FREEDOM SOWUBO VS THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PRISONS

1. This is an action commenced by Applicant on 07/03/2019 for the enforcement of his Fundamental Human Rights , under ORDER 67 of the High Court Civil Procedure Rules, 2004, C. I. 47/04 and ARTICLE 33 of the 1992 Constitution.

The Reliefs sought are: (i) A declaration that any purported service enquiry made in relation to the Applicant, be declared null and void.

ii) An order directed at the 1st Respondent to re-instate the Applicant to his position before the reduction in rank and award all his promotions due him effective August, 2016 and reduction in rank on 1st January, 2017.

iii) Payment of all salary arrears due Applicant from August, 2016 when he was denied with the rank of corporal.

iv) General Damages for unlawful detention in Kpando Prison yard.

2. FACTS The Applicant is a prison officer at the Main Prison, Barracks, Todzi –Kpando, with the rank of Lance corporal with service Number 8936. Applicant has been charged with eight counts of misconduct contrary to Section 16(b) and (k) of the Prison Service decree, NDRCD 46/1972. It has been alleged by him, that he has been tried and found culpable; by an investigation committee, convened by the comptroller – General of Prisons on 16/04//2014. The Respondents made no admission of material parts of the allegations made.

3. THE TRIABLE ISSUES The under listed are issues set down as required by ORDER67 Rule 5 of C. I. 47/04.

i) Whether or not the Applicant was given the opportunity to call his witnesses during the service Enquiry.

ii) Whether or not the officer-in-in charge of the Kpando Prisons in the person of Nelson Duut (then Assistant Director of Prions) was called upon to testify before the panel of the service enquiry for the Applicant to cross-examine him.

iii) Whether or not 1st Respondent through the officer-in-charge of the Kpando Prisons unlawfully detained the Applicant on several times.

iv) Whether or not the Applicant was lawfully reduced in rank in accordance with the Prison Service Act and other Regulations.

v) Whether or not Applicant is entitled to his Reliefs 4.

a) EVIDENCE AND EVALUATION OF IT Applicant is obligated to prove all the issues, and in respect of ISSUE ‘2’, he is to establish that Assistant Director of Prisons – Nelson Duut, was not called to testify at the service enquiry.

Respondent will have to establish the converse of these issues, especially ISSUE ‘2’. Sections 10(1), 11(1) and (4), 12 and 14 of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323) on the onus of produci