Download PDF
RULING By a Notice of Preliminary objection filed on the 25th day of April 2016, counsel for the 4th and 5th Defendants sought an order dismissing the entire suit for want of cause of action and on the basis that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain this suit. In the alternative, he sought an order of this court striking out the names of the 4th and 5th Defendants/Applicants from this suit for not being proper parties. Learned Counsel relied upon the following grounds of objection: 1. The Claimant/Respondent has no cause of action which has arisen in his favour and which has become exercisable against the 4th and 5th Defendants/Applicants at all. 2. The Claimant/Respondent’s action is not challenging any law or resolution made by the 4th and 5th Defendants/Applicants. 3. That none of the reliefs sought in the Claimant/Respondent’s claim is directed to the 4th and 5th Defendants/Applicants. 4. That the Claimant/Respondent was not employed, promoted and fired by the 4th and 5th Defendants/Applicants. 5. The Claimant/Respondent was employed, elected to be promoted and was fired by the 3rd Defendant/Respondent. 6. That the 4th and 5th Defendants are not proper parties. 7. That the Claimant was employed, promoted and finally retired in line with statutory provisions, to wit; Imo State Civil Service Rules and the Pensions Act, therefore the Honourable Court cannot be invited to abrogate the law or amend the status because of the sole case of the Claimant. The Preliminary Objection was supported by a 4-paragraph affidavit deposed to by Amadi Obed, a litigation officer in the 4th and 5th Defendants counsel’s law office. In the supporting written address, counsel referred the court to the case of DURU & ANOR vs. NWANGWU (2006) All FWLR (Pt. 324) 1830 at 1831, where the Supreme Court held inter alia that where no reasonable cause of action is disclosed against a Defendant or Respondent, the court can, on proper application of the party, strike out his name from the suit. See also the cases of ABUBAKAR vs. BEBEJI OIL & ALLIED PRODUCTS LTD (2007) All FWLR (Pt. 362) 1855 and AGF vs. ABACHA (2011) All FWLR (Pt. 566) 445. Counsel submitted that in the event that the court agrees with the above stated legal principle, the “unavoidable legal consequence” is that this court lacks the requisite jurisdiction to entertain this suit. Similarly on the second plank of the objection, counsel contended that by the doctrine of separation of powers enshrined under Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Nigerian Constitution, the 4th and 5th Defendants under Section 4(7) of the self-same Constitution are seised with the competence to make law for order and good governance of the state. Again, counsel pointed out the fact that the 1st and 2nd Defendants are empowered by Section 101 of the Nigerian Constitution to regulate its internal procedure unchallenged by other arms of government. Counsel drew the court’s attention to the case of UME EZEOKE vs. MAKARFI (1982) 3 NCLR 663, where it was held thus: “Except where there is a specific provision in the Constitution as to any particular procedure the legislature must comply with, the court will not interfere with the internal proceedings of the legislature.” See also the cases of: 1. OKWU vs. WAYAS (1981) 2 NCLR 522. 2. ABARIBE vs. SPEAKER ABIA STATE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY (2001) 1 CHR 225 at 227-9. 3. UDE vs. OJECHEMI ( 1995) 8 NWLR (Pt. 412) 152 at 155. 4. ATTORNEY GENERAL vs. GUARDIAN NEWSPAPER LTD (1999) NWLR (Pt. 618) 187. It is counsel’s opinion that the foregoing authorities on separation of powers and doctrine of non-interference drew force from the English case of BRADLAUGH vs. GOSSET 1883-1884 12 QBD 271. Again, counsel argued that the Claimant’s complaint touches on the Civil Service Rules and Pension Act which stipulates when a civil servant may retire from active service. In the Pension Act, every officer shall retire upon attaining the age of 60 years or having put in 35 years of service, whichever comes first. It is counsel’s further argument that the 4th and 5th Defendants in their joint statement of defence, pleaded the baptismal card of the Claimant from his church which evidenced the Claimant’s date of birth, to be 19th June 1951, this fact was not challenged. Also, counsel submitted that the Claimant’s retirement letter dated 21st August 2015, taking effect from 9th June 2011, shows that the Claimant has attained 60 years of age and is ripe for retirement. Thus, counsel asserted that the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the suit against the 4th and 5th Defendants; and jurisdiction being a threshold issue may be raised at any time, even on appeal. See the case of ELELU-HABEEB & ANOR vs. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION & ORS (2012) All FWLR (Pt. 629) 1010. Finally on this issue, counsel contended that the court’s jurisdiction is invoked when the questions nominated for answer, statement of facts, and reliefs sought, support the Claimant’s case by creating a legal right in favour of the Claimant to be determined. It is counsel’s opinion that in the extant case, the statement of facts and reliefs does not disclose a legal right that invokes the court’s jurisdiction. Counsel relied on the case of OKONKWO vs. OKONKWO (2010) ALL FWLR (PT 353) 252 at 256-7, where it was held that once the Court finds that it has no jurisdiction, the only option left is to dismiss the action. Accordingly, counsel urged the court to dismiss this suit in its entirety. In opposition the Claimant filed a 10-paragraph counter-affidavit deposed to by the claimant and written address on 16th June 2016 out of time allowed by the Court Rules. In the address of the Learned Counsel for the claimant, one issue was identified for determination, which is: Whether the 4th and 5th Defendant took any action or failed to act when they should, and which conduct resulted in the retirement of the Claimant. Counsel extracted the meaning of “cause of action” from the Blacks’ Law Dictionary which reads thus: “The fact or facts which give a person a right to judicial relief, the legal effect of an occurrence in terms of redress to a party to the occurrence…failure to perform legal obligation to do or refrain from performance of some act.” See also EZEANI vs. NRC (2014) 6 WRN 72 and EMIATOR vs. NIGERIAN ARMY (2000) 24 WRN 97. Counsel proceeded to argue that the Claimant has a cause of action against the 4th and 5th Defendants, both of their, acquiescence and dereliction of duty, which led to the wrongful retirement of the Claimant. It is counsel’s further argument that the 4th Defendant is the Claimant’s employer, by its letter the 4th Defendant in dereliction of its functions, adopted and affirmed the decision of the 1st and 3rd Defendants to retire the Claimant. More so, counsel submitted that the 4th and 5th Defendants are autonomous in its proceedings and internal affairs and subsequent to this autonomy, all matters of discipline in relation to the Claimant’s employment. Furthermore, counsel contended that the Claimant’s suit challenges the implementation of the provisions of Law No. 6 of 2001 (as amended) which gives the 4th Defendant power to control, promote, discipline, retire or dismiss a staff of the 4th and 5th Defendants. Counsel submitted further that the law of agency stipulates in this regard, that when an agent such as the 4th Defendant’s Permanent Secretary acted in his official capacity and retired the Claimant, he is deemed to have acted on the behalf of his master, the 4th Defendant. It is counsel’s opinion that one vital question to be settled in this suit, is to ascertain whether due process as required by Law No. 6 of 2001 was followed in the process of the Claimant’s retirement. In addition, counsel asserted further that it was the 5th Defendant who implemented the decision of 4th Defendant. Counsel submitted that flowing from his earlier arguments, it is correct to assert that the 4th and 5th Defendants are necessary parties. The court was urged by counsel to dismiss this preliminary objection, as it lacks merit because it was the 4th and 5th Defendant’s permanent Secretary who retired the Claimant; giving rise to the Claimant’s cause of action against them. COURT’s DECISION From the grounds of the Notice of Preliminary Objection filed by the 4th and 5th Defendants, their objection is simply that no cause of action is disclosed against them in this suit or, in other words, they are not proper parties to the suit. In the affidavit in support of the Preliminary Objection, it was deposed that the Claimant has no cause of action against the 4th and 5th Defendants as the Claimant is not challenging any law or resolution made by these Defendants. The 4th and 5th Defendants are not proper parties in this suit and none of the reliefs sought by the Claimant concern the 4th and 5th Defendants. It is the prayer of the deponent that the suit be dismissed or the names of 4th and 5th Defendants struck out of the suit. Let me mention that the question whether a cause of action is disclosed against a party can be garnered only from the writ of summons and Statement of Claim or, with respect to the originating process of this court, the complaint and Statement of Facts. See: KADZI INTERNATIONAL LTD vs. KANO TANNERY CO. LTD (2003) FWLR (Pt. 184) 255 at 285; ILOZOR vs. AHMADU (2003) FWLR (Pt. 163) 132 at 139. Thus, in order to ascertain whether there is a cause of action against the 4th and 5th Defendants in this action, the claims in the Compliant and the averments in the Statement of Facts have to be examined. The averments of the Claimant in his statement of facts show that the Claimant was transferred by the 3rd Defendant in 2009 to the service of the 4th and 5th Defendants. In 2014, the 3rd Defendant directed the 4th Defendant in a letter to retire the Claimant, but the 4th Defendant refused to do so on the ground that the 3rd Defendant has no jurisdiction to so direct and accordingly informed the Speaker and Clerk of the 5th Defendant. The Claimant further averred that he was never invited by the 3rd or 4th Defendant to answer any petition and he had not attained retirement age at the time he was retired by the Defendants. Despite the earlier position of the 4th Defendant in rejecting the directive of the 3rd Defendant to retire the Claimant, the Claimant averred that he received a letter dated 21/8/2015 by the Permanent Secretary of the 4th Defendant retiring the Claimant from service. The Claimant alleged that the retirement was unlawful. It was upon these facts the Claimant sought the determination of the following question contained in the Complaint: i. Whether the 3rd and 4th Defendants were right in taking decisions pursuant to a petition by an unknown person alleging that the Claimant is over age, without giving the Claimant opportunity to respond to the petition or defend himself. Implicit in this question is whether the 3rd Defendant has the right to conduct investigation leading to the retirement of the Claimant whilst the Claimant is under the employment of the 4th Defendant. ii. Whether by the provision of Section 31 of Civil Service Commission Regulation 1994 (Of Imo State) and Rules 02809 of Imo State Public Service Rules 2001, the Defendants are empowered to retire the Claimant from Imo State House of Assembly Service, when he has neither attained the age of 60 nor 35 years of service. iii. Whether the Permanent Secretary of the 4th Defendant was right in retiring the Claimant on the 9/6/2011 by letter dated 21/8/2015, thereby implementing a decision rejected by the 4th Defendant at a time when the 4th Defendant was suspended and without the consent and authority of the said 4th Defendant. The Claims against the Defendants in this suit are as follows: i. A Declaration that the Claimant is only due for retirement on the 21/7/2020, when he would have attained 60 years of age ii. An order of court setting aside the purported notification of retirement from service dated 21/8/2015 with reference no. HASC/52/94 and letter dated 8/12/2014 with reference no. CSC/R24/1/52 issued by the 3rd and 4th Defendants respectively iii. An order of court restoring the payment of emoluments to the Claimant from 21/8/2015 till his retirement on 21/7/2020 iv. An order of injunction restraining the Defendants from retiring the Claimant earlier than 21/7/2020, the due date for his retirement when he would have attained the age of 60 years. Let me also mention that the Claimant’s averments reveal that he was in the 4th Defendant’s employment at the time he was retired. In view of the above questions the Claimant posed in this matter, the claims he sought and facts contained in the statement of facts, it is evident that the Claimant has disclosed a cause of action against the 4th and 5th Defendants. The 4th and 5th Defendants have prayed that that the suit be dismissed or their names should be struck out of the suit for not being proper parties in the suit. It appears to me their contention is that they have been misjoined. The Supreme Court in MOBIL PRODUCING NIG UNLTD vs. LASEPA (2003) FWLR (Pt. 137) 1029 has explained who is a proper party to a suit at page 1056 thus: “Any party whose interest will be directly affected if a relief claimed in the action were granted is a proper party to the suit.” In the averments of the Claimant in the statement of facts, the Claimant categorically made allegations against the 4th and 5th Defendants and the reliefs sought by the Claimant concern these Defendants. The Claimant has a cause of action against the 4th and 5th Defendants. They are therefore proper parties to this suit. In any case, it is now settled law that no action shall be defeated by reason of misjoinder. See ABIA STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs. QUORUM CONSORTIUM LTD (2009) All FWLR (Pt. 474) 1444 where the Supreme Court held that non joinder or misjoinder of parties will not defeat a claim nor lead to striking out of a claim. In the result, I do not find any merit in the Preliminary Objection. It is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost. Ruling is entered accordingly. Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe Judge