Download PDF
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><b><u><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Representation:<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Ngozi Olehi, with him, Nnamdi Nwachukwu and Nnaemeka Obikara for the Claimant<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">G. Okosun for the 1<sup>st</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendants<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-indent:.5in"><b><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:2.0in;text-indent:.5in"><b><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">RULING/JUDGMENT</span></u></b><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif""><o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">This action was commenced by way of complaint filed on the 21<sup>st</sup> day of September 2015 wherein the Claimant claimed against the defendants as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l3 level1 lfo6"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language:HE">1.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">A Declaration of the Honourable Court that the premature retirement of the Claimant by the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant on grounds of criminal act of stealing without trial in a court of competent jurisdiction is a violation of the Claimant’s fundamental right to fair hearing duly guaranteed by sections 36 of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria (as amended) and accordingly is illegal, null, void and of no effect.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l3 level1 lfo6"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language:HE">2.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">A Declaration of the Honourable Court that the employment of the Claimant in 1990 into the services of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant is subsisting and valid till his proper retirement in 2025 subject only to any valid and lawful process of disengagement from the Public Service of the Federation in accordance with due process.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l3 level1 lfo6"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language:HE">3.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">A Declaration of the Honourable Court that the employment of the Claimant into the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant, being one with statutory flavor, cannot be tampered with by the Defendants in any manner whatsoever other than as authorized by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) and any law or subsidiary legislation for the employment, promotion, discipline, and retirement of any public servant of the Federation.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l3 level1 lfo6"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language:HE">4.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">A Declaration of the Honourable Court that the Claimant is entitled to all rights, privileges and promotions that were ordinarily due to him from the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant as an officer of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant during Claimant’s period of unconstitutional and premature retirement.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l3 level1 lfo6"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language:HE">5.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">A Declaration of the Honourable Court that the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant lacks the right, whether unilateral or unlimited, to use any irregular and/or unknown disciplinary mechanism against the Claimant for offences that were not committed by the Claimant and in respect of which no complaint was laid anywhere by any imaginary owner or victim.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l3 level1 lfo6"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language:HE">6.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">An Order mandating the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant to reinstate Claimant forthwith to the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant with the full rights and privileges appertaining thereto. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l3 level1 lfo6"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language:HE">7.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">An Order restraining the Defendants from subjecting the Claimant any form of disability or punishment by way of demotion or delay in advancement or promotion or any punitive measure whatsoever by virtue of this action.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Along with the Complaint, the Claimant filed an application anchored on Orders </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-weight: bold">11(</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">1) and</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif""> 10(1) of the National Industrial Court Rules, 2007 and Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria (as amended), seeking an order of the Honourable Court granting summary judgment in favour of the Claimant. </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The grounds upon which the Claimant/Applicant is seeking the prayers are as follows: </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l5 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">1.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The Claimant/Applicant is a duly employed staff of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant whose employment has not only been confirmed but has been promoted to the Officer status that it is only the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant/Respondent that can discipline him. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l5 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">2.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The employment of the Claimant in the services of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant has a statutory flavor and accordingly, the discipline</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE"> and disengagement from service of the Claimant must be in compliance with the relevant statutory provisions and not subject to the discretion of any of the Defendants.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l5 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">3.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">The Claimant was "accused of stealing" what the owner - the Customs Department never said was tampered with or stolen by the Claimant or anyone else and in respect of which no complaint was made by the said Customs Department or by anybody else. </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l5 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">4.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">In proceeding most irregularly against the Claimant who is an Officer and should not be subjected to orderly room trial by the statutory regulations of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant, the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant refused and or neglected to let in the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant to handle the matter in accordance with due process. </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l5 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">5.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">The Claimant was not arrested by the police whose statutory duty it is to investigate crimes and prosecute offenders, and so nothing was investigated by the Police, and indeed the Claimant was not prosecuted in a court of competent jurisdiction and therefore was not convicted of any offence whatsoever. </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l5 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">6.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:90%;mso-bidi-language:HE">The unlawf</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE">ul and premature retirement of the Claimant from the services or the 3<sup>rd </sup>Defendant constitutes vicious infractions from his fundamental right to fair hearing duly guaranteed by section 36 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and is therefore unconstitutional, null, void, and of no effect. </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l5 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">7.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">The absence or due process as afore mentioned is evident on the face of the processes before the court and the Defendants have no defence whatsoever to the claim. </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">In support of the application is an affidavit of 22 paragraphs deposed to by the Claimant. In the accompanying written address, Counsel </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">distilled a sole issue for determination, thus: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">Having not subjected the Claimant/Applicant to trial in a court of competent jurisdiction for the alleged offences of conspiracy and stealing, whether this is not a proper case in which the Claimant/Applicant is entitled to believe that the </span></i></b><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE">Defendants/Respondents have no defence to this action.</span></i></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-weight: bold"> <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-weight: bold"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-weight: bold">Counsel argued </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">that section 36(1) and (4) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) makes it imperative for any person reasonably suspected of having committed an offence to be tried by a court of competent jurisdiction before any public institution, like the Defendants/Respondent, can act. In the instant case, the Claimant's/Applicant's employment with the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant/Respondent was prematurely brought to an end after his purported trial of the alleged criminal offences of conspiracy and stealing. See Exhibit F. The grounds upon which the said retirement of the Claimant/Applicant is predicated are the criminal offences of conspiracy, stealing and so on and he was not found guilty of these by a competent court of law. He went on that the respondents have no powers to, on their own, to set up a court to try the Claimant/Applicant of the alleged offences.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">It is Counsel’s submission, the Defendants/Respondents were duly created by statutes; and employment of any staff like the Claimant/Applicant, is governed by the Statutes and regulations made thereunder. The employment of the Claimant has statutory flavor. Thus, in the matter of discipline of such an employee, the procedure laid down by such statute must be fully complied with. If not, any decision affecting the right or reputation or tenure of office of that employee will be declared null and void. See <b>OLORUNTOBA-OJU & ORS vs. ABDUL- RAHEEM & ORS </b><b>[2009] All FWLR (Pt. 497) 1</b>. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">According to Counsel, there is a presumption that when the legislature confers a power on an authority to make a determination, it intends that the power shall be exercised judicially in accordance with rules of natural justice. See the cases of:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l4 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-language: HE">1.<span style="font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span></b><!--[endif]--><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">ADENIYI vs. GOVERNING COUNCIL OF YABA COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY </span></b><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE">[1993] 6 NWLR (Pt. 300) 426; <o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l4 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-language: HE">2.<span style="font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span></b><!--[endif]--><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">OLANIYAN vs. UNIVERSITY OF LAGOS </span></b><b><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">[1985] 2 NWLR (Pt. 9) 599; <o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l4 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-language: HE">3.<span style="font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span></b><!--[endif]--><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">EPEROKUN vs. UNIVERSITY OF LAGOS </span></b><b><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">[1986] 4 NWLR (Pt. 34) 162<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l4 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-language: HE">4.<span style="font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span></b><!--[endif]--><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">BANKOLE </span></b><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">vs. NBC [1968] 2 All NLR 372 <o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l4 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-language: HE">5.<span style="font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span></b><!--[endif]--><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">SHITTA-BEY vs. FEDERAL PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION </span></b><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE">[1981] 1 SC 40;<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l4 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-language: HE">6.<span style="font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span></b><!--[endif]--><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">OLATUNBOSUN vs. NISER COUNCIL </span></b><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">[1988] 3 NWLR (Pt. 80) 25; <o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l4 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-language: HE">7.<span style="font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span></b><!--[endif]--><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">EIYETAN vs. NIFOR </span></b><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">[1987] 3 NWLR (Pt. 59) 48; <a name="_GoBack"></a><o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l4 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";mso-bidi-language:HE">8.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE">GARBA vs. UNIVERSITY OF MAIDUGURI </span></b><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">[1986] 1 NWLR (Pt. 18) 550</span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE">. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">It is the contention of Counsel that the Defendants/Respondents have no defence whatsoever to the claim of the Claimant/Applicant against his premature retirement without due process of first determining his guilt in respect of the criminal offences in a competent court. In conclusion, Counsel submitted that having proceeded against the Claimant/Applicant in clear breach of the fundamental right to fair hearing duly guaranteed by the 1999 Constitution (as amended), the Defendants have no defence to the claim. Counsel urged the Court to hold that the Defendants/Respondents have no defence to the Claim. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">In opposition, the 1<sup>st</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendants/Respondents, on the 12<sup>th</sup> day of February 2016, vide a motion for extension of time, filed a 13 paragraph Counter-affidavit deposed to by Shola Oyedele. In the written address filed alongside, Counsel proceeded to make submissions on the Claimant's grounds for the motion of summary judgment as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:115%;mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:115%;mso-bidi-language: HE">Counsel submitted that </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:113%;mso-bidi-language:HE">Exhibit A (claimant’s promotion letter) was forged. It does not have the distinctive logo that proves that the letter emanated from the Board, also the font on the Claimant's Exhibit A is different from the font used on all promotion letters.Counsel </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE">urged the Court to discountenance the claimant's promotion letter because it is a forged letter, thus the claimant/applicant's promotion letter inadmissible in this case.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:114%;mso-bidi-language: HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:114%;mso-bidi-language: HE">It is Counsel’s contention that the Claimant’s employment did not have statutory flavour and this is deduced from the claimant's appointment letter. Where a contract of employment is governed by a written contract and there is any dispute or claim with regard to termination or dismissal from employment, the higher courts have always held that the parties are bound to the terms of their contract; the courts must be wary of looking outside their terms because the terms govern the relationship between the employer and the employee. See <b>LAYADE vs. PANALPINA WORLD TRANSPORT LTD (1996) 6 NWLR (Pt.456) 544</b>. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:114%;mso-bidi-language: HE">Again, Counsel argued that as at the date the Claimant committed the gross misconduct he was a junior staff whose mode of discipline is as provided for in Section 612-638 of the Nigerian Prisons Service </span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:115%;mso-bidi-language: HE">Standing Orders (2011) and this procedure as provided was adhered to in the discipline of the Claimant. More so, the Claimant’s promotion letter was withheld pending the determination of the adjudication panel. Thus, the Claimant/Applicant is in error of stating that he was a senior officer and ought to have been heard by the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant. </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:114%;mso-bidi-language: HE"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:115%;mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:115%;mso-bidi-language: HE">Counsel further argued that in statutory employment as in private employment, the employer can dismiss in all cases of gross misconduct. It is unnecessary for the respondent to initiate criminal prosecution before taking disciplinary measures against him by summarily dismissing him where the appellant's misconduct undermined the relationship of confidence, which should exist between the appellant and his employer. Thus, the actions that led to the retirement of the Claimant/Applicant were valid. Relying on </span><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:116%;mso-bidi-language:HE">EIGBE vs. NIGERIAN UNION OF TEACHERS (2008) 5 NWLR (Pt.1081) 604</span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 116%;mso-bidi-language:HE">. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:116%;mso-bidi-language: HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:116%;mso-bidi-language: HE">Counsel contended that the Claimant’s</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:115%;mso-bidi-language: HE"> fundamental right to fair hearing was not infringed upon, because he was called upon to redeem himself and given an </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:116%;mso-bidi-language: HE">opportunity to defend himself. In conclusion, Counsel urged the Court to dismiss this suit as the claimant/applicant’s appointment was not covered by statute and as such the prelude to his retirement from Service was in accordance with the terms of his appointment letter. </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 115%;mso-bidi-language:HE"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:116%;mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:116%;mso-bidi-language: HE">In reaction, the Claimant on the 7<sup>th</sup> day of March 2016, filed a 14 paragraph reply to the Defendant’s Counter-affidavit deposed to by the Claimant. In the accompanying written address, Counsel, referring to </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE">paragraph 3 of the 1<sup>st</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendants' counter affidavit, submitted that the Defendant did not deny/contest the Claimant's application for summary Judgment. Thus, the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs in the application for Summary Judgment which he has applied for. Counsel referred the Court to the case of <b>AGBOOLA vs. STATE </b><b>[2013] All FWLR (Pt. 704) 139 at 145</b> where the Supreme Court held that facts admitted need no further proof. This trite principle of evidence has been applied in a number of cases as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3"><!--[if !supportLists]--><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-language: HE">1.<span style="font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span></b><!--[endif]--><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">EZEMBE vs. IBENEME </span></b><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">(2004) All FWLR (Pt. 223) 1786<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3"><!--[if !supportLists]--><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-language: HE">2.<span style="font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span></b><!--[endif]--><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">NSOFOR vs. STATE </span></b><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">(2005) All FWLR (Pt. 242) 387 <o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3"><!--[if !supportLists]--><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-language: HE">3.<span style="font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span></b><!--[endif]--><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">SEISMOGRAPH SERVICES (NIG.) LTD vs. EYANFE </span></b><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE">(1976) 9 - 10 SC. 135 <o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";mso-bidi-language:HE">4.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE">MOSHESHE GENERAL MERCHANTS LTD vs. NIGERIA STEEL PRODUCTS LTD </span></b><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">(1987) SC 152</span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE"> <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-weight: bold">In conclusion, counsel </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">urged the court to grant the application for summary judgment and discountenance the preliminary objection as raised by the Defendants to the application for summary judgment.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">By a Notice of Preliminary Objection brought pursuant to Sections 11(1) and 15 of the National Industrial Act 2006, Counsel for the defendant sought for an Order of this Honorable Court dismissing this suit as it is statute barred. The ground upon which the application was brought is that the case lacks merit as this court has no jurisdiction to entertain same. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language: HE">In Counsel’s written address</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:114%;mso-bidi-language: HE">, a sole issue was distilled for determination thus: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in"><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 114%;mso-bidi-language:HE">Whether this suit is valid being that the subject matter is statute barred </span></i></b><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE"><o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:114%;mso-bidi-language: HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:114%;mso-bidi-language: HE">Counsel referred to Section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act Cap P41 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004 and submitted that the Claimant has no cause of action that would enable this case succeed. This is owing to the fact that this suit was instituted three years after the Claimant was retired </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 117%;mso-bidi-language:HE">on the 25<sup>th</sup> of September 2015</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 114%;mso-bidi-language:HE">; he was retired on the 21<sup>st </sup>of March 2012. Therefore, this suit is caught up by the Public Officer's Protection Act and as such, this Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain same. See <b>EZEANI vs. NIGERIAN RAILWAY CORPORATION (2013) LPELR-22065(A)</b>. In other words, when a statute of limitation prescribes a period within which </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:117%;mso-bidi-language: HE">an action must be initiated, legal proceedings cannot be properly and validly instituted after the expiration of the prescribed period.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:117%;mso-bidi-language: HE">He submitted further that the Claimant suit is held up by the doctrine of laches and can proceed no further as the Claimant slept on his right by not approaching the court promptly. Finally, Counsel urged the Court to </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 107%;mso-bidi-language:HE">dismiss the suit as the court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain same. </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:117%;mso-bidi-language:HE"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:107%;mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:107%;mso-bidi-language: HE">The Claimant reacted by filing a </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">reply to the Defendants' preliminary objection in which he formulated the following issue for determination:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in"><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE">Whether the suit is statute-barred as is being contended by the Defendants/Applicants</span></i></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">Counsel argued that the Public Officers Protection Act does not apply in the present case. The reason for this argument as supplied by Counsel is that the principal relief in this suit, that is, Relief 1 borders on the application of Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) which is in Chapter 4 of the said Constitution. Chapter 4 is entitled to special protection by the way any amendment of same can be carried out, enjoys a prima facie presumptive inviolability in terms of observance and enforcement, bows only to compelling societal interests in terms of permitted derogations, in limited circumstances for limited times and purposes, and by limited means. Counsel referred to Section 45(1) of the said Constitution which provides thus: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><i><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE"> Nothing in sections </span></i><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:109%;mso-bidi-language:HE">37, 38, 39, 40 </span></i><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">and </span></i><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 109%;mso-bidi-language:HE">41 </span></i><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">of this Constitution shall invalidate any law that is reasonably justifiable in a democratic society <o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><i><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE"> (a) in the interest of defence, public safety, public order, public morality or public health,· or <o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><i><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE"> (b) for the purpose of protecting the rights and freedom of other persons. <o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">It is Counsel’s contention that Section 36 of the Constitution cannot be caught up by the requirements of the Public Officers Protection Act. It would have been expressly stipulated in the Constitution if Public Officers are intended to be protected when any citizen is enforcing the rights created by Chapter 4 of the said Constitution. Counsel argued that the Public Officers Protection Act cannot validly limit the application of the Constitution because the extant suit is for the enforcement of the fundamental rights of the Claimant<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">The violation of the Claimant's fundamental right is continuing and he has the right to seek redress, and since it concerns employment, the National Industrial Court of Nigeria is the court constitutionally vested with jurisdiction to entertain the suit. In creating the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, Section 254C (1) of the Constitution (as amended) says that court shall have and exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other court in civil causes or matters- <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><i><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE"> Relating to or connected with any dispute over the interpretation and application of the provisions of Chapter IV of this Constitution as it relates to any employment, labour, industrial relations, trade unionism, employer's association or any other matter which the Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine. </span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">From the foregoing, Counsel argued that the Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the Claimant's suit seeking to enforce his fundamental right flagrantly breached by the Defendants in purporting to find him "guilty" of a criminal offence without trial by a court of competent jurisdiction. The consequence of this breach is continuing and accordingly, there must be a remedy as duly provided for in the Constitution. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">Counsel referred to the cases of:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:38.9pt;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list: l2 level1 lfo4"><!--[if !supportLists]--><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";mso-bidi-language:HE">1.<span style="font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span></b><!--[endif]--><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE">AREMO II vs. ADEKANYE</span></b><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE">[2004] All FWLR (Pt. 224) 2113 at 2132<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:38.9pt;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list: l2 level1 lfo4"><!--[if !supportLists]--><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";mso-bidi-language:HE">2.<span style="font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span></b><!--[endif]--><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE">ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF RIVERS STATE vs. ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF BAYELSA STATE </span></b><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">[2013] All FWLR (Pt. 699) 1087 at 1105-1106<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">Counsel urged the Court to dismiss the preliminary objection as same is not only misconceived but brought in bad faith to further aggravate the suffering of the Claimant. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:112%;mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:112%;mso-bidi-language:HE">In opposition, the Defendant’s Counsel filed a Reply on points of law in which he argued <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:112%;mso-bidi-language:HE">that Attorney General of Rivers State’s case relied on by the Claimant/Respondent counsel does not relate to the issue before this court. </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">He submitted further that the Claimant was found guilty and was compulsorily retired from Service on the 21<sup>st </sup>of March 2012. He did not appeal his retirement as stipulated in Section 633 of the Standing Order which provides; <i>“Where the affected staff is not satisfied with the outcome of the trial, he shall have the right of appeal within </i><b><i>14 </i></b><i>days of notification of verdict”.</i> <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:114%;mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:114%;mso-bidi-language: HE">Section </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">634 of the Standing Order further states: <i>“The penalty awarded shall be suspended until the appeal is determined.”</i> This is in tandem with section 090201 (ii) of the Public Service Rules 2.009 which provides: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 114%;mso-bidi-language:HE">“Without prejudice to their constitutional rights, officers should as much as possible exhaust all avenues provided in the Public Service Rules before proceeding to court.” <o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:115%;mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:115%;mso-bidi-language:HE">Counsel submitted that from available records and the documents filed by the Claimant, there was no appeal filed which is a condition requisite before he could approach this Court. The Claimant clearly flouted the procedure of Appeal to the committee which if he had appealed and got no response then the plea of Section 36 of the </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE">1999 constitution would have availed him. Counsel urged the Court to dismiss this suit for lack of merit and for being statute barred. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:2.0in;text-indent:.5in"><b><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">Court’s Decision<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">After carefully looking at the two applications involved in this ruling, I think the preliminary objection to the competence of this suit ought to be determined first before the Claimant’s application for summary judgment can be considered.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;tab-stops:269.35pt"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:red"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The 1<sup>st</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendants have sought an order dismissing the Claimant’s suit for being statute barred. It was contended in the written address of the Defendants’ counsel that the Claimant was retired on the 21<sup>st</sup> of March 2012 and he instituted this suit on the 21<sup>st</sup> of September 2015. The suit is statute barred by Section 2 (a) of the Public Officer's Protection Act and this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain it. In the Claimant’s reply, the fact that his suit was filed more than 3 months after the cause of action arose was not denied. The argument of the Claimant’s counsel, however, is that the Claimant’s suit is not barred by the Public Officer's Protection Act because the Claimant’s suit is based on Section 36 (1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended).<b><o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">Section 2 (a) of POPA </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">provides:</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt 1in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -0.5in;"><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">“2. Where any action, prosecution or other proceeding is commenced against any person for any act done in pursuance or execution or intended execution of any Act or Law or of any public duty or authority, or in respect of any alleged neglect or default in the execution of any such Act, Law, duty or authority, the following provision shall have effect:<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt 1.75in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">(a)<span style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span></i></b><!--[endif]--><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">The action, prosecution or proceeding shall not lie or be instituted unless it is commenced within three months next after the act, neglect or default complained of, or in case of a continuance of damage or injury, within three months next after the ceasing thereof.”<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">The effect of the above provision is that an action against a public officer in respect of any act done in pursuance or execution of any Act or law or of public duty or any default in respect of same can only be commenced within 3 months of the accrual of the cause of action except in the case of continuance of the damage or injury in which the claimant must institute the action within 3 months after the cessation of the damage or injury. Where the suit is not commenced within the prescribed period, the claimant’s right of action in respect of that cause will be statute barred and the court will no longer have jurisdiction to entertain the suit. See <b>IBRAHIM vs. J.S.C, KADUNA STATE (1998) 12 SC 20; EGBE vs. ALHAJI (1990) 3 S.C (Pt.1) 63. <o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><b><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;tab-stops:269.35pt"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">The cause of the Claimant’s action as disclosed on the statement of facts and the reliefs sought by him was his premature retirement from service by the Defendants. This is clear in the averments in paragraphs 24 to 28 of the statement of facts. It is pleaded in paragraph 24 of the statement of facts that in March 2012, he received the letter dated 21<sup>st</sup> March 2012 retiring him from service. The reliefs sought by the Claimant, particularly relief (1), are challenging his alleged premature retirement. From the Claimant’s pleadings, his cause of action in this suit arose on 21<sup>st</sup> March 2012 when he was retired from service. He filed this suit on 21<sup>st</sup> September 2015. Between the time his cause of action arose and the time he filed this suit was period of 42 months. Now, by the description of the Defendants in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Claimant’s statement of facts and by the nature of the Defendants’ statutory and public offices, there is no doubt that that the Defendants are public officers. If the Claimant is to maintain this suit against the Defendant, he ought to have filed the suit within 3 months after the cause of action arose. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;tab-stops:269.35pt"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;tab-stops:269.35pt"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">But the Claimant’s counsel has argued that </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">the Public Officer's Protection Act does not affect the Claimant’s suit because the Claimant’s suit borders on fundamental right enforcement. In his submissions, the Claimant’s counsel made reference to the Claimant’s first relief where the Claimant sought a declaration that his </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">premature retirement on the Grounds of criminal act of stealing without trial in a court of competent jurisdiction is a violation of his fundamental right to fair hearing guaranteed by Section 36 of the </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:109%;mso-bidi-language: HE">1999 </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">Constitution</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">. The argument of the learned counsel, though brilliant, is a mere academic exercise and it is of no effect to the situation the Claimant’s suit now finds itself. Let me remind the Claimant’s counsel that this suit is not a fundamental right enforcement suit. That the Claimant has alleged lack of fair hearing before he was retired does not transform the case into a fundamental right case. This suit was commenced by way of complaint in respect of the Claimant’s retirement from service. The Claimant’s case is purely a matter challenging his premature retirement from service and,</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:red"> </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">without further ado, the Claimant’s suit comes under the provision of Section 2 (a) of </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">the Public Officer's Protection Act. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;tab-stops:269.35pt"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;tab-stops:269.35pt"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">Let me add that even where the Claimant has alleged that his constitutional right to fair hearing has been breached, the law requires him to approach the court timeously. It has been settled law that enforcement of constitutional rights does not exclude statutory provisions. In <b>CROSS RIVER UNIVERITY OF TECHNOLOGY vs. OBETEN (2012) ALL FWLR (Pt. 641) 1567 at 1583-1584,</b> the position on the law was stated as follows-<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt 1in; text-align: justify;"><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">“It is thus settled that the constitutionally provided right of access to court does not exclude statutory provisions which regulate the exercises of the conferred rights. The law which does not border on technicality is basic on the point that, when an action is instituted and there is non-compliance with a condition precedent or prescribed precondition for activating or setting the required legal process in motion, any suit which has been instituted in contravention of mandatory provisions is incompetent and the court is equally derobed of competence to entertain it”<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt 1in; text-align: justify;"><b><i><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"> </span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">From the foregoing, it is clear that the Claimant’s cause of action arose on 21<sup>st</sup> March 2012 and he filed this suit on 21<sup>st</sup> September 2015. By the effect of Section 2 (a) of </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">the Public Officer's Protection Act, the Claimants’ suit is clearly statute barred having been filed more than a period of 3 months from the time the cause of action arose. It is trite law that suits instituted outside the time stipulated by the statute of limitation is statute barred and cannot be entertained by the courts. Where the law provides for the bringing of an action within a prescribed period of time, proceedings shall not be brought after the time prescribed by the statute. An action brought outside the prescribed period is contrary to the provision of the law and does not give rise to a cause of action. See <b>ELEBANJO vs. DAWODU (2006) All FWLR (Pt. 328) 604;</b> <b>INEC vs. OKORONKWO (2009) All FWLR (Pt. 488) 227 at 247. </b>Consequently, this suit is not competent and this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain same. The suit is hereby dismissed.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">No order as to cost.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">Ruling is entered accordingly.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">Judge<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p>