Abuja – The Presiding Judge of the National Industrial Court of
Nigeria, Abuja Judicial division, His Lordship, Hon. Justice
Benedict Kanyip on Monday 3rd June 2019 validated the dismissal of
Oko Michael Okata from the office of the Head of the Civil Service
of the Federation via dismissal letter dated 21st March 2018.
His Lordship held that nothing before the Court to show that the
claimant waited for approval of the sick leave application before
taking off to his village and the claimant did not satisfactorily
explain his absence from work for over 8 years.
The claimant filed the action on 7th June 2018, sought against
defendant among others; A declaration that the letter of dismissal
dated 21/03/2018 issued to the claimant by the defendant is
wrongful, illegal, null, void and of no effect.
Likewise, An order directing the defendant to pay to the
claimant all his monthly salaries, allowances, and entitlements
with increments, that have become due from January 2009 until the
date of his reinstatement to service and Special damages in the sum
of N1,920,000.00
To the claimant, he was a Clerical Officer in the office of the
defendant- Head of the Civil Service of the Federation. That while
discharging his official duties at about 7.47pm sometime in May
2008, he fell from the staircase of the defendant and sustained
severe, life-threatening injuries to his waist, hip, and legs. With
all the pains to his legs, hips, and waist, he reported his fall
and excruciating pains verbally to his superior officer.
That he subsequently reported his fall and excruciating pains to
his legs, hip and waist to the defendant through his application
for sick leave dated 20th May 2008. That with the excruciating and
life-threatening pains, he continued reporting for work, waiting
for reply to his sick leave application. That the defendant’s reply
never came and he was dying off of pains.
At a point, that he could not walk as a result of swollen legs,
hip, and waist and had to be carried to his village by relatives
for further medical attention. That throughout the period of his
treatment in the village, the defendant who knew that he was away
from work for further medical attention never cited the claimant
for “abscondment from duty” or commenced any disciplinary measures;
but immediately he forwarded a letter to the defendant of his
return from further medical attention, the defendant commenced
disciplinary measures against him without following the procedures
as laid down in the Public Service Rules, that the defendant then
dismissed him through a letter dated 21st March 2018, hence this
suit wherein he seeks reinstatement and monetary damages.
To the defendant, the claimant never reported the injury he
claimed he sustained during the course of discharging his official
duties, that the claimant who, however, applied for sick leave on
20th May 2008 did not wait for permission before he embarked on the
aforesaid sick leave and never communicated the OHCSF.
That all efforts to reach the claimant proved abortive, hence
his salary was stopped. That sometime in February 2017,
approximately nine (9) years after, the claimant wrote a letter to
the defendant, requesting for payment of his salary from January
2008 to December 2016. It was then that the defendant issued a
query letter to the claimant to make representation as to his
prolonged absence from duty without permission; Being dissatisfied
with the representation made by the claimant, the defendant
dismissed the appointment of the claimant and issued a dismissal
letter dated 21st March 2018.
To the defendant, Public Service Rules provide that absence from
duty without leave is serious misconduct that attracts dismissal
that from the facts of this case and the evidence led before this
Court, it was established that the claimant was absent from duty
without leave from May 2008 to 2017 for about 9 years.
The defendant went on that the request for salary arrears by the
claimant triggered the query letter dated 8th February 2017 that
led to the representation made by the claimant at the instance of
the defendant.
In argument, the Claimant counsel submitted that claimant was
not invited and did not appear before the (Junior Staff) Committee
that looked into his case and recommended his dismissal, that the
defendant blatantly and arrogantly denied the claimant his
inalienable right to fair hearing, urged the Court to set aside all
the disciplinary procedures adopted and taken by the defendant that
culminated in the dismissal.
In addition, the claimant maintained that by the Public Service
Rule All disciplinary procedures must commence and be completed
within a period of 60 days except where it involves criminal cases,
that from the date of the purported query and the date of his
purported dismissal which is about four hundred (400) days, far
beyond period mandatorily provided for by the rules that ENTIRE
DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURE that culminated in a letter of dismissal to
the claimant is wrongful, illegal, null and void.
The presiding Judge, Hon. Justice B. B. Kanyip after careful
evaluation of the submission of both counsel held that nothing
before the Court to show that the claimant waited for approval of
the sick leave application before taking off to his village.
“Now, it is common knowledge that government work is done vide
memos, not verbally. Rule 100216 of the PSR 2008 provides that sick
leave is the absence of an officer from duty on account of
ill-health as authorized by a Healthcare Provider. There is no
proof before the Court a Healthcare Provider approved sick leave
for the claimant.
“The claimant did not satisfactorily explain his absence from
work for over 8 years. I so find and hold. I agree with the
defendant that the claimant was aware that his salary was stopped
as far back as 2008 and he did nothing about it until in 2017 when
he applied for salary arrears.
“The claimant made an issue of not being given access to
documents or reports used against him when he was queried by the
defendant as enjoined by Rule 030306(i) of the PSR 2008. The
circumstance of the claimant, in this case, does not logically make
it possible for the defendant to adhere to this Rule. It was the
claimant who was absent from work for 8 years or so. Every document
or report that would explain his absence was in his possession. So
of what documents or reports is the claimant hoping that the
defendant would make available to him? I really do not know.”
Justice Kanyip rules
On claimant assertion of 60 days within which procedures must
commence and completed except where it involves criminal cases; the
court held that since the Rules did not provide any sanction for
non-compliance, the period stated is directory and not
mandatory.
His Lordship dismissed the case for lacking merit.