n Compulaw - 1st Indigenous Digital Law Library
Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

Okoebor V. IGP (2003) CLR 5(b) (SC)

Judgement delivered on May 2nd 2003

Brief

  • Concurrent finding of fact
  • Termination of employment
  • Customary law
  • Unchallenged evidence
  • Burden of proof
  • Bias

Facts

Constable Bernard Okoebor, the Appellant, was enlisted in the Nigeria Police Force in May, 1983. He wore Force No, NP. 136074. He was posted to 'B' Department, Signals Office, Police Headquarters, Benin-City. He worked there until 1985 when he was involved in a problem with the Police. He has told the story in his statement of claim. The summary of it goes as follows:

On or about the 19th day of February 1985, the Appellant was indicted by Deputy Superintendent of Police, A. Kalu for leaving his duty post where he was assigned and for receiving a bribe of N30.00. Mr. A, Kalu immediately punished the Appellant with hard labour which involved levelling of a vast expanse of grassland.

Thereafter, Mr. Kalu set up a machinery for Appellant to be tried by Police Orderly Room. That was for the same alleged offences of leaving his duty post and receiving bribe of N3.00. Mr. A- Kalu was the Chairman of the Orderly room trial. Appellant protested on the ground of likelihood of bias but to no avail. It was the case of the Appellant that Mr. A. Kalu had old scores with him. It had to do with Kalu's involvement in attempting to rape a police woman and the role he (the Appellant) played in the whole matter.

Appellant was tried. Punishment was handed to him. It was dismissal from the Police Force, The punishment of dismissal was orally announced to Appellant. He was asked to hand in or hand over to the authorities any Police property or kits in his possession.

Appellant made efforts to get back his job. He wrote petitions but to no avail.

Respondents were adamant. They meant the business of sacking the Appellant. They did not bulge a second. Exhibit B was the last correspondence from the 2nd Respondent to him. The exhibit which sounded final is as follows: "Bernard Okoebor, c/o Ops/TRG Signals, Police Headquarters, Benin.



APPEAL AGAINST DISMISSAL NO. 136074 EX-PC BERNARD OKOEBOR I refer to your representation dated 6th July, 1990, and wish to inform you that after thorough consideration of the appeal, the Inspector General of Police has considered the appeal as lacking in substance and has therefore accordingly dismissed it.

  • 2
    You are hereby advised by this letter to regard this issue as closed as no further correspondence will be entertained from you on the issue again, please.
  • Sgn. (C.E. OBADAN) ACP
  • DEPUTY PROVOST MARSHAL,
  • FOR FORCE PROVOST MARSHAL
  • "INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE"

    • The Appellant got the message. It was a clear message. As far as the Respondents were concerned, the matter of his dismissal was closed, Appellant had no option than to seek redress in Court. He did exactly that. He filed an action in the High Court of Benin. Claiming various reliefs as contained in paragraph 21 of his Amended Statement of claims.

    The learned trial Judge held that the Plaintiff has failed to establish any of his claims and consequently dismissed them in toto. Dissatisfied with the judgement of the trial Court, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal holden at Benin City. In a reserved Judgement the Court of Appeal also unanimously dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgement of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the decision of the Court of Appeal, the Appellant has further appealed to this Court.

Issues

  • 1
    Whether the Learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right in law...

Read More