The National Industrial Court of Nigeria has ordered the reistatement of a sacked official of the Federal Road Safety Corps (FRSC), Ofeh Ikpor.
Mr Ikpor, who was a marshal of the corps, was illegally sacked in 2013.
Delivering judgement in the dispute that arose from Mr Ikpor’s dismissal, the judge, Oluwakayode Arowosegbe, of the Abakaliki division of the court, set aside the employment termination.
The court ordered the FRSC management to pay Mr Ofeh his arrears of salaries from 2013 at the rate on which he was before the termination of his appointment till date.
Mr Arowosegbe also ordered the corps to pay the claimant N5 milllion as general damages for defamation, and N1 million as cost of action within 30 days.
But the court rejected Mr Ikpor’s prayer for promotion. The judge held that Mr Ikpor failed to prove his entitlement to promotion.
But on the main issue raised in the suit the judge based his judgement on the grounds that “… the instrument of termination of statutory employment fails to give reason for the termination, being contravention of Article 4 of the ILO C158, a statutory contravention of a mandatory procedure of termination, the termination becomes null and void and, is liable to be set aside in employment clothed with statutory flavours.”
The judge held that “the claimant has successfully proved his case…and the defendant has admitted this, but justified it thus, aggravating the defamation.”
Mr Arowosegbe ruled that the law demands strict adherence to disciplinary procedures in employment clothed with statutory flavours and any deviation leads to the nullity of such disciplinary measures.
According to a summary of the judgement published on the court’s website, Mr Ikpor said his employment was terminated out of malice over alleged misconduct, without giving him fair hearing.
He argued that his sack was in violation of the FRSC regulations, 2005.
The claimant said the Board of Inquiry (BOI) set up to probe his alleged misconduct exonerated him.
But another board of inquiry was constituted in his absence and without compliance with procedures, which prompted the secretary of the board to decline endorsement; the board recommended his sack.
But in their defence, the corps Marshal of the FRSC, told the court that Mr Ikpor was not exonerated by the board.
The corps denied setting up a second board of inquiry, saying there was neither another board nor did it admit some exhibits that were left out at a previous date.
It also argued that the failure of a member of the disciplinary board to sign the report was an oversight and had no effect on its validity.
The corps contended that the claimant enjoyed fair hearing and they complied with all procedures throughout the trial while the claimant also failed to appeal the decision within time.
On the question of irregularities in the procedures of Mr Ikpor’s dismissal, the FRSC argued that dismissal could be valid without a disciplinary board, and as such, the absence of the recommendations of the BOI was not fatal to the dismissal.
