×
Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by whitelisting our website.

Court orders Civil Defence board to reinstate medical doctor

starconnect
starconnect
Justice symbol
Symbol of justices, judges are next to God in terms of justice and power over death

Admin I Friday, March 08, 2024

 

LAGOS, Nigeria – The National Industrial Court of Nigeria, NICN sitting in Lagos has ordered the Civil Defence, Correctional Fire and Immigration Services Board to reinstate Dr. Hameson Edwin who was wrongfully dismissed from service.

Justice Maureen Esowe has nullified the purported dismissal that the allegations of gross misconduct against Dr Edwin contained in the suspension letter are different from those contained in the query which means that Dr Edwin was investigated, disciplined and dismissed for a different offence or misconduct, an action that is against the Public Service Rules.

The Court then ordered the reinstatement of Edwin to office with payment of all his entitlements from the date of suspension 29th November 2019 till date.

According to the judge, facts, revealed that the Claimant- Dr Hemeson Edwin, a medical doctor employed by the Civil Defence, Correctional, Fire And Immigration Services Board on 18th December 2001, and was deployed to different correctional service centres had submitted that he was placed on suspension, and subsequently issued a query letter on alleged misconduct and was later dismissed from the service of the board.

Dr Edwin averred that the disciplinary procedure adopted by the Civil Defence, Correctional, Fire And Immigration Services Board and the Controller General, Nigeria Correctional Services prior to his dismissal as well as his dismissal did not follow the Public Services Rules, and urged the court to grant the reliefs sought.

In defence, the 1st Defendant- the Civil Defence, Correctional, Fire And Immigration Services Board filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection seeking a dismissal of the suit on grounds incompetence and lack of jurisdiction.

However, the 2nd Defendant- the Controller General, Nigeria Correctional Services had in its abandoned pleadings averred that Dr. Edwin was suspended to give room for investigation and to prevent him from tampering with information or documents that could affect or alter the investigation which the court noted that such averments was not supported by evidence and therefore goes to no issue.

Advertisement

Edwin’s Counsel, P. O. Otaboh-Oboh, had contended that the Civil Defence, Correctional, Fire And Immigration Services Board acted outside the scope of their authority and without the semblance of legal justification of fair hearing before his client’s dismissal which is an exception to the protection conferred by the Public Officers Protection Act, and urged the court to dismiss the objection in its entirety.

Justice Maureen Esowe held that a party fails or neglects to utilise the opportunity afforded it by the Court to put up its case, such party cannot later be heard to complain of denial of fair hearing.

The Court also struck out Dr. Edwin’s claims against the Controller General, Nigeria Correctional Services for being statute barred in accordance with the Nigerian Correctional Service Act which provides a three-month window for instituting a case against the Nigerian Correctional Service or any of its officials.

Justice Maureen affirmed that Dr Edwin’s case is not statute-barred against the Civil Defence, Correctional, Fire and Immigration Services Board, and that the action falls within exceptions to the application of the Public Officers Protection Act.

Justice Esowe held that Dr Edwin was suspended on an allegation distinct and different from the allegations leveled against him in the query letter issued by the Nigerian Correctional Service.

And held that the board has not established a serious prima facie case against Dr Edwin to warrant his immediate suspension, and the allegations levelled against him as contained in the suspension letter were unsubstantiated.

“It is declared that the Claimant was not accorded a right to fair hearing by the Defendant in this matter as he was suspended before he was heard and his suspension and dismissal by the Defendants was null and void.”

TAGGED:
Share this Article
Leave a comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Be the first to get the news as soon as it breaks Yes!! I'm in Not Yet
Verified by MonsterInsights