though not expected to act fully like of Court of law, are enjoined in their hearing of matters to act in good faith and fairly listen to both sides before deciding”. In GARBA vs. UNIVERSITY OF MAIDUGURI (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. l8) 553, the Supreme Court held that fair hearing implies that the person knows what the allegations against him are; what evidence has been given in support of such allegations; what statements have been made concerning these allegations; the person has a fair opportunity to correct and contradict such evidence and the body investigating the charge against such person must not receive evidence behind his back. See also SAIBU vs. KWARA STATE POLYTECHNIC, ILORIN (2008) LPELR-4524(CA); FOLURUNSHO vs. WAEC (2011) All FWLR (Pt. 556) 422 at 480-481 The Claimant’s right to fair hearing was breached when the junior staff committee sat, considered and decided the case of the Claimant without inviting him to defend himself. He did not have the opportunity to know what the committee considered against him or the basis for their conclusion against him. Consequently, the decision to terminate the Claimant’s employment on the basis of the report or recommendation of the junior staff committee cannot stand. I find that the procedure in the Public Service Rules was not followed before the Claimant’s employment was terminated. The Claimant was not given fair hearing by the 3rd and 4th Defendants when his employment was terminated. The effect is that the termination of the Claimant’s appointment is unlawful, null and void. In OKEME vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, EDO STATE (2001) FWLR (Pt. 36) 873 at 884, it was held that where a civil servant is removed from office without recourse to or in the manner not in line with the applicable rules, the termination will be null and void. The termination is liable to be set aside. In the 3rd claim of the Claimant, he sought a declaration that his interdiction by the 3rd Defendant via letter dated 6th April 2016 is wrongful and void. The Claimant tendered the interdiction letter in evidence and it was admitted as Exhibit C. However, in his pleading and evidence, the Claimant did not give the court any reason why the interdiction vide Exhibit C should be declared null and void. All he said about the interdiction in his evidence is that the 3rd and 4th Defendants issued him a letter of interdiction from office dated 6th April 2016. I have seen in Rule 030304 PSR that the 3rd and 4th Defendant may interdict an officer facing disciplinary action. If the interdiction of the Claimant was unlawful in some respects, that is a matter of fact to be pleaded and proved by the Claimant. The Claimant has not given any evidence with which to consider his claim in relief 3. The claim has not been proved. The Claimant also seeks an order for his re-instatement and payment of his accumulated salaries. It is the law that where there is an improper removal of an employee from an employment protected by statute, the consequence is that the employee has not been removed from office. In other words, once dismissal or termination of employment is declared null and void, there is nothing legally standing in the way of the employee from having his or her job back with its attendant rights, benefits and privileges. See KWARA POLYTECHNIC ILORIN vs. OYEBANJI (2008) All FWLR (Pt. 447) 141 at 199. In such a situation, the court has the power to order the reinstatement of the employee. The right to be reinstated is a right that follows a declaration that termination was unlawful, null and void. In the circumstance of this case where it has been found that the contract of employment is protected by statute, the Claimant is entitled to a consequential relief of reinstatement and payment of his outstanding salaries and entitlements from the time his employment was unlawfully terminated. See OMIDIORA vs. FEDERAL CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION (2008) All FWLR (Pt. 415) 1807; OKEME vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, EDO STATE (supra) at 884 In the result, the Claimant’s claims succeed except relief 3. The termination of the Claimant’s appointment on 4th April 2017 is hereby declared unlawful, null and void. The termination is set aside. In addition, I make the following orders: 1. An Order is hereby made re-instating the Claimant to his employment in the civil service forthwith without any loss in grade level. 2. The 3rd and 4th Defendants are also ordered to pay to the Claimant all his salaries, allowances and entitlements accruing to him from 4th April 2017 till the date of this judgment. 3. Cost of N100,000.00 is awarded to the Claimant against the 3rd and 4th Defendants. Judgment is entered accordingly. Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe Judge