CaseLaw
Okoebor V. Police Council (1998) CLR 9(L) (CA)
Brief
Facts
The plaintiff had claimed from the defendants according to paragraph 21 of his amended statement of claim, declaration that his purported dismissal from the police force was null and void, declaration that his appointment was still subsisting an order that he be reinstated, an order directing that all his entitlements be paid, an injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, agents and servants from interfering with his enjoyments of his rights and privileges and for payment of a total sum of N47, 140 as general and special damages.
The defendants did not file any statement of defence even though a notice of appearance was filed on their behalf. They were also not represented at the hearing.
The plaintiff gave evidence at the trial. But he did not call any witness. His case was that he was enlisted into the Nigeria Police Force as a Constable in May, 1983 and was given force No. NP 136074. He said he was attached to the B Department Signals, Police Headquarters, Benin City and that his appointment was a permanent one until he was dismissed from the Force in 1985. He told the court that the action was based on a false allegation of receiving a bribe of N3 made against him. He said that when the allegation was first made, he was at first made to serve corporal punishment for the alleged offence by being made to cut grass within their office complex. However, some days later, he was arraigned before an orderly room panel for trial for the same offence.
He further told the court that he protested at the composition of the panel that was to try him, particularly against the chairman of the panel, one DSP Kalu. His grouse with DSP Kalu was that he had on a previous occasion given evidence against Mr. Kalu when the man was similarly charged before an orderly room panel for trial for an attempted rape of a female Constable while he as well as Mr. Kalu and the female Constable were on night duty. He said that since that incident, DSP Kalu had nursed a grudge against him and had told him several time thereafter that he would see to his dismissal from the police force. He said that his protest was ignored and that DSP Kalu continued to preside over his orderly room trial.
The appellant said further that he testified before the panel and denied ever receiving any N3 bribe. He said further that the N3 found on him was given to him and one Fidelis Isibor, who was with him at the material time by a brother in law called Benson Akiti. The money was said to have been given to him and Fidelis Isibor at the Ring Road, Benin City while he was on duty. His request to call Benson Akiti as a witness was said to have been turned down by DSP Kalu, who was presiding over the trial. According to the appellant, Fidelis Isibor also gave the same explanation as to how he (appellant) got the N3. The appellant went further to say that it was after he and Fidelis Isibor had returned to the office and Fidelis Isibor and himself were arguing over the sharing of the N3, that DSP Kalu got to know that he received N3. He said that DSP Kalu called him and asked him how he came by the N3. The appellant said he told the DSP Kalu his story as to how he came by the money in line with the story are given above.
The appellant told the lower court further that after he had appeared before the panel, he was told orally that he had been dismissed from service and he was ordered to surrender his uniform to the police authority and that he complied. He said further that he later wrote several letters of appeal to the Inspector General of Police against his dismissal. He said he got two letters in reply. In one of them, he was informed that he had been dismissed. The two letters he received were admitted as Exhs. A and B. The appellant then set out details of the reliefs he wanted from the court, including the various monetary awards he wanted from the court. He then concluded his evidence by informing the court that “I was appointed by letter.” But he did not plead or tender his said letter of appointment. He thereafter closed his case. As none of the defendants was represented at the trial the appellant was not cross-examined and he never called any witness other than his own testimony. The learned trial Judge thereafter reserved his judgment.
In his reserved judgment delivered on 27/6/94 the learned trial Judge held, inter alia, that the plaintiff failed to prove his claim. He accordingly dismissed the entire case with N1, 000 costs in favour of the defendants.
The plaintiff was dissatisfied with the verdict handed down by the court. He accordingly appealed against it to this court.