The Abuja division of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria on 4th March declared that the dismissal of Fabgemi Babatunde by the Nigerian Navy is illegal as the same was done in violation of the extant laws governing the contract between Fagbemi Babatunde and the Nigerian Navy.
Hon. Justice E. D. Subilim, the presiding judge also declared in his ruling that the failure of the Nigerian Navy to subject Babatunde Fagbemi to a trial and failure to allow him to defend himself amount to denial of his fundamental right to fair hearing.
Justice, Subilim granted an order reinstating the Claimant (Babatunde Fagbemi) back to his employment with the defendants the Nigerian Navy and the Nigerian Navy are hereby ordered and directed to pay him his salaries and wages, emoluments, perquisites and benefits accruable to him as employee of the Nigerian Navy with effect from August 2008 to the date of judgment.
Ruling further, Justice Subilim also ordered that the Nigerian Navy who are the Defendants are hereby ordered to pay to First Guarantee Pension Limited outstanding contributory pension to the credit of the claimant, Mr Fagbemi from August 2008 to date of this judgment.
It also awarded the sum of N 7, 000, 000.00 (seven million naira) as damages in favour of the Naval Rating Officer, Fagbemi Babatunde, as well as N1 million in his favour as the cost of the action.
From facts, the claimant- after his training at the Nigerian Navy Basic Training School, he joined the Nigerian Navy as AR 298. The Claimant was officially engaged as a Naval Rating Officer with Official No: X965. The claimant was sent on different trainings such as the promotional training at the School of Navigation and Direction (NNS QUORRA, APAPA), and was certified after the completion of the training. Claimant while in the employment of the Defendants served as a Rating Officer aboard several ships’ belongings to the Defendants. Sometime in July 2008, for reasonable offense, the Commanding Officer O.C Medani orally directed that the Claimant should be detained and was subsequently dismissed from the Nigerian Navy without any charge and trial. The claimant made several efforts to ensure the matter was investigated by his employers and wrote several letters to know the cause of dismissal which all proved abortive.
Meanwhile in their defence, the defendants, the Nigerian Navy, the Chief of Naval Staff stated that averred that the claimant was engaged as a ‘Rating’ with number BX9465 in the Nigeria Navy as the claimant can only serve on the ships as a ‘Rating’. Defendants averred that the claimant was not dismissed for a reasonable offence but for offence of disobedience to Order. They averred that the claimant was deployed with 4 other Ratings for security duty at KNOCK ADOON Platform belonging to ADDAX Petroleum Company Ltd on the 10th of July 2008 under the team leadership of W. O. Okekwu as the officer in charge. That on the 4th day of August 2008 claimant refused to sign and collect weapon from the officer in charge of patrol. The refusal to sign and collect weapons from officer in charge and proceed for the patrol as directed amount to disobedience to lawful orders. Sequel to the disobedience he was investigated by the investigation officer of the day in respect of that unit for the particular day the disobedience occurred. That after investigation, a prima facie case of willful disobedience to lawful orders was established against the claimant. And consequently, the case of the claimant was referred to the Commanding Officer otherwise known as the C.O for trial. The claimant was arraigned on a one count charge and tried under section 56(1), 62 of the Armed Forces Act. Claimant was found guilty as charged and awarded dismissed regiment pursuant to Section 116 (1) (c) of the Armed Forces Act. Defendants avers that claimant is a person subject to the Armed Forces Act and was duly charged and tried in line with the law.
The Naval Rating Officer Fagbemi Babatunde through his counsel Qousim A. Opakunle Esq averred that he was never deployed to platform Arusha while in service, and that contrary to paragraph 8 of the defendant statement of defence that he did not refuse to sign and collect weapon from the officer in charge and that assuming without conceding that the claimant committed the alleged offence of disobedience to a particular order, that the offence to a particular order can only be tried by a court martial going by S 56(1)(2) of Armed Forces ACT CAP 20 vol 1 LFN 2004. And that the officer who conducted the acclaimed summary trial was a captain in the Nigeria Navy and could not have lawfully tried the claimant under section 116 (c) of the Armed forces Act. And that the offence to disobedience to a particular order can attract a punishment but never a dismissal, that the claimant was detained, and later dismissed and that detention and dismissal are two separate punishments under the Armed Forces Act. And that he was detained then later called orally by the officer in charged that he was dismissed.
