The Nigerian Army (NA) has lost its bid to upturn a judgment compelling them to reinstate Colonel Danladi Ribah Hassan who was wrongly compulsorily retired in 2016.

According to PRNigeria, a three-member panel of the Court of Appeal in Abuja, in a judgment on Friday, dismissed the appeal by the Nigerian Army, former Chief of Army Staff, and others for lacking in merit.

The Nigerian Army had refused to obey an order of Industrial court for reinstatement of Colonel Hassan, a military Commander who led troops in recapturing Bulabulin and Damboa from Boko Haram in August 2014.

The National Industrial Court in Abuja had in January 2019 ordered the immediate reinstatement of Colonel Hassan, one of the 38 officers compulsorily retired in 2016 by the Nigerian Army for no obvious reasons.

The trial judge, Justice Sanusi Kado, had held that with the failure of the Nigerian Army to convince the court of the disciplinary ground for compulsorily retiring the claimant, the said letter of compulsory retirement was null and void and of no effect.

A series of reminders and correspondence for the reinstatement of the officer were rebuffed by the Army authority who appealed the judgement.

Meanwhile, the appellate court, in a unanimous judgment today (Friday December 31, 2021), read by Justice Stephen Adah, resolved the two issues, raised for determination, against the appellants and upheld the judgment of the National Industrial Court (NIC), delivered in favour of Col. Hassan on January 8, 2019.

The judgment was on the appeal marked: CA/A/299/2019, filed by the army, the Nigerian Army Council, the COAS, the Armed Forces Council; the Chief of Defence Staff, the Minister of Defence, Brig. Gen. Mansur Dan-Ali (rtd); Lt. Gen. Tukru Buratai (ex-COAS) and Maj Gen Mohammed Hong Garba.

Listed as respondents were; Hassan and the Attorney General of the Federation.

The Appeal Court, in dismissing the appeal by the Nigerian Army and others on Friday, held that, as against the claim by the appellants, Hassan complied with the condition precedent, as required under Section 178 of the Armed Forces Act, before approaching the court.

It further held that the appellant's claim that the decision of the lower court was a perversity could not be sustained, because it was based on the evidence presented before it by parties.