Download PDF
RULING This deals with an application for urgent relief dated 6/6/18 and filed on 12/6/18, praying for: 1. An order directing the 1st and 2nd defendants/respondents by themselves, through their officers, subordinates aides. Agents and anyone acting on their directions and instructions to FORTHWITH make available to the complainant/Applicant, a certified true copy of the records of the proceedings and verdict of the 1st Defendant/Respondent of the 14th day of march 2018 by which the complainant was recommended for compulsory retirement for misconduct. 2. An order directing 1st and 2nd Defendants/Respondents by themselves, through their officers, subordinates, aides, agents and anyone acting on their directions and instructions, to comply with the provisions of the National Industrial court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules 2017by accepting the complainant/Applicant’s notice of appeal for filing at the secretariat of the National Judicial Council (NJC), compiling the Record of Appeal for transmission to the National Industrial Court of Nigeria and service on parties to this appeal. 3. An order restraining the 1st and 2nd defendants/Respondents by themselves, through their officers, subordinates, aides, agents and anyone acting on their directions and instructions, from recommending anyone for appointment as or recognizing and according the rights and privileges of the office of substantive Chief Judge of Abia State to anyone pending the hearing and determination of the appeal or as otherwise directed by the Honourable Court. 4. And for such further or other order(s) as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances. In support of the application a 24 paragraphs affidavit was sworn to by the Complainant/Applicant. A written address was also filed along with the application. Nwokocha Ahawei, Esq; Counsel for the complainant/Applicant while moving in the application relied on all the averments in the affidavit in support and the attached exhibits. Counsel also adopted the written address as his argument. In the written address counsel distilled out single issue for determination, to wit: ‘‘Whether the complainant/applicant has made out a case for the grant of the reliefs sought in this application pending the hearing and determination of the appeal or such other time as the Honourable Court may direct’’. In arguing the lone issue for determination Counsel submitted that by the affidavit evidence the Applicant has made out a case for the grant of the reliefs sought by him pending the hearing and determination of the appeal or such other time as the Honourable Court may direct. Counsel submitted reliefs 1 and 2 are not contentious. They are sought to enforce compliance with the express and implied provisions, intentions and intendments of section 254C of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, (as amended) and the Rules of this Court. The documents processes which the applicant prays the court to direct the 1st and 2nd Defendants/Respondents to make available to her are her constitutional and statutory right. They are not at the discretion of the 1st and 2nd Defendants/Respondents nor is it a privilege to the complainant. Counsel urged the court to grant reliefs 1 and 2 in order to guarantee and protect the complainant’s constitutional and statutory right of access to this Honourable Court. On the 3rd relief Counsel submitted that our case law are replete with conditions to be satisfied by an applicant for an order of injunction pending appeal. After reviewing some case law counsel cited the case of SPDC NIGERIA LIMITED V AMADI & ORS. Where Supreme Court itemized three conditions to be satisfied as follows; 1. The grounds of appeal must raise substantial legal issues in an area of law that is novel or recondite. 2. The application must disclose special circumstances why the judgment should be stayed. 3. The application must disclose why matters should be put in status quo or preserve the res so as not to render the appeal nugatory. It is the submission of counsel that a perusal of the injunctive relief sought, the averments in the affidavit in support, the exhibits annexed to the application particularly the proposed notice and grounds of appeal, clearly shows that the applications meets all the conditions and principles upon which this Honourable Court should exercise its discretion to grant the injunctive relief. COURT’S DECISION I have carefully and painstakingly read through the content of the motion Exparte seeking for urgent relief, the affidavit in support, the exhibits attached to the affidavit and the written address filed in support of the application. Taking into consideration the reliefs being sought, I shall adopt the issue submitted by the Applicant for determination of this application. The Counsel for the Applicant’s position is that by the affidavit evidence a case has been made out for grant of the reliefs being sought. It is the contention of counsel that reliefs 1 and 2 in the motion exparte are not contentious in the sense that they are meant to enforce compliance with provisions of the constitution and rules of this court. The applicant has averred in the affidavit in support that his solicitor has written a formal application requesting the Respondents herein to make available certain documents in respect of the disciplinary proceedings against the Applicant. The aim of requesting for the documents was to enable the Applicant perfect and settle notice of appeal in respect of the recommendations for removal of the applicant as a judge and chief judge of Abia state. A copy of the solicitors letter to the Respondent is attached as exhibit A while the reply is attached as exhibit B. It is clear that the provisions of Order 21 and 22 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, introduced new novel provision regarding procedure for seeking urgent relief by a litigant. The applicant for urgent relief is under an obligation to comply with the provisions of order 3 of the rules of this court in respect of the urgent relief. The applicant must also give reasons for the urgency and why urgent reliefs is necessary. However, where the requirement of the rules were not complied with, the reasons for non-compliance. The affidavit evidence has depositions to the effect that the Applicant upon becoming aware of the recommendation to compulsorily retire him from office as a judge and chief judge of Abia state made effort to obtain copies of proceedings and verdict of the 1st defendant but was unable to do so. Consequently her solicitors on 26/3/18 wrote to 1st and 2nd defendants demanding for the Certified True Copies of the documents. Vide letter of 28/3/18 some of the document requested were made available to the applicant. Thereafter, several efforts were made to get the remaining document but to no avail, thus, why this application for urgent reliefs. The reason for the request is for the Applicant to properly settle notice of appeal. The appeal cannot also be filed without reference number of the verdict. I have studied exhibit A and B, I.e the solicitors letters and the reply by the Respondents, it is clear that the Respondents have substantially complied with the request of the Applicant. It is only item (iii) of the letter of request that has not been made available to the Applicant. The reason given was that as at the time of making the request the verdict of the council on the two aforesaid reports were not ready. The reply assures that the remaining document will be made available as soon as it is ready. From the date of exhibit B i.e 28/3/18 to date is almost three months. Since the verdicts which the claimant is request is for the Applicant to exercise right of appeal against the recommendation of the 1st Defendant, I hereby ordered that the Secretary of the 1st Respondent who is the custodian of all the record of the 1st Defendant to make available to the Applicant the remaining documents being requested as per exhibit ‘A’. On Relief two, it is my view that it is preposterous to grant such relief, since there is nothing in the affidavit evidence to show that the Applicant has submitted his notice and grounds of appeal and same was rejected by the Respondents. In my view the prompt response of the Respondents to the request of the Applicant as per letter of 28/3/18, clearly goes to show that the Respondents were cooperative. In the absence of anything to the contrary, relief two has not been proved and is hereby refused. On relief 3, which deals with issue of injunction restraining the Respondents by themselves, through their officers, subordinate, aides agents and anyone acting on their directions and or instructions from recommending anyone for appointment as or recognizing and according the rights and privileges of the office of substantive Chief Judge of Abia State pending the hearing and determination of the appeal or as otherwise directed by the honourable court, is a relief being asked for at large. It is trite law that an applicant for an order of injunction must established existence of special circumstances to the satisfaction of the Court, based on which if order of injunction is refused the appeal will be rendered nugatory. In the present situation there is no valid appeal pending before a competent Court of law. What is in the open is the intention being nursed by the Applicant to appeal. As pointed out earlier the Respondents have substantially complied and granted the Applicant’s request as per the request of his Solicitor in exhibit A. A part from requirement of special circumstances. The applicant for an order of injunction must show that he has a Legal right that needs to be protected. The question to ask here is has the Applicant established any legal right to the office of judge or Chief judge of Abia State, the answer is capital no. what is even more baffling with relief 3 is that it is aimed at stopping or restraining the exercise of a legal right. The 1st Respondent is among the Federal Executive bodies established by the provision of section 153 of Constitution and imbued with power to recommend persons for appointment as judicial officers and exercise disciplinary control over judicial officers. See item 20 of Part 1 of Third schedule to the Constitution. Therefore, this Court does not have power to restrain exercise of a legal right by the 1st Respondent. To do so will amount to usurping the power of the Respondents as regards to appointment and discipline of judicial officers. In AKAPO V HAKEEM HABEEB 1992 6 NWLR PT.247 266, Karibi-whyte, JSC, (as he then was), stated that ‘the claim for an injunction is won and lost on the basis of the existence of a legal rights. As I have already said the above, where an applicant for an injunction has no legal right recognizable by the courts, there is no power to grant him an injunction’. See also OBEYA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL V AG FEDERATION 1987 3 NWLR PT.60 325. In view of this finding relief 3 has not been proved and it is hereby refused. The sum total of what I have been saying is that. The Applicant succeed in part, in the Secretary of the 1st Defendant is hereby ordered to make available to the Applicant the remaining document yet to be made available to him as per the letter of 26/3/18 and the reply thereof as per letter dated 28/3/18. Exhibits A and B, respectively. Reliefs 2 and 3 in the motion paper are refused for failure by the Applicant establish entitlement to those orders. Sanusi Kado, Judge. s