Hon. Justice Emmanuel Subilim of the Abuja Judicial Division of the National Industrial Court has declared that the employment of one Mr. Gowon via an “Offer of Temporary Appointment” dated 14th July 2014 as Senior Executive Officer (Accounts) which was confirmed via another letter entitled Letter of Appointment into the Federal Civil Service of Nigeria, dated 20th May 2017, with was proper, genuine and not fake.
The Court declared the stripping of Mr. Gowon of all his official items and eventual removal from office upon the directive of the Chairman of the Federal Civil Service of Commission as wrong, illegal and unjustified.
Justice Subilim ordered the Federal Civil Service Commission and Its Chairman to immediately reinstate Mr Gowon into his office as a legitimate civil servant of Nigeria, with payment of all arrears of his salaries, emoluments, promotion, allowances, pension contributions, tax among others correctly calculated and all other benefits as a bona fide civil servant of Nigeria from the date his salary was stopped by Federal Civil Service Commission before his removal from office on 24th May 2022 until the satisfaction of this judgment.
From facts, the Claimant- Mr Gowon had averred that his temporary appointment was converted to a “Permanent and Pensionable” appointment on 20th May 2017 and that sometime in 2022, while at his duty, he received a letter titled; Re: Service-Wide Verification Exercise for All Officers Recruited by The Federal Civil Service Commission From 2013 To 2020: Removal from Office”.
Mr. Gowon said on receiving the said letter, he approached Human Resource Management who informed him that the instruction to remove him from office was pursuant to the directive from the office of the Chairman Federal Civil Service Commission which found Mr. Gowon’s appointment to be fake.
Counsel to Mr Gowon submitted that the purported findings that the appointment letter of his client was fake were grossly illegal and in absolute violation of the Claimant’s rights to fair hearing.
In defence, the 3rd defendant- Attorney General of the Federation averred that the office of the AGF is not a necessary party nor a proper party to this suit because the office neither took part nor was he privy to the contract of employment of Mr. Gowon and the subsequent removal of same from office and urged the Court to strike out it name from the suit.
However, the Federal Civil Service Commission and Its Chairman not only failed to enter an appearance and file their defence to Mr Gowon’s claim, they decided to willfully disregard several hearing notices served on them.
Furthermore, Mr Gowon’s counsel maintained that the unilateral removal of Mr Gowon from office by the Chairman of the Federal Civil Service Commission was unlawful and unjustified without allowing his client to be heard.
Delivering Judgment after careful evaluation of the submission of both parties, the presiding Judge, Justice Danjuma held that though the Attorney General is not a necessary party but is a proper party to proceed against in an action against the Federal Government and all or any of its agencies even when there is no direct cause of action against the Federal Government.
Justice Sublim stated that the documents tendered by Mr Gowon have proved and sufficiently shown that not only was Mr Gowon employed by the Federal Civil Service Commission, but Mr Gowon had a working and existing relationship with the 1st Defendant as he is shown to have assumed duty, and enjoyed certain privileges that come with his appointment.
The Court affirmed that Mr. Gowon’s employment is one that enjoys the covering of statute and the only way to terminate a contract of service with statutory flavour is to adhere strictly to the procedure laid down in the statute.
Justice Sublim declared Mr. Gowon’s removal from his appointment without any valid reason in line with the condition of service regulating Mr. Gowon’s employment as unlawful, illegal and wrongful removal.
The Court held that it is an abnormality for the Federal Civil Service Commission to wake up one day and decide that Mr Gowon does not have any substantive employment relationship with it simply because his appointment letter was found to be fake, of which the 1st Defendant blatantly refused to prove the said fakeness of the appointment letter.