Legalpedia Citation: (2023-07) Legalpedia 97409 (CA)

In the Court of Appeal

Holden At Kaduna

Mon Jul 31, 2023

Suit Number: CA/K/172/2016

CORAM

Chidi Nwaoma Uwa JCA

Muslim Sule Hassan JCA

Mohammed Baba Idris JCA

PARTIES

1. IBRAHIM SARKI

APPELLANTS

1. NATIONAL TEACHERS INSTITUTE COUNCIL
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL NATIONAL TEACHERS INSTITUTE, KADUNA

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

APPEAL, EVIDENCE, LABOUR LAW, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

 

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant before the trial Court (National Industrial Court) stated that the 1st Respondent employed him on the 22nd day of January, 2003, and the employment was confirmed on the 31st of May, 2005 and he was on Grade level 9 step 2 earning about N116,000.00 monthly after all deductions until May, 2013 when his salary was abruptly stopped without following due process.

The Appellant claimed that sometime on 25th April, 2013, he received a query signed by one Yusuf I. in respect of an allegation that he handed the institute’s Special Teacher Upgrading Programme (STUP) certificate to one Aminu Shehu who was selling it to the public and that he responded to the query explaining that the said Aminu Shehu collected the result of One Aishatu Mu’azu Ahmed on her behalf since she was far away. The Appellant further stated that the matter was reported to the police in Zaria and Kaduna Police Headquarters where the said Aishatu Mu’azu Ahmed explained the same thing and the police found that she was duly admitted into the STUP in 2008.

The Appellant stated that he neither work in the computer section of the 1st Respondent nor was he serving in the headquarters when the circumstance occurred. The Appellant also stated that the 2nd Respondent abandoned the Federal Civil Service Rules which regulates the appointment of the Appellant when he presided over the management committee that directed the committee chairman to suspend the Appellant indefinitely without salaries or any allowances and also ordered him not to travel out of his station during the suspension.

The Appellant also stated that the Respondents referred the matter to the police for investigation and after a thorough investigation, the police found that he did not forge any document, no prima facie case was established against him and so he was shocked to receive a letter from the Respondents dismissing him from the service of the Respondents and in the letter, he was alleged to have appeared before the 1st Respondent’s Senior Staff Disciplinary Committee for handing over pivotal teacher training programmes (PTTP) certificates to outsiders who sold them. The Appellant further stated that he has never been confronted with the allegation of handing over PTTP certificate to any outsider, let alone appear before any committee for such allegation as the only allegation which was ever raised against him was that of STUP which he responded to and which the police investigated and exonerated him.

 

The trial Court ruled in favour of the Respondents. Dissatisfied with the said judgment of the lower Court, the Appellant filed the instant appeal.

HELD

Appeal dismissed

ISSUES

• Whether the Respondents have followed the due process of the law in dismissing the Appellant from service?
• Whether from the evidence led, the learned trial judge was right when it held that fair hearing was afforded to the Appellant by the Respondent in the process leading to the Appellant’s dismissal from service?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

OFFICIAL ACT – PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY WHEN AN OFFICIAL ACT IS DONE IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH THE PROCEDURE LAID DOWN

It is trite law that there is a presumption of regularity when an official act is done in a manner consistent with the procedure laid down. See the case of NDAKENE v. ADAMU (2023) 9 NWLR (PT. 1889) 389.  – Per M. B. Idris, JCA

HEARSAY RULE – EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE

…However, there are exceptions to the hearsay rule as enumerated in the case of ALADUM v. OGBU (2023) 9 NWLR (PT. 1888) AT PAGE 80 PARA B – H which include the following:

“Apart from Section 83 of the Evidence Act, 2011 there are other exceptions to hearsay rule under the Act and law of evidence, as follows:

(i.) dying declaration- Section 40 of the Evidence Act

(ii.) statement made in the course of business Section 41 of the Evidence Act

(iii.) declaration against interest – Section 42 of the Evidence Act

(iv.) declaration as to public right or custom -Section 43 of the Evidence Act;

(v.) declaration as to the existence of relationship – Section 44 of the Evidence Act;

(vi.) declaration by testators – Section 45 of the Evidence Act;

(vii.) Statements made in previous proceedings – Section 46 of the Evidence Act.

(viii.) evidence of corporate bodies, though legal personalities are not natural persons, therefore, they require a natural person to speak, act and function on their behalf.

(ix.) Evidence of medical expert about the condition of a patient whom he treats, who could not talk at the time he was brought for medical attention, is equally admissible.

(x.) Affidavit Evidence: Section 115 (3) of the Evidence Act. It is trite that a party in a suit can dispense with the requirement of calling a witness through the use of an affidavit. Section 115 of the Evidence Act provides:

When a person deposed to his belief in any matter of fact, and the belief is derived from any source other than his own personal knowledge, he shall set forth explicitly the facts and circumstances forming the ground of his belief. He should state the name of his informant, date and circumstance in which the information was made and also state that he believes the statement to be true.” (Emphasis Mine) – Per M. B. Idris, JCA

CASES CITED

NOT AVAILABLE

STATUTES REFERRED TO

• National Teacher’s Institute (Staff Regulations and Conditions of Service) Revised Edition, 2003

• Evidence Act

CLIAK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT