Download PDF
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><b><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">REPRESENTATION <o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">MIKE OZEKHOME SAN</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> with <b>P. E. C. EKWEME Esq, GODWIN IYINBOR Esq, STEPHEN OGBADU Esq, JUSTINE OMOGBEME Esq. HARRISON OBI Esq, S. A. UMENO MISS, T. A. LAFENA</b> for the Claimant<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">M. D. OWOLABI with A. A. ENO</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> for the 1<sup>st</sup> and 4<sup>th</sup> defendants <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">M. D. OWOLABI Esq,</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> holding the brief of <b>P. A. IMAFIDOR Esq</b>, for the 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> defendants<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman",serif"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><b><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%; font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">R U L I N G<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">The Claimant commenced this action vide Originating Summons filed on 15<sup>th</sup> July, 2016 against the defendants with the determination of the following questions:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-18.0pt; mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">1.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Whether having regard to the provisions of the Harmonized Terms and Conditions of Service for Officers of the Armed Forces (HTACOS) 2012 Revised, particularly paragraph 09.02c(4) thereof, viz-a-viz the provisions of the Armed Forces Act Cap. A20, particularly Part XII, dealing with offences thereof, the Applicant can be legally compulsorily retired by the Respondent vide letter dated 9<sup>th</sup> June, 2016, titled “COMPULSORY RETIREMENT NA OFICER MAJOR GENERAL IJIOMA NWOKORO IJIOMA (N/8304)â€, (the Applicant herein).<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-18.0pt; mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">2.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Whether having regard to the provisions of the Armed Forces Act, Cap. A20, particularly Part XII, dealing with offences thereof, the Applicant can be said to have committed any offence or breached any of its provisions thereof, to warrant his compulsory retirement from the services of the Nigerian Army, by the Respondents vide letter dated 9<sup>th</sup> June, 2016, titled, “COMPULSORY RETIREMENT NA OFICER MAJOR GENERAL IJIOMA NWOKORO IJIOMA (N/8304)â€, pursuant to the provisions of Paragraph 09.02c (4) of the Harmonized Terms and Conditions of Service for Officers of the Armed Forces (HTACOS) 2012 Revised.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-18.0pt; mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">3.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Whether having regard to the provisions of the Armed Forces Act, Cap. A20, particularly Part XII, dealing with offences and the provisions of the Harmonized Terms and Conditions of Service for Officers of the Armed Forces (HTACOS) 2012 Revised, particularly paragraph 09.02c (4) thereof, dealing with retirement, and other extant statutory provisions regulating the Applicant’s appointment, the purported compulsory retirement of the Applicant vide letter dated 9<sup>th</sup> June, 2016, followed due process, and same can be said to be justified in the circumstances.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-18.0pt; mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">4.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Whether having regard to the extant provisions of the Armed Forces Act, Cap. A20, particularly Part XII thereof, dealing with punishment, and Part XIV thereof, dealing with trial procedure for officers in the Cadre of the Applicant and other extant statutory provisions regulating the Applicant’s in purportedly retiring the Applicant compulsorily vide letter dated 9<sup>th</sup> June 2016, pursuant to the provision of paragraph 09.02c (4) of the Harmonized Terms and Conditions of Service for Officers of the Armed Forces (HTACOS) 2012 Revised.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-18.0pt; mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">5.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Whether having regard to the provisions of the Armed Forces Act, Cap. A20, the Harmonized Terms and Conditions of Service for Officers of the Armed Forces (HTACOS) 2012 Revised, and other extant statutory provisions regulating the service of the Applicant, and the circumstances of this case taken into consideration, the Applicant was ever given any notice, query, arrested, arraigned, charged, and or went through any form of trial before a Court Martial or a regular court, and punished for any offence to have warranted in his being compulsorily retired by the Army Council vide letter dated 9<sup>th</sup> June, 2016, pursuant to the provisions of Paragraph 09.02c (4) of the Harmonized Terms and Conditions of Service for Officers of the Armed Forces (HTACOS) 2012 Revised.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-18.0pt; mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">6.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Whether having regard to the alleged disciplinary grounds i.e. serious offence(s) upon the which the Applicant was purportedly retired compulsorily, he was accorded any fair hearing pursuant to the provisions of Sec. 36 (1) (4) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as altered to have justified the compulsory retirement of the Applicant from the services of the Nigerian Army vide a letter dated 9<sup>th</sup> June, 2016, pursuant to the provisions Paragraph 09.02c (4) of the Harmonized Terms and Conditions of Service for Officers of the Armed Forces (HTACOS) 2012 Revised.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-18.0pt; mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">7.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Whether in the absence of the trial of the claimant before any court of competent jurisdiction, Court Martial properly so called, the Army Council was justified to have constituted itself into the Complainant, the accuser, the Prosecutor and the judge, such as to have compulsorily retired the Applicant on alleged disciplinary grounds, i.e. serious offence(s) and without according the Applicant any form of hearing at all in all its sitting.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-18.0pt; mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">8.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Whether the claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought upon the declaration of this Honorable Court that the purported compulsory retirement of the claimant is unlawful in the circumstances of this case.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Upon the determination of the above questions by the Honorable Court, Applicant seeks the following reliefs:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-18.0pt; mso-list:l4 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">1.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">A DECLARATION </span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">that the purported compulsory retirement of the claimant from the services of the Nigerian Army vide letter dated 9<sup>th</sup> June, 2016 titled, “COMPULSORY RETIREMENT NA OFICER MAJOR GENERAL IJIOMA NWOKORO IJIOMA (N/8304)†pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 09.02c(4) of the Harmonized Terms and Conditions of Service for Officers of the Armed Forces (HTACOS) 2012 Revised, did not follow due process and is consequently illegal, invalid, wrongful, unlawful, unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect whatsoever.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-18.0pt; mso-list:l4 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">2.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">A DECLARATION </span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">that the claimant was never validly and legally retired from the services of the Nigerian Army on the 9<sup>th</sup> of June, 2016, vide letter dated 9<sup>th</sup> June, 2016, issued by the Army Council pursuant to its meeting of the same date, or at any other time.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-18.0pt; mso-list:l4 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">3.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">A DECLARATION </span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">that the claimant is still a serving member of the Nigerian Army, and is to be accorded all rights and privileges that he is entitled to based on his rank and position, as provided for in the Harmonized Terms and Conditions of Service, for Officer of the Armed Forces (HTACOS) Officers (2012) Revised.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-18.0pt; mso-list:l4 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">4.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">A DECLARATION </span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">that the present action of the claimant in seeking justice before this Honorable Court, shall not constitute any ground to witch-hunt or victimize the claimant upon his reinstatement to the services of the Nigeria Army.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-18.0pt; mso-list:l4 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">5.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">A DECLARATION </span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">that the association of the claimant’s purported compulsory retirement with the on-going arms deal probe and/or involvement in political partisanship, when the claimant was never involved, indicted, invited, questioned, detained or interrogated in any way whatsoever, by either the Presidential Probe Panel on the Arms Deal or the Election Probe Panel, or be involved in any of the two scandals, is illegal, unlawful, wrongful and constitutes a gross violation of the Applicant’s constitutional rights.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-18.0pt; mso-list:l4 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">6.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">A DECLARATION </span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">that the claimant is entitled to a public apology and compensation for the damage done to his person, his office, the lowering of his integrity, and reputation, and the psychological torture and mental agony undergone by him and his family consequent upon the compulsory retirement of the claimant upon grounds that are completely unfounded, baseless, frivolous and untrue.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-18.0pt; mso-list:l4 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">7.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">AN ORDER </span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">setting aside the letter of compulsory retirement dated 9<sup>th</sup> June, 2016, titled “COMPULSORY RETIREMENT NA OFICER MAJOR GENERAL IJIOMA NWOKORO IJIOMA (N/8304)†made pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 09.02c (4) of the Harmonized Terms and Conditions of Service for Officers of the Armed Forces (HTACOS) 2012 Revised, issued by the Army Council, purportedly retiring the claimant from the services of the Nigerian Army with effect from 9<sup>th</sup> June, 2016.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-18.0pt; mso-list:l4 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">8.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">AN ORDER </span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">directing the immediate reinstatement of the claimant to his rank and payment of all entitlements and perquisites of office due to him pursuant to the order setting aside the letter of compulsory retirement dated 9<sup>th</sup> June, 2016.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-18.0pt; mso-list:l4 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">9.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">AN ORDER </span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">restraining the Respondents, whether by themselves, their agents, servants and/or privies and/or all officers, servants and functionaries of the Federal Republic of Nigeria or any other public officer, whatsoever or otherwise howsoever, from giving or continuing to give effect to the letter dated 9<sup>th</sup> June, 2016, purported to have compulsorily retired the claimant from service of the Nigerian Army.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-18.0pt; mso-list:l4 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">10.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">AN ORDER </span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">restraining the Respondents, whether by themselves, their agents, servants and/or privies and/or all officers, servants and functionaries of the Federal Republic of Nigeria or any other public officer, whatsoever or otherwise howsoever, from obstructing, disturbing, interfering, stopping or preventing the Applicant in any manner whatsoever, from performing the functions of his office as a serving Major General of the Nigerian Army in the last position and place of assignment, before the letter of compulsory retirement dated 9<sup>th</sup> June, 2016.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-18.0pt; mso-list:l4 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">11.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">AN ORDER </span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">restraining the Nigerian Army<b>, </b>or any other government or Security Agency from interfering or acting by proxy, or otherwise, to intimidate, harass, arrest and/or detain the Applicant, or taking any untoward action on any fact connected with or related to the facts of this case, upon which the Applicant seeks for justice before this Honorable Court.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-18.0pt; mso-list:l4 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">12.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">AN ORDER </span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">compelling the Respondents jointly and severally to pay to the Applicant the sum of #1 billion (#1,000,000,000.00) only as general, aggravated, punitive and exemplary damages for the unlawful, wrongful, illegal, unconstitutional and oppressive compulsory retirement and the attendant humiliation, psychological trauma, mental agony and odium undergone by the Applicant and his family, by the actions of the Respondents.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Times New Roman",serif">ALTERNATIVELY, IN THE EVENT THAT THE APPLICANT CAN NO LONGER BE EMPLOYED IN THE SERVICE OF THE NIGERIAN ARMY DUE TO THE INABILITY TO CONCLUDE THIS ACTION BEFORE HIS DATE OF OFFICIAL DISENGAGEMENT.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-18.0pt; mso-list:l2 level1 lfo3"><!--[if !supportLists]--><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">1.<span style="font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span></b><!--[endif]--><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">AN ORDER </span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%; font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">compelling the Respondents to tender a public apology in Three (3) leading National Daily Newspaper for the humiliation, embarrassment, and pubic odium, and obloquy undergone by the Applicant by the Respondents’ unlawful, illegal and wrongful compulsory retirement vide letter dated 9<sup>th</sup> June, 2016.<b><o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-18.0pt; mso-list:l2 level1 lfo3"><!--[if !supportLists]--><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">2.<span style="font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span></b><!--[endif]--><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">AN ORDER </span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%; font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">compelling the Respondents jointly and severally to pay to the Applicant the sum of #5 Billion (#5,000,000,000.00) only as general, aggravated, punitive and exemplary damages for the unlawful, wrongful, illegal, unconstitutional and oppressive compulsory retirement and the attendant humiliation, psychological trauma, mental agony and odium undergone bythe Applicant and his family, by the action of the Respondents.<b><o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Times New Roman",serif">WRITTEN ADDRESS IN SUPPORT OR ORIGINATING SUMMONS<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Times New Roman",serif">ISSUES<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-18.0pt; mso-list:l5 level1 lfo4"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">1.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Whether, having regard to the provisions of the Harmonized Terms and Conditions of Service, for Officer of the Armed Forces (HTACOS) Officers (2012) Revised, particularly Paragraph 09.02c (4) thereof, viz-a-viz the provisions of the Armed Forces Act Cap. A20, particularly Part XII, dealing with offences thereof, the Applicant can be legally compulsorily retired by the Respondent vide letter dated 9<sup>th</sup> June, 2016, titled , “COMPULSORY RETIREMENT NA OFFICER MAJOR GENERAL IJIOMA NWOKORO IJIOMA (N/8304)â€, (the Applicant herein).<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-18.0pt; mso-list:l5 level1 lfo4"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">2.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Whether having regard to the provisions of the Armed Forces Act, A20, particularly Part XII, dealing with offences thereof, the Applicant can be said to have committed any offence or breached any of its provisions thereof, to warrant his compulsory retirement from the services of the Nigerian Army, by the Respondents vide letter dated 9<sup>th</sup> June, 2016, titled , “COMPULSORY RETIREMENT NA OFFICER MAJOR GENERAL IJIOMA NWOKORO IJIOMA (N/8304)â€, pursuant to the provisions of Paragraph 09.02c (4) of the Armed Forces (HTACOS) Officers (2012) Revised.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-18.0pt; mso-list:l5 level1 lfo4"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">3.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Whether having regard to the provisions of the Armed Forces Act, A20, particularly Part XII, dealing with offences and the provisions of the Harmonized Terms and Conditions of Service, for Officer of the Armed Forces (HTACOS) Officers (2012) Revised, particularly Paragraph 09.02c (4) thereof, dealing with retirement, and other extant statutory provisions regulating the Applicant’s appointment, the purported compulsory retirement of the Applicant vide letter dated 9<sup>th</sup> June, 2016, followed due process, and same can be said to be justified in the circumstances.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-18.0pt; mso-list:l5 level1 lfo4"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">4.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Whether having regard to the extant provisions of the Armed Forces Act, A20, particularly Part XII thereof, dealing with punishment, and Part XIV thereof, dealing with trial procedure for officers in the cadre of the Applicant and other extant statutory provisions regulating the Applicant’s appointment, the Respondents can be said to have followed due process in purportedly retiring the Applicant compulsorily vide letter dated 9<sup>th</sup> June, 2016, pursuant to the provisions of Paragraph 09.02c (4) of the Armed Forces (HTACOS) Officers (2012) Revised.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-18.0pt; mso-list:l5 level1 lfo4"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">5.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Whether having regard to the extant provisions of the Armed Forces Act, A20, the Harmonized Terms and Conditions of Service, for Officer of the Armed Forces (HTACOS) Officers (2012) Revised, and other extant statutory provisions regulating the service of the Applicant, and the circumstances of this case taken into consideration, the Applicant was ever given any notice, query, arrested, arraigned, charged and or went through any form of trial before a Court Martial or a regular court, and punished for any offence to have warranted in his being compulsorily retired by the Army Council vide letter dated 9<sup>th</sup> June, 2016,pursuant to the provisions of Paragraph 09.02c (4) of the Armed Forces (HTACOS) Officers (2012) Revised.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-18.0pt; mso-list:l5 level1 lfo4"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">6.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Whether having regard to the alleged disciplinary grounds i.e. serious offence(s) upon which the Applicant was purportedly retired compulsorily, he was accorded any fair hearing pursuant to the provisions of Sec. 36(1)(4) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as altered, to have justified the compulsory retirement of the Applicant from the services of the Nigerian Army vide a letter dated 9<sup>th</sup> June, 2016, pursuant to the provisions of Paragraph 09.02c (4) of the Armed Forces (HTACOS) Officers (2012) Revised.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-18.0pt; mso-list:l5 level1 lfo4"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">7.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Whether in the absence of the trial of the claimant before any court of competent jurisdiction, Court Martial properly so called, the Army Council was justified to have constituted itself into the complainant, the accuser, the prosecutor and the judge, such as to have compulsorily retired the Applicant on alleged disciplinary grounds, i.e. serious offence(s) and without according the Applicant any form of hearing at all in its sitting.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-18.0pt; mso-list:l5 level1 lfo4"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">8.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Whether the claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought upon the declaration of this Honorable Court that the purported compulsory retirement of the claimant is unlawful in the circumstances of this case.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Times New Roman",serif">ARGUMENT<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Learned Counsel for the claimant Mike Ozekhome SAN cited the case of <b><span style="color:red">NAWA v. ATTORNEY GENERAL CROSS RIVER STATE (2008) ALL FWLR (PT. 401) 807 @ 831, PARA. 3 B-D,</span></b> on the effect of compulsory retirement of a civil servant without recourse to the rules guiding his employment, counsel. Leaned SAN submitted that considering the fact that the claimant’s compulsory retirement is hinged on alleged criminal conduct, the burden is on the Army Council (Respondent) to satisfy the court that it has duly complied with all relevant provisions regarding such compulsory retirement. <b><span style="color:red">P.H.M.B. v. EJITAGHA (2000) 11 WRN 1 @ 6; (2000) 11 NWLR 9PT. 677) 154 @ 160</span></b>, per <b>Uwaifo, JSC.</b> He submitted that as a Major General in the Nigerian Army, the claimant cannot be tried summarily, but by a Court martial, which allows him representation to defend himself by counsel of his choice, thus ensuring fair hearing. Furthermore, that where the proceedings take place, the Court Martial returns a verdict and gives a sentence subject to confirmation by the Armed Forces Council. <b><span style="color:red">SEC. 129 – 142 of the AFA; SECTIONS 140, 141, 152 (b) of the AFA.</span></b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">It is counsel’s contention that the Army Council in reaching a decision to compulsorily retire the claimant, on alleged disciplinary grounds, i.e., serious offence(s), without the setting up of any Court Martial to try him and make its findings known to the Army Council, constitutes a gross violation of the claimant’s right to fair hearing. <b><span style="color:red">ZAKARI v. NIGERIAN ARMY & ANOR. (2015) LPELR-24721 (SC) 24 -35, PARAS. B-F</span></b>, per <b>Odili, JSC</b>; <b><span style="color:red">OKORO v. NIGEIRAN ARMY COUNCIL (2000) 3 NWLR (PT. 647) 77, per Adamu, JCA @Pp. 25 – 32, PARAS. E-C. </span></b>Relying on the authority of <b><span style="color:red">SAMUEL v. NIGERIAN ARMY (2006) LPELR-11751 (CA) @ Pp. 36-37, PARAS. C-E</span></b>, per <b>Awala, JCA</b>; <b><span style="color:red">NIGERIAN ARMY v. DODO (2012) LPELR-8288 (SC) 29, PARA. F; MAJOR BELLO F. MAGAJI v. THE NIGERIAN ARMY (2008) LPELR-1814 (SC), per Ogbuagu, JSC; ADEBAYO v. NGERIAN ARMY & ANOR. (2012) LPELR-7902 (CA),</span></b> <b>Danjuma, JCA @ P. 25, PARAS. C-F</b>; <b><span style="color:red">AGBITI v. NIGERIAN NAVY (2011) 4 NWLR (PT. 175)</span></b>, per <b>Adekeye, JSC</b> for the nature and structure of a General Court Martial<b>.</b> The Learned Senior Advocate submitted that the Court Martial has a duty to make its decisions and state how it came by them and that every finding of a court or tribunal must be based on reasons and the reasons for reaching a particular finding or conclusion definitely must be based on facts and failure to do this is fatal. <b><span style="color:red">IDAKWO v. NIGERIA ARMY (2004) 2 NWLR (PT. 857) 249; SEC. 36 (7) of the CFRN, 1999; ASAKE v. THE NIGEIRAN ARMY COUNCIL & ANOR. (2006) LPELR-5427 (CA), </span></b>per <b>Augie, JCA @ Pp. 25-26, PARAS. F-A.</b> He argued further that the action of the Army Council breaches all known principles of fair hearing which is fundamental to all court procedure including Tribunals and those exercising quasi-judicial functions, the Court Martial and Army Council. <b><span style="color:red">SEC. 36 (4) of the CFRN, 1999 as altered; OKIKE V. LPDC & ORS. (2005) LPELR-7466 (CA) Pp. / 31 – 32, PARAS. G-A,</span></b><span style="color:red"> </span>per <b>Ba’ba, JCA</b>; <b><span style="color:red">PAM & ANOR. v. MOHAMMED & ANOR. (2008) LPELR-2895 (CA) Pp. 26-27, PARAS. F-A</span></b>, per <b>Oguntade, JSC.</b> He also submitted that the courts have held that the principle of fair hearing is breached where parties are not afforded a fair hearing or any hearing at all, as in the present case. <b><span style="color:red">EJEKA v. STATE (2003) LPELR-1061 (SC) 13, PARAS. A-D</span></b>, per <b>Tobi, JSC.<span style="color:red"><o:p></o:p></span></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">Learned SAN further </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">submitted that in an action for wrongful retirement, once the issue of the wrongful retirement is decided, the next issue that calls for determination is the issue of the measure of damages recoverable where the retirement is found to be wrongful. <b><span style="color:red">SAIBU v. KWARA STATE POLYTECHNIC, ILORIN (2008) LPELR-4524 (CA)</span></b>, per <b>Ogunwunmiju, JCA @ P. 37, PARAS. B-E. </b>Citing the case of <b><span style="color:red">OBINWA v. C.O.P. (2007) 11 NWLR (PT. 911 @ 426, PARA. F</span></b>, per <b>Owoade, JCA</b>. On award of exemplary damages. Claimant Counsel argued and urged the Court that the letter of 9<sup>th</sup> June, 2016 led to the claimant being retired prematurely with all the attendant stigma and societal odium attached to such compulsory retirement as the ground was said to be on disciplinary grounds over the alleged commission of serious offence(s), whereas there was absolutely none. <b><span style="color:red">ALLIED BANK OF NIGERIA LTD. v. AKUBUEZE (1997) LPELR-429 (SC) 48 & 49, PARAS. F-B; ODOGU v. A.G. FED. & ORS. (1996) LPELR-2228 (SC) 12, PARAS. A-C,</span></b><span style="color:red"> </span>per <b>Ogundare, JSC.</b> Relying the authority of <b><span style="color:red">ODIBI & ANOR. v. MUEME (1999) LPELR-2216(SC), per Ogwuegbu, JSC @ P. 24, PARA. G; ODIBA v. AGEGE (1998) LPELR-2215 (SC), per Iguh, JSC @ p. 25, PARAS. B-D.</span></b> for the award of aggravated damages as claimed by the claimant and <b><span style="color:red">EFCC v. INUWA & ANOR. (2014) LPELR-23597 (CA), per Akeju, JCA @ P. 18, PARAS. A-B.</span></b> on the award of general damages. <b><o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">The 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendants filed a <b>NOTICE OF PRELIMINARY OBJECTION</b> on 20<sup>th</sup> September, 2016 and dated 19<sup>th</sup> September, 2016, objecting to the jurisdictional competence of this Honorable court to hear and entertain this suit.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Times New Roman",serif">GROUNDS FOR THE OBJECTION<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-18.0pt; mso-list:l3 level1 lfo5"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">1.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">That this suit No: NICN/ABJ/262/2016 is premature, pre-emptive and an abuse of court process.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-18.0pt; mso-list:l3 level1 lfo5"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">2.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">That the claimant did not comply with the condition precedent in Sec. 9.02(e) of the Harmonized Terms and Conditions of Service for Officers, 2012 (Revised) before commencing this action i.e. awaiting the outcome of his appeal to Mr. President, Commander in Chief, to have his case reconsidered having exercised the right of appeal.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-18.0pt; mso-list:l3 level1 lfo5"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">3.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">That there is no cause of action against the defendants.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Times New Roman",serif">RELEIF SOUGHT<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">An Order of this Honorable Court striking out/dismissing this suit for want of jurisdiction.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">The 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendants filed also a <b>WRITTEN ADDRESS IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF PRELIMIANRY OBJECTION with the ISSUE</b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Times New Roman",serif">Whether or not the claimant can maintain this Suit No: NICN/ABJ/262/2016 viz-a-viz his pending appeal to Mr. President, Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Federal Republic of Nigeria for reconsideration of compulsory retirement.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Learned Counsel to the 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendants Paul Imafidor Esq. submitted that <b>Sec. 9.02 (e) of the Harmonized Terms and Conditions of Service for Officers, 2012 (Revised)</b> gives an officer right of remedy to appeal to MR. President for reconsideration of his case and where an officer as in this case decided and or resorted to the statutory remedy it must be exhausted and thereby deprived of any other form of remedy than that given by the statute. <b><span style="color:red">ADEWOLE v. ADETIMO (1994) 3 NWLR (PT. 335) 740 @ 770-771, PARAS. H-A</span></b>, per <b>Oguntade, JSC.</b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendants Counsel contended that the claimant must wait for the outcome of his appeal to the President for reconsideration and that the claimant cannot maintain this suit simultaneously pending his appeal to the President over the propriety of his retirement for reconsideration of compulsory retirement from the service of the Nigerian Army. That assuming he had not exercised the right of appeal to the President as statutory remedy provided in the Harmonized Terms and Conditions of Service for Officers, there may have been no issue with this suit, but that as it stands now, the two cannot co-exist. <b><span style="color: red">EQUAMWEBSE v. AMAGHIZEMWEN (1993) 9 NWLR (PT. 315) 29 @ 59, PARAS. F-H</span></b>, per <b>Karibi-Whyte, JSC.</b> He submitted that the law is trite that where a precondition for the doing of an act has not been complied with, no act subsequent thereto can be regarded as valid. <b><span style="color:red">ORAKUL RESOURCES LIMITED v. NIGERIAN COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION (2007) ALL FWLR (PT. 390) 1482 @ 1506, PARAS. D-H</span></b>, per <b>Peter-Odili, JCA.</b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">The 1<sup>st</sup> and 4<sup>th</sup> Defendants filed a <b>NOTICE OF PRELIMIANRY OBJECTION </b>on 5<sup>th</sup> October, 2016 and dated 30<sup>th</sup> September, 2016, that the Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this suit and same should be dismissed. The Ground of Objections are:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-18.0pt; mso-list:l0 level1 lfo6"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">1.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">That the suit is incompetent having failed to comply with the provisions of paragraph 09.02 of the Harmonized Terms and Conditions of Service for Officers (HTACOS).<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-18.0pt; mso-list:l0 level1 lfo6"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">2.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">That this Honorable Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain this suit as condition precedent to the institution of the suit and admissibility of public documents attached to therewith were deliberately fouled.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">The 1<sup>st</sup> and 4<sup>th</sup> defendant also filed a Written Address in Support of Preliminary Objection with the issue:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Times New Roman",serif">Whether this Honorable Court is clothed with the powers to entertain or adjudicate this suit when the condition precedent to the institution of same suit and admissibility of public documents attached therewith have been fouled by the claimant.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">The 1<sup>st</sup>and 4<sup>th</sup> defendant Counsel M. D. Owolabi Esq. argued that the court is empowered to dismiss, strike out or set aside a suit for lack of jurisdiction. <b><span style="color:red">OLORUNTOBA v. ABDUL-RAHEEM (2009) 13 NWLR (PT. 1157) 94 R. 3 SC. </span></b>He contended that paragraphs 9 & 11 of the Defendants’ Counter Affidavit alluded to the fact that in the event that the claimant elects to appeal his compulsory retirement under Paragraph 09.02c (4) of HTACOS, he is under a mandatory duty to make such appeal within 30 days of his compulsory retirement to the President (C-IN-C) through the CDS and that there is no evidence of compliance with this condition by the claimant before rushing to Court. Furthermore, that Exhibits INI 1 & 2 attached to the claimant’s affidavit are not certified true copies of the original. <b><span style="color:red">F.C.D.A. v. KORIPAMO-AGARY (2010) 14 NWLR (PT. 1213) 372 R. 10; A.G ANAMNBRA STATE v. OKEKE (2002) 12 NWLR (PT. 782) 575.<o:p></o:p></span></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Learned Counsel to the 1<sup>st</sup> and 4<sup>th</sup> defendant further argued that the operative word in Paragraph 09.02c of HTACOS is “shall†which in a plethora of judicial authorities has been held to be mandatory and compulsory when conferring responsibility or duty and that there is no evidence that the claimant has complied with same before rushing to the Court to institute this action. <b><span style="color:red">KAMBA v. BAWA (2005) 4 NWLR (PT. 914) 51; CAPT. EKEAGWU v. NIGERIAN ARMY & ANOR. (2010) 16 NWLR (PT. 1220) 422-433 R. 2; AGIP (NIG.) LTD. v. AGIP PETROLI INT’L (2010) 5 NWLR (PT. 1187) 364 R. 15.</span></b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">On the issue of admissibility of Exhibits INI 1 & 2 attached to the claimant’s affidavit Counsel to the 1<sup>st</sup> and 4<sup>th</sup> defendants contended that the said documents are photocopies by which the claimant claimed notified him of his compulsory retirement and harmonized Terms and Conditions of Service for Officers of the Armed Forces (HTACOS), counsel referred the Court to the following authorities: <b><span style="color:red">ZENITH BANK v. JOHNSON A. AKINNIYI (2015) LPELR-247; DELTAL STATE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY v. PDP & 3 ORS. (2014) LPELR-228; MADUKA v. UBAH (2015) 11 NWLR (PT. 1470) 209 R. 11 & 12; EGHOBAMIEN v. FEDERAL MORTGAGE BANK NIGERIA (2002) 17 NWLR (PT. 797) 488; OKAFOR v. OKPALA (1995) 1 NWLR (PT. 374) 749.</span></b> And to appreciate the import, purport and underlined philosophy behind this certification of public documents, counsel relied on the case of <b><span style="color:red">ARAKA v. EGBUE (2003) 17 NWLR (PT. 848) 1; SECTIONS 88, 89, 90, 102, 104, 105 and 106 of the EVIDENCE ACT, 2011; KUBOR & ANOR. v. DICKSON & 0RS. (2012) LPELR-9817.<o:p></o:p></span></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">The <b>CLAIMANT’S </b>filed<b> REPLY ADDRESS TO THE 1<sup>ST</sup> and 4<sup>TH</sup> DEFENDANTS’ COUNTER AFFIDAIT FILED ON 5<sup>TH</sup> October, 2016</b> (dated 12<sup>th</sup> October, 2016).<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Learned Counsel Mike Ozekhome SAN. submitted that the 1<sup>st</sup> and 4th defendants’ Counter Affidavit in every essence and ramification failed to address any of the issues set down for determination in the claimant’s Originating Summons. Instead what the defendants did in their counter affidavit was to procure a person who never was in a position to know of the facts contained in the counter affidavit and worse still, proceeded to relate information which smacks of hearsay, without fulfilling the provisions of <b><span style="color:red">Sec. 115 (3 & (4) of the Evidence Act, 2011.</span></b> Furthermore, that the paragraphs particularly, paragraphs 8a-t of the Counter affidavit deposed to by Warrant Officer Peter Ahmadu, are liable to be struck out. He urged the Court to hold that Warrant Officer Peter Ahmadu is not a proper person to depose to the Counter Affidavit in a case of this nature. <b><span style="color:red">ESENE v. THE SPEAKER, EDO STATE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY & ORS. (2012) LPELR-19775 (CA), per Yakubu, JCA (Pp. 44-46, PARAS. D-A).</span></b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">It is Claimant Counsel’s contention that it is clear from the defendants’ submission that they fell into the error of giving to a Board of Inquiry a status not envisaged by statutes and relevant authorities, thus elevating it to such level as being conclusive proof of the offence alleged. <b><span style="color:red">SEC. 172 (4) of the ARMD FORCES ACT.<o:p></o:p></span></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">On the binding nature of a Board of Inquiry report, counsel cited the authorities of <b><span style="color:red">PATRICK ZIIDEH v. RIVERS STATE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION (2007) LPELR-3544 (SC</span>), per Ogbuagu, JSC; <span style="color:red">ACTION CONGRESS & ANOR. v. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISION (2007) LPELR-66 (SC),</span></b><span style="color:red"> </span>per <b>Ogbuagu, JSC.</b>Counsel pointed out that a Board of Inquiry does not amount to a trial, that the report of a BOI is not admissible before a Court Martial, that a BOI is not a Court of Law that could indict or render judgment. <b><span style="color:red">ARMED FROCES ACT, CAP. 20, LAWS OF THE FEDERATION OF NIGERIA, 2004, SEC. 172, P. A20 – 38. </span></b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">The<b> CLAIMANT’S filed a REPLY TO THE DEFENDNATS’ NOTICE OF PRELIMINARY OBJECTION</b> dated 11<sup>th</sup> October, 2016 and filed on 12<sup>th</sup> October, 2016. Wherein the claimants formulated one sole <b>ISSUE</b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Times New Roman",serif">Whether flowing from the facts and circumstances of this case, viz-a-viz the provisions of the Harmonized Terms and Conditions of Service for Officers of the Armed Forces (HTACOS) Officers 2012 Revised, particularly paragraph 09.02(e) thereof, there could be said to be a condition precedent placed upon the claimant and whether the provision of any statute(s) has been breached in the course of instituting this action.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Learned Senior Advocate, Counsel to the Claimant submitted that where the jurisdiction of a court is challenged, the only processes the court considers is the claims of the claimant as contained in his originating processes. <b><span style="color:red">ONI v. CADBURY NIGERIA LIMITED (2016) 5 WRN 1 @ 23, LINES 25 –</span></b><span style="color:red"> </span>30, per <b>Rhodes-Vivour, JSC. </b>He contended that it does not lie with the defendants to lift a particular section from a statute out of context, and proceed to interpret it to suit their own purpose. <b><span style="color:red">USMAN & ANOR. v. MACCIDO & ORS. (2009) LPELR-8517 (CA) P. 30, PARAS. C-F.</span> </b>It is counsel’s submission that the HTACOS never imposed any condition whatsoever, upon the claimant to appeal to any authority and exhaust all such avenues before seeking redress in a court of law. <b><span style="color:red">UGWU v. ARARUME (2007) LPELR-3329 (SC</span></b>), per <b>Chukwuma-Eneh, JSC. </b>He argued that the comma (“) in paragraph 09.02e of the HTACOS plays an important role in separating the officers approved to be (compulsorily) retired from those to be called upon to retire, resign or relinquish their commission, per <b>Tobi, JSC</b> in <b><span style="color:red">ABUBAKAR v. YAR’ADUA (2008) 19 NWLR (PT. 1120) 1, 134.</span><o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Furthermore, that an elementary rule of construction that phrases and sentences are to be constructed according to the rules of grammar. <b><span style="color:red">P. St. Langan, <u>Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes </u>(12<sup>th</sup> Ed.), (Bombay: N.M. Tripathi Private Ltd, 1976) 28; DR. GABRIEL OMOWAIYE v. AGF EKITI STATE & ANOR. (2010) LPELR-4779 (CA), per Nweze, JCA, Pp. 42-44.</span></b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Counsel submitted that the case of <b><span style="color:red">EKEAGWU v. NIGERIAN ARMY & ANOR. (2010) 16 NWLR (PT. 1220) 435-436</span></b>, cited by the defendants is against the position being canvassed by the defendants as the issue of whether the Appellant complied with the provision to appeal to the President within 30 days was never canvassed in that case. Furthermore, that the decisions per Onnoghen was cited out of context in that it relates to the fact that there was provision for monetary payment as remedy for his compulsory retirement pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 09.02d of the HTACOS.. <b><span style="color:red">TANKO v. THE STATE (2009) LPELR-3136 (SC) (P. 46, PARAS. E-F)</span></b>, per <b>Ogbuagu, JSC.</b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">He submitted that whatever is provided in any statute cannot be made subject to the rights of a claimant to approach the court. <b><span style="color:red">KAYILI v. YIBUK (2016) 6 WRN 52 @ 79 LINES 5-15</span>, per Kekere-Ekun, JSC @ P. 103 lines 5-15.</b> It is counsel’s submission that the contents of a document may be proved either by primary evidence or secondary evidence. <b><span style="color:red">SECTIONS 85, 86 (1) and 88 of the EVIDENCE ACT, 2011; BANKOLE v. BANKOLE (2012) LPELR-7988 (CA), </span></b>per <b>Mshella, JCA (Pp. 8-9, PARAS. F-D).</b> He further submitted that it is beyond doubt that the primary evidence of a public document can be tendered for the inspection of the court. <b><span style="color:red">MV DELOS v. OCEAN STEAMSHIP (NIG.) LTD (2004) 17 NWRL (PT. 901) 103, PARAS. E-F</span></b>, per <b>Chukwuma-Eneh, JCA.</b> On the best evidence for the presentation of documents, counsel relied on the case of <b><span style="color:red">UTB NIG. LTD. AJAGBULE (2005) LPELR-7563 (CA),</span></b><span style="color:red"> </span>per <b>Abba, JCA (Pp. 35-36, PARAS. F-A).</b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Learned Claimant Counsel submitted that it is clear the HTACOS is a subsidiary legislation having the force of law amongst members of the Armed Forces in Nigeria and that <b><span style="color: red">Sec. 122 of the Evidence Act, 2011</span></b><span style="color:red"> </span>enjoins the court to take judicial notice of such enactment. <b><span style="color:red">ADO IBRAHIM & CO. LTD. v. BENDEL CEMENT CO. LTD. (2007) LPELR-188 (SC) 21, PARAS. F-G, </span></b>per <b>Muhammad, JSC.</b> He submitted that there is authority to the effect that any matter the court is to take judicial notice of, need not be proved. <b><span style="color:red">CHIEDI & ANOR. v. AG. FEDERATION (2006) LPELR-11806 (CA), per Muhammad, JCA (P. 24, PARAS. A-D).</span></b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">The <b>CLAIMANT/RESPONDENT’S REPLY TO THE DEFENDANTS/APPLICANT’S NOTICE OF PRELIMIANRY OBJECTION</b> filed on 12<sup>th</sup> October, 2016and dated 11<sup>th</sup> December, 2016. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">With the <b>ISSUE</b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Times New Roman",serif">Whether flowing from the facts and circumstances of this case, viz-a-viz the provisions of the Harmonized Terms and Conditions of Service for Officers of the Armed Forces, 2012 Revised, particularly Paragraph 09.02 (e) thereof, there could be said to be a pending appeal before the President Commander-in-Chief, such as to prevent the claimant/respondent from maintaining this suit.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Learned Counsel to the Claimant submitted that where the jurisdiction of a court is challenged, the only processes the court considers is the claims of the Applicant as contained in his originating process. <b><span style="color:red">ONI v. CADBURY NIGERIA LIMITED (2016) 5 WRN 1 @ 23, LINES 25-30</span></b>, per <b>Rhodes-Vivour, JSC. </b>And Claimant Counsel contended that apart from being an afterthought, it is a total lack of understanding on the part of the Applicants of their own statute which regulates issues pertaining to the retirement of an officer in the cadre of the claimant/respondent and that it does not lie with the Applicants to lift a particular section form a statute out of context and proceed to interpret it to suit their own purpose. <b><span style="color:red">USMAN & ANOR. v. MACCIDO & ORS. (2009) LPELR-8517 (CA) P. 30, PARAS. C-F.</span><o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">It is counsel’s argument that the mistake of placing the Respondent in the category of those who can exercise the option of appealing to the President, stems from the fact the Applicants erroneously interpreted the provisions of Paragraph 09.02e and did not take into consideration the cardinal principle guiding the interpretation of statutes, that it is to be read as a whole and not in isolation, as done by the Applicants. Furthermore, that the HTACOS never imposed any condition whatsoever upon the Respondent to appeal to any authority and exhaust all such avenues before seeking redress in a court of law. <b><span style="color:red">UGWU v. ARARUME (2007) LPELR-3329 (SC),</span></b><span style="color:red"> </span>per <b>Chukwuma-Eneh, JSC.</b> He argued that the comma ( , ) in paragraph 09.02e of the HTACOS plays an important role in separating the officers approved to be (compulsorily) retired from those to be called upon to retire, resign or relinquish their commission, per <b>Tobi, JSC</b> in <b><span style="color:red">ABUBAKAR v. YAR’ADUA (2008) 19 NWLR (PT. 1120) 1, 134.</span></b> Furthermore, that an elementary rule of construction that phrases and sentences are to be constructed according to the rules of grammar. <b><span style="color:red">P. St. Langan, Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes (12<sup>th</sup> Ed.), (Bombay: N.M. Tripathi Private Ltd, 1976) 28; DR. GABRIEL OMOWAIYE v. AGF EKITI STATE & ANOR. (2010) LPELR-4779 (CA), per Nweze, JCA, Pp. 42-44.</span></b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">He submitted that whatever is provided in any statute cannot be made subject to the rights of a claimant to approach the court. <b><span style="color:red">KAYILI v. YIBUK (2016) 6 WRN 52 @ 79 LINES 5-15</span></b>, per <b>Kekere-Ekun, JSC @ P. 103 lines 5-15.</b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">On the 24<sup>th</sup> November 2016 parties adopted their written addresses and adumbrated their positions accordingly. During adumbration the Court requested the parties to address the court on the propriety of commencing this matter by originating summon considering the reliefs sought. Parties duly incorporated this aspect in their addresses and the matter was adjourned for ruling<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Court’s Decision <o:p></o:p></span></u></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Having carefully summarized the position of all sides, the arguments of opposing counsel and having carefully reviewed all the authorities cited, read through all the relevant processes and digested the contention of the parties and their written submission are herewith incorporated in this ruling and specific mention would be made to them where the need arises. The issue for determination in this suit to my mind is whether there is any merit to the Preliminary objections filed but any or both the defendants i.e. that of the 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> defendant and /or 1<sup>st</sup> and 4<sup>th</sup> defendant. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">The issue of the defendants are thus from the 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> defendant <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Times New Roman",serif">Whether or not the claimant can maintain this Suit No: NICN/ABJ/262/2016 viz-a-viz his pending appeal to Mr. President, Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Federal Republic of Nigeria for reconsideration of compulsory retirement.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">And thus for 1<sup>st</sup> and 4<sup>th</sup> defendant. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Times New Roman",serif">Whether this Honorable Court is clothed with the powers to entertain or adjudicate this suit when the condition precedent to the institution of same suit and admissibility of public documents attached therewith have been fouled by the claimant.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">These issues raise question as to 1. The propriety of </span><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Sec. 9.02 (e) of the Harmonized Terms and Conditions of Service for Officers, 2012 (Revised)</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%; font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> and whether it amounts to a condition precedent and 2. the question of abuse of court process, 3. Whether there is a cause of action against the defendant and 4. The question of classification and admissibility of documents <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">In making their submission the 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> defendant submitted that <b>Sec. 9.02 (e) of the Harmonized Terms and Conditions of Service for Officers, 2012 (Revised)</b> gives an officer right of remedy to appeal to MR. President for reconsideration of his case and where an officer as in this case decided and or resorted to the statutory remedy it must be exhausted and thereby deprived of any other form of remedy than that given by the statute. <b><span style="color:red">ADEWOLE v. ADETIMO (Supra)</span></b>. and went on to argue that assuming he had not exercised the right of appeal to the President as statutory remedy provided in the Harmonized Terms and Conditions of Service for Officers, there may have been no issue with this suit, but that as it stands now, the two cannot co-exist. The 1<sup>st</sup> and 4<sup>th</sup> defendant also argue that in the event that the claimant elects to appeal his compulsory retirement under Paragraph 09.02c (4) of HTACOS, he is under a mandatory duty to make such appeal within 30 days of his compulsory retirement to the President (C-IN-C) through the CDS and that there is no evidence of compliance with this condition by the claimant before rushing to Court.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Times New Roman",serif"> Sec. 9.02 (e) of the Harmonized Terms and Conditions of Service for Officers, 2012 (Revised) </span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">provides that :<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">“Notwithstanding the provision of paragraph 09.01 and 09.02 an officer shall if approved by the Army council, Navy Board, or Air Force Council concern, be retired, be called to retire, resign or relinquish his commission. An officer called to retire, resign or relinquish his commission, shall if he so desires appeal to M. President C in C through the CDS within 30 days to have his case reconsidered. However, the appeal would become a nullity if the officer had collected the three month salary paid to him / her in lieu of notice.â€<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">The claimant had on their own part argued that<b><span style="color:red"> </span></b>the HTACOS never imposed any condition whatsoever, upon the claimant to appeal to any authority and exhaust all such avenues before seeking redress in a court of law. <b><span style="color:red">UGWU v. ARARUME (Supra). </span></b>Contending that HTACOS separated the officers approved to be (compulsorily) retired from those to be called upon to retire, resign or relinquish their commission, <b><span style="color:red">ABUBAKAR v. YAR’ADUA (Supra).</span><o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">To the claimant Counsel the case of <b><span style="color:red">EKEAGWU v. NIGERIAN ARMY & ANOR. (Supra) 16 NWLR (PT. 1220) 435-436</span></b>, does not support their position as the provision to appeal to the President within 30 days was never canvassed in that case. Contending further that whatever is provided in any statute cannot be made subject to the rights of a claimant to approach the court. <b><span style="color:red">KAYILI v. YIBUK (Supra). </span></b>To the Claimant it is clear the HTACOS is a subsidiary legislation having the force of law amongst members of the Armed Forces in Nigeria and that <b><span style="color:red">Sec. 122 of the Evidence Act, 2011 </span></b>enjoining the court to take judicial notice of such enactment. <b><span style="color:red">ADO IBRAHIM & CO. LTD. v. BENDEL CEMENT CO. LTD. (Supra) </span></b>arguing that any matter the court is to take judicial notice of, need not be proved. <b><span style="color:red">CHIEDI & ANOR. v. AG. FEDERATION (Supra) <o:p></o:p></span></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">The Claimant also contended that the defendants misunderstood the statute in that with regard to the retirement of an officer in the cadre of the claimant/respondent i.e. separating the officers approved to be (compulsorily) retired from those to be called upon to retire, resign or relinquish their commission. To the claimant it does not lie with the Defendants/Applicants to lift a particular section, form a statute out of context and proceed to interpret it to suit their own purpose. Furthermore, the claimant argued the HTACOS never imposed any condition whatsoever upon the Respondent to appeal to any authority and exhaust all such avenues before seeking redress in a court of law. <b><span style="color:red">UGWU v. ARARUME (Supra</span></b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">I agree with the Claimant that where the jurisdiction of a court is challenged, the only processes the court considers is the claims of the Applicant as contained in his originating process. <b><span style="color:red">ONI v. CADBURY NIGERIA LIMITED (Supra).</span></b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">And the claimant in paragraph 24 of his affidavit in support of his Originating process averred that he had petitioned the President Commander in Chief, about the grave injustice meted out to him. However looking at the express wordings of<b> </b>Sec. 9.02 (e) of the Harmonized Terms and Conditions of Service for Officers, 2012 (Revised) (Reproduced once more for ease of reference);<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">“Notwithstanding the provision of paragraph 09.01 and 09.02 an officer shall if approved by the Army council, Navy Board, or Air Force Council concern, be retired, be called to retire, resign or relinquish his commission. An officer called to retire, resign or relinquish his commission, shall if he so desires appeal to M. President C in C through the CDS within 30 days to have his case reconsidered. However, the appeal would become a nullity if the officer had collected the three month salary paid to him / her in lieu of notice.â€<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">The question arises as to whether the words<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">... . An officer called to retire, resign or relinquish his commission, shall if he so desires appeal to M. President C in C through the CDS within 30 days to have his case reconsidered. However, the appeal would become a nullity if the officer had collected the three month salary paid to him / her in lieu of notice.†amount to a condition precedent or create a provision “pre determinae justicaeâ€<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span class="apple-style-span"><b><span lang="EN-US">A.G KWARA STATE & ANOR Vs. ADEYEMO & ORS (2016) LPELR-41147(SC)</span></b></span><span lang="EN-US"> <span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>the Supreme Court properly elucidated the expression "condition precedent" the case of J.S. Atolagbe & Ors v. Alhaji Muhammadu Awuni & Ors (1997) 9 NWLR (Pt. 522) 537 at 565 per Uwais CJN thus:-<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US">"Condition is a provision which makes the existence of a right dependent on the happening of an event, the right is then additional as opposed to an absolute right. A true condition where the event on which the existence of the right depends is in the future uncertain. A 'condition precedent' is one that delays the vesting of a right until the happening of an event."<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US"><a href="http://localhost:8888/lawpavilion_personal/latestlawreport_ca.jsp?suite=olabisi@9thfloor&sd=lp&yr=2013&pk=74767" target="_parent"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Times New Roman",serif">VIRGIN NIGERIA AIRWAYS LTD v. ROIJIEN</span></b></a></span><span class="apple-style-span"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height: 115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">(2013) LPELR-22044(CA)</span></b></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> <span class="apple-style-span">"The rule is that where the law places a <b><span style="background:white">condition</span></b></span><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><span class="apple-style-span"><b><span style="background:white">precedent</span></b></span><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><span class="apple-style-span">to the performance of a given act, such an act cannot be said to have been duly performed without the fulfillment of the stated</span><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><span class="apple-style-span"><b><span style="background:white">condition</span></b>. Failure of a party to comply with the</span><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><span class="apple-style-span"><b><span style="background:white">condition</span></b></span><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><span class="apple-style-span">in the circumstance is fatal and incurable. - Ozobia v. Anah (1999) 5 NWLR (Pt. 601) 13 Ratio 2." Per IYIZOBA, J.C.A. (P. 32, paras. F-G)</span><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span class="apple-style-span"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Orakul Resources Ltd. v. N.C.C. (2007) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1060) 270 at 313 - 314 Paras. G - A (CA)</span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%; font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> <span class="apple-style-span">"Conditions precedent for commencement of actions in court are imposed either by the common law or legislation. Such conditions include giving of notice as in the case of bringing action against government or government agency. Though, they are not of essence in a cause of action in a suit, they are essential because they are superimposed on the law.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span class="apple-style-span"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">The claimant had argued that the Harmonized Terms and Condition of Service for Officers of the Armed Forces (HTACOS) is a subsidiary legislation but failed to show the court how the document in question came to be subsidiary legislation <b>In NJOJU & ORS Vs. IHENATU & ORS (2008) LPELR-3871(CA)</b></span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> the Court of Appeal held that <span class="apple-style-span">"A subsidiary legislation or enactment is one that was subsequently made or enacted under and pursuant to the power conferred by the principal legislation or enactment. It derives its force and efficacy from the principal legislation to which it is therefore secondary and complimentary. See DIN V. A.G.F. (1988) 4 NWLR (1987) 147, ISHOLA V. AJIBOYE (1994) 6 NWLR (35552) 506 & OLARENWAJU V. OYEYEMI (2001) 2 NWLR (697) 229."Per GARBA, J.C.A (P. 20-21, paras. G-B).<o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span class="apple-style-span"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">This court has in the case of </span></span><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:red">SUIT NO. NICN/LA/74/2014<u> </u>MAHMUD BAYO ALABIDUN Vs. PRESIDENT OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA & ANOR </span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">delivered on 30<sup>th</sup> January 2014 held that the conditions of service to have the force of law are required to be made pursuant to any section of the enabling Act, which in that case was the FAAN Act, the case went on to state that </span><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:red;mso-bidi-font-style: italic">UJAM V. IMT [2007] 2 NWLR (PT. 1089) 470 CA</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:red"> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">e</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">njoins that the regulations or conditions of service must commence with the provision of the enabling statute if it is to be read as a product of delegated or donated authority. The claimant in this instant suit has not shown the court how or where the Harmonized Terms and condition were made pursuant to the Armed Force Act to enable the court treat the Conditions as delegated or donated authority afortori subsidiary legislation<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">More importantly the wordings of Section 9.02 (e) particularly “shall if he so desires appeal to M. President C in C through the CDS within 30 days to have his case reconsidered. However, the appeal would become a nullity if the officer had collected the three month salary paid to him / her in lieu of notice.†Do not create a condition the words ‘if he so desires’ ordinarily raises an option i.e. leaving the officer in question with the /a discretion to appeal or on the contrary refrain from so appealing. The word “if†creates a hypothetical situation negating the mandatory essence of the use of the word “shall†in this provisio. I find.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">Bearing in mind that a condition precedents </span><span class="apple-style-span"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height: 115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">are essential because they are superimposed on the law and </span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-bidi-font-weight: bold"> </span><span class="apple-style-span"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height: 115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">a precedent for commencement of actions in court imposed by the common law or legislation, and having noted that the Harmonized Terms and Conditions of Service under review are neither law nor a product of common law and considering Courts have always made a distinction between conditions contained in statutes and those contained in staff Terms and Conditions i.e. Handbooks See the case of</span></span><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> SUIT NO: NICN/UY/04/2014 IME ASUQUO UDOH Vs. UNITED BANK FOR AFRICA PLC (UBA) </span></b><span class="apple-style-span"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">delivered on the 19<sup>th</sup> September 2016 and also with due regard to the pronouncement of </span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Omoleye JCA <b><span style="color:red;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">DR. A. O. OLALEKAN VS. UNIVERSITY OF MAIDUGURI TEACHING HOSPITAL 2012 LPELR 20099 C.A</span></b>., that:</span><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">By the provisions of para 1(b) of the University of Maiduguri Teaching Hospital Revised Handbook on residency training Programme 1997 (Hereinafter referred to as the Handbook)<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">That is exhibit H at pages 258 to 278 particular at p.265 “a resident doctor shall not go to court for the protection of his constitutional rights arising from disciplinary measures, disputes, disagreements or any such matters pertaining thereto until he/she has exhausted all internal procedure for redress including Petition to the University of Maiduguri Teaching Hospital Board of Managementâ€. It was the contention in favour of the Respondent that the Appellant ought to but failed to avail himself of the internal redress mechanism, which is a condition precedent to the commencement of the Appellants suit before the trial court. According to the Respondent, the Appellants failure to comply with the provisions of paragraph 1(b) of the said Handbook rendered the suit incompetent and that the trial court ought to dismiss the Appellants suit for that reason.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Although the learned Judge did not consider it necessary to resolve this ground of objection, it should be noted that, the law is trite that such a provision requiring an aggrieved party in the shoes of Appellant to avail himself or herself of the steps contained in paragraph 1(b) of the Handbook before going to court to ventilate his grievance, is a mere procedural requirement for invoking the jurisdiction of court. To put it in other words, the said procedure is quite different from the authority or competence of the court to decide a matter which on the face of is within the jurisdiction of the court. The purpose of a pre action requirement as contained in paragraph 1(b) of the Handbook is to enable a Complainant and the Respondent decide what to do by way of negotiation in the event of a Complaint. It is not designed to abrogate the Right of the Complainant to approach the Court or to defeat his cause of action. See the cases of <b><span style="color:red">(1) BARCLAYS BANK LTD VS CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA [1976] 6 SC P175, (2) MOBIL PRODUCING NIGERIA UNLTD VS. LAGOS STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [2002] 18 NWLR (PT. 798) P1 AND (3) ETI-OSA LGA VS JEGEDE [2007]10 NWLR (PT. 1043) P537 PER OMOLEYE JCA (PP.20-21PARA C-F).<span class="apple-style-span"><o:p></o:p></span></span></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span class="apple-style-span"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> </span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span class="apple-style-span"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">I find that the provision of 09.02(e) fails to rise to the level of a condition precedent for the purpose of preventing the claimant from approaching a court of law until and unless the said provision is complied with. This provision I find and hold cannot wish away the inalienable and constitutional right of the claimant to proceed to court in respect of his compulsory retirement..<o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span class="apple-style-span"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> </span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span class="apple-style-span"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">As regards the objection that this suit is or constitutes an abuse of process, the law describes an abuse of court process as ‘</span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">where a party improperly uses the judicial process, intentionally in order to irritate and annoy his opponent, it can be said that such amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court. <b><span style="color:red">FEDERAL AIRPORTS AUTHORITY v. NWOYE (2015) 53 NLLR (PT. 180) 446 CA @ 455</span></b>, <b><span style="color:red">AFRICAN REINSURANCE CORP. v. JDP CONSTRUCTION NIG. LTD. (2003) 2-3 S.C. 47; (2003) 13 NWLR (PT. 838) 609 @ 635 </span></b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">And in <b><span style="color:red">IKEME v. VC, UNIVERSITY OF NIG. & ORS. (2014) 40 NLLR (PT. 123) 466 NIC @ 470</span></b> This court held that ‘the fundamental criteria for determining that a case is an abuse of process is that there must exist a multiplicity of suits and such multiplicity of suits is intended to annoy or harass the opponent by so doing or temper with the judicial process. <b><span style="color:red">OGOJEOFOR V. OGOJEOFOR (2006) 3 NWLR (PT. 966) 205 @ 220; KOTOYE v. SARAKI (1992) 9 NWLR (PT. 264) 156 @ 188-189.</span> </b>The Court went on to state that ‘the defendants or any party alleging an abuse of court process must place before the court concrete evidence such as the processes of the other pending case or any such material particulars to enable the court make a finding that would enable it reach a decision on whether or not the facts and circumstances of the case indeed amount to an abuse of court process’. The grouse of the defendants in making this objection was the appeal by the claimant to the President C in C, this I have found cannot be considered a suit neither in the circumstances does it tamper with the judicial process. I find and hold.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">The defendants also raised the question of there being no cause of action against the defendants, now this court in <b><span style="color:red">COMRADE ISHOLA ADESHINA SURAJUDEEN v. MR. ANTHONY NTED & ANOR. Unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/114/2013</span></b><span style="color:red; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold"> </span>a ruling delivered on July 10, 2014<span style="color:red">.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> “A cause of action is said to announce a conclusion of law i.e. that the known facts meet the requirements of a particular, recognized legal basis for obtaining relief from a Court. Cause of action is accordingly the aggregate of facts giving rise to or upon which an enforceable claim is anchored. It is the fact(s) that establish or give rise to a right of action. Cause of action, therefore, consists of all those things necessary to give a right of action. The things so necessary must have happened and so includes every material thereof that entitled the plaintiff to succeed that the defendant has the right to traverseâ€. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">The claimant from the reliefs sought is seeking declaratory redress from the compulsorily retirement and pronouncement on the actions of the defendants. In averment 6, 7, 8, and 9 of the claimant affidavit raises challenge to the defendants and their action in the Army Council, I find that the claimant at this stage has raised a challenge to the defendant and has established a prima facie cause of action for which the defendants would be required to respond. This axis of the objection also fails.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">That leaves the question of the frontloading of uncertified documents, I find this objection somewhat premature at this stage as although all frontloaded documents are deemed admitted and the flexibility of this court by Section 12(1) and Section 37 TDA allows for the consideration of frontloaded photocopied documents by consent of parties See <b>MR. KURT SEVERINSON v. EMERGING MARKETS TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICES LIMITED (2012) 27 NWLR (PT 74) 37 NIC</b> but in the case of a trial the parties could be required to present the originals for proper consideration and this court can compel same, however a cursory glance at the processes before the court filed reveal that the newspaper extracts were all duly certified, the letter of termination by law this document does not require certification being the document served on the claimant See the case of </span><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:red">GOVERNOR OF EKITI STATE Vs. OJO [2006] 17 NWLR (Pt. 1007) 95 at 129 para B-D</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold"> Abdullahi JCA and with regard to the Terms and Conditions, at trial the claimant would be required to present the court with the complete / full document See the case of <b><span style="color:red;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">MEDICAL AND HEALTH WORKERS UNION OF NIGERIA & ORS V. FEDERAL MINISTRY OF HEALTH UNREPORTED SUIT NO. NICN/ABJ/238/2012</span><span style="color:#538135; mso-themecolor:accent6;mso-themeshade:191;mso-bidi-font-style:italic"> </span></b></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">the judgment of which was delivered on 22<sup>nd</sup> July 2013, and as the claimant rightly stated the court would call for the exhibits accordingly. This aspect of the defendants’ objection also fails.<span class="apple-style-span"> That being said means therefore that this suit/matter is not pre-emptive, neither is it premature nor incompetent</span><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">All in all I find the objects of the defendants lack merit and are hereby dismissed.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">The court had asked parties to address the court as to the propriety of the claimant commencing this suit by way of originating summons.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Whereas Learned Counsel for the defendant during oral adumbration had informed the court that the matter was highly contentious and full of conflicts arguing that the claimant case was that he was not indicted by any panel before his compulsory retirement while the defendants maintain the contrary arguing that their exhibits show the claimant tried to sell army property and argue further that the Army Council is empowered to discipline any staff. The claimant argued that the proceedings were not likely to be contentious as all parties agree that the claimant was compulsory retired and they, the claimant maintain that this was done without recourse to due process.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">All sides raised submissions that certain of their averments were not challenged as this itself would score any points in this court where a party is required to succeed on the merit of his own case and not by the weakness in the case of his opponent. See the case of <b><span style="color:red">IRONBAR V. CROSS RIVER BASIN AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [2004] 2 NWLR (PT. 857) 411 AT 434<o:p></o:p></span></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">That said, the claimant by this suit is complaining that his compulsory retirement by the defendants “did not follow due process, and is consequently illegal, invalid, wrongful, unlawful, unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect whatsoever†and so prays for a declaration that he “was never validly or legally retired†and that he is “still a serving member of the Nigerian Army and is to be accorded all rights and privileges..... of his rank and position†as well as other injunctive retraining reliefs in addition to “a public apology†and “an order setting aside his terminationâ€, “immediate reinstatement†and “N1 billion Naira exemplary, aggravated punitive and general damagesâ€. By <span class="apple-style-span"><b><span style="color:red;mso-bidi-font-style: italic">EKAEGWU V. NIGERIAN ARMY</span></b></span><b><span style="color:red; mso-bidi-font-style:italic"> [<span class="apple-style-span">2006] LPELR-7641(CA)</span></span></b><span style="color:red"> </span><span class="apple-style-span">Dismissal or compulsory retirement of an employee by the employer translates into bringing the employment to an end. And in</span> <b><span style="color:red; mso-bidi-font-style:italic">OMIDIORA V. FEDERAL CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION [2007] 14 NWLR (PT. 1053) 17</span></b>, ‘disengagement’ connotes laying off, withdrawal, retrenchment or other like exercise as opposed to dismissal. In complaining about his compulsory retirement, the claimant is effectively complaining about his employment ending. Now the Courts have cautioned against the use of originating summons where facts are likely to be disputed and so require proof. In <b><span style="color:red;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">NEPA V. UGBAJA </span><span style="color:red">[1998] 5 NWLR (Pt. 548) 106</span></b>, for instance, it was held that a case that has to do with unlawful dismissal of an employee should not normally be commenced by an originating summons which only requires the matter to be proved by affidavit evidence. That such an action should be commenced by an ordinary writ of summons so that pleading could be ordered and exchanged and concrete evidence given to establish the claim or defence.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Furthermore, the Court of Appeal in <b><span style="color:red">S.C.S. COMPANY VS. COUNCIL OF ILE IFE [2011]14 NWLR (PT.1269)193 AT 204-205 PARAS. H-B</span></b><i>, </i>Per Iyizoba J.C.A., held-<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">“It is indeed not advisable to employ the originating summon for hostile proceedings. The fact that the appellant’s contract was terminated by the respondent immediately underscores the point that proceedings will be hostile. The respondent is bound to try and justify his action in terminating the contract. Whether it would succeed or not is another matter but the point is that they would try. They would fight the case all the way throughâ€.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Also in <b><span style="color:red">HONORABLE MICHAEL DAPIANLONG & 5 ORS. VS. CHIEF JOSHUA CHIBI DARIYE[2007] 4SCNJ 289; HON OGBONNA ASOGWA V PDP & 2ORS [2012] 12 SC (PT. III) 112<i>,</i></span></b><span style="color:red"> </span>wherein the apex court held that the originating summons is a means of commencing action adopted where facts are not in dispute.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">I am very much aware of the cautionary pronouncement of His Lordship Bada JCA of the Court of Appeal in<b><i><span style="color:red"> </span></i><span class="apple-style-span"><span style="color:red">ODUKWE V. ACHEBE (2008)</span></span><span style="color:red"> <span class="apple-style-span">1 NWLR (PT. 1067) 40 AT P. 57</span></span></b><span class="apple-style-span"><span style="color:red">.</span></span></span><span class="apple-style-span"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; color:#000099"> </span></span><span class="apple-style-span"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">"Although the procedure of commencing suits by originating summons ensures a quick disposal of suits, it may also unfairly inhibit the parties from fully ventilating what is in controversy in a contentious matter. Therefore, care must be taken to ensure that the procedure is used only when appropriate." <o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">The case of <b><span style="color:red;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">NJIDEKA EZEIGWE & 2 ORS VS. CHIEF BENSON CHUKS [2010] 2-3 SC (Pt. 1) 2,</span></b> the Supreme Court of Nigeria held that the procedure of originating summon is meant to be invoked in a friendly action between parties who are substantially <i>ad idem</i> on the facts and who without need for pleadings merely want a directive of court on point of law involved<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">The situation between parties in this case cannot be described as friendly or even <b><i>‘ad idem</i></b>’ in substance, a cursory regard of the combative language of the processes in this case all lead the court to hold that there are still issues requiring venting <i>‘a la mode’ </i><b><span style="color:red">ODUKWE VS, ACHEBE (SUPRA)<i>.</i></span></b><span style="color:red"> </span>For that reason and based on the above authorities, I hereby find and hold that an Originating summons is not appropriate means of commencing this suit<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Consequently, in the light of the contentious issues highlighted above, these issues raised are material to this case and I find and hold that they cannot be properly resolved in the absence of a procedure that allows for the filing and exchange of pleadings so that further evidence can be adduced and be cross examined. See generally<b><span style="color:red">, ETIM VS. OBOT [2010] 12 NWLR (PT. 1207) PG 117</span></b>.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">The National Industrial Court is a specialized court set up to address not only the legalese and justice of the case between parties but advance the cause of equity and openness. The court is expected to be devoid of unnecessary technicalities, with substantial justice as our goal while at the same time ensuring that the claims of litigants are adequately addressed.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">In the circumstance; What the proper order to make is?<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">The Supreme Court in <b><span style="color:red">OSANBADE VS. OYEWUMI [2007] 18 ALL FWLR (PT. 368) 1004 AT 1015 PARAS. –E<i>,</i></span></b><i><span style="color:red"> </span></i>held,<i> “</i>The proper order a trial court should make where it finds that an action had been wrongly commenced by Originating Summons is to order pleadings and not to dismiss such action or pronounce on the merits of the caseâ€. Also see the case of <b><span style="color:red">UDO V. R.T.B.C. & S. (2013) 14 NWLR (PT. 1375) 488 @ 493 where it was held that </span></b>Commencing an action by wrong procedure does not constitute a jurisdictional issue since the lapse, except where specifically stated in the Rules of court, does not defeat the claimant’s cause of action. If the subject matter of the plaintiff’s action is within the jurisdiction of the court, the cause of action would not be abrogated simply because it has been commenced by wrong procedure. The lapse in that regard is only an irregularity that gives the defendant the right to insist that the plaintiff adopts the proper procedure in approaching the court. Even then, the objection must be raised within a reasonable time.<b><o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> </span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Also the Supreme Court in <b><span style="color:red">ADEYELU II V. AJAGUNGBADE III [2007] 14 NWLR (PT. 1053) PAGES 3-4</span></b><span style="color:red"> </span>Per Ogbuagu, J.S.C has it to say on the proper order to make where a suit is wrongly commenced by originating summons – “The proper order a trial court should make where it finds that a suit before it was wrongly commenced by way of Originating Summons is to order pleadings and not to dismiss such suit.†See <b>Order 17 rule 2 National Industrial Court of Nigeria Civil Procedure Rule 2017 (NICNCPR)<o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">On the strength of the Supreme Court decisions in <b><span style="color:red">OSANBADE VS. OYEWUMI (SUPRA), ADEYELU II VS. AJAGUNGBADE III (SUPRA</span></b>) and by virtue of <b>(NICNCPR 2017) Order 5 rule 1</b> of the National Industrial Court Rules I hereby order the parties herein to file and serve their pleadings, the claimant shall file and serve his statement of fact and other relevant processes in accordance with the relevant provisions of Order 3 of the Rules of this court. The defendants shall file and serve their statement of defence within two weeks of receiving the statement of fact of the claimant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">This is the ruling of this court and it is hereby entered.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" align="center" style="text-align:center"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" align="center" style="text-align:center"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" align="center" style="text-align:center"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">…………………………….<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" align="center" style="text-align:center"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Hon Justice E. N. Agbakoba<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;color:red">Judge.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%; font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%; font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> </span></p>