Download PDF
JUDGMENT Introduction and claims The claimant filed a writ of summons against the defendant at the Federal High Court on the 16th April, 2008. The suit was transferred to this Court pursuant to the Order of the Federal High Court on 16th October 2014. The claimant filed an amended statement of claim on the 14th of June 2017 seeking the following reliefs against the defendant: i. A DECLARATION that, upon a true and proper construction of the Federal Government Policy Guidelines on Public Service Reform of March 2006, the defendant’s termination of the claimant’s employment and subsequent suspension of her salary and allowances is unlawful, null, void and of no effect. ii. A DECLARATION that the actions of the defendant under the said Guidelines with respect to the termination of the claimant’s employment and the subsequent suspension of the payment of her salary and allowances on such faulty ground are ultra vires and same should be quashed. iii. In the alternative, a DECLARATION that the claimant was still under the employment of the defendant until her retirement in May 2008 by virtue of the fact that she continued to carry out her duties and functions as Chief Lecturer with the knowledge and acquiescence of the defendant. iv. AN ORDER directing the defendant to confirm her retirement from the College and communicate same to Leadway Pensure PFA Ltd to enable the pension managers process the release of her pension. v. AN ORDER directing the defendant to pay the claimant her terminal benefits. vi. AN ORDER directing the defendant to pay the claimant the sum of N2,157,988.38 (Two Million, One Hundred and Fifty Seven Thousand, Nine Hundred and Eighty Eight Naira, Thirty Eight Kobo) being special damages flowing from the unlawful termination of the claimant’s appointment. PARTICULARS OF SPECIAL DAMAGES Plaintiff Salary for 14 months April 2007 to May 2008) at CONTISS 15 being N290,644.16 Per month N4,069,018.24 Less 3 months’ salary paid in April 2007 for April, (N 595,233.00) Less monthly payments in varied amounts for 15 months from July 2007 to September 2008: a. July 2007 to October 2007 at N: 87,825.94 N351,303.76 b. November 2007 at N: 88,035.94 N 88,035.94 c. December 2007 at N: 87,825.94 N 87,825.94 d. January 2008 to February 2008 at N: 86,819.82 N173,639.64 e. March 2008 to April 2008 at N: 87,825.94 N175,651.88 f. May 2008 at N: 88,035.94 N 88,035.94 g. June 2008 to September 2008 at N: 87,825.94 N:1,315,796.86 N351,303.76 N1,315,796.86 Total: N4,069,018.24 – (N595,233.00 + N1,315,796.86) = N4,069,018.24 – N1,911,029.86 GRAND TOTAL N2,157,988.38 v. Interest on the said sum of N2,157,988.38 (Two Million, One Hundred and Fifty Seven Thousand, Nine Hundred and Eighty Eight Naira, Thirty Eight Kobo) at the rate of 21% from 26th April 2007 until judgment and at a rate adjudged by the Honourable Court from judgment until final liquidation. vi. A DECLARATION that the claimant is entitled to her Residence, Quarter 39, Aggrey Road, Yaba, Lagos, the same having been allocated to the claimant by the Federal Government and offered for sale to her by the Presidential Implementation Committee of Inquiry into the alienation of Federal Government Property which offer she accepted with an overt act. vii. AN ORDER of Perpetual Injunction restraining the defendant, their agents, servants, privies and or/any person whosoever deriving authority through the defendant from threatening, harassing, intimidating, or ejecting the claimant from her Residence Quarter 39, Aggrey Road, Yaba, Lagos. viii. N10,000,000.00 (Ten Million Naira Only) as general damages against the defendant. ix. N500,000.00 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira Only) being cost of prosecuting this case. Accompanying the amended statement of claim are the claimant’s statement on oath, and copies of documents. The defendant filed a consequential amended statement of defence on the 11th July 2017 together with the accompanying processes. Case of the claimant The claimant’s case on the pleadings is that she was until May 2008, a Chief Lecturer in the Department of Graphic Design in the School of Art, Design and Printing, Yaba College of Technology and at all material times prior to this action, a full time, confirmed, qualified and pensionable employee in the service of the defendant. The claimant averred that sometime in 1969, she responded to an advertisement by the Federal Public Service Commission, by applying for the position of an Assistant Lecturer (Art) and she was found to be qualified for the position, based on the entry qualifications required for such position by the Federal Ministry of Education and she was employed to work with the defendant. The claimant averred that at that time she had the following qualifications: in 1961, a Certificate in Art from the Yaba Technical College; in 1965, a Diploma in Art and Design from the Chelsea College of Art, London which she attended from September, 1961 to May 1965 equivalent to the present day Bachelor of Art Degree, (B.A. Hons); in 1966, an LCC Post Graduate Certificate in Art and Design from Chelsea College of Art, London. The claimant stated that her maiden name is Gina Taiwo Ologbosere which she bore at the time she obtained her academic qualifications. Her marital name is Vivienne Gina Osemwegie. The claimant averred that by a letter dated 9th June 1969, her employment was approved by the Public Service Commission and she was formally employed as Assistant Lecturer (Art) in the defendant by letter dated 23rd June, 1969 by the Ministry of Establishments, subject to the terms and conditions laid down in the said letter. The claimant stated that her appointment was published in the Gazette as No. 53, in Volume 56, at Page 1605 and dated 9th October,1969. The claimant stated that she resumed duty with the defendant on 2nd July, 1969 as an Assistant Lecturer (Art) in the Graphic Design Department and her employment was confirmed by the defendant with an enhanced salary package, by a letter dated 26th June, 1970. The claimant stated that she rose from the position of an Assistant Lecturer in 1969 to that of a Chief Lecturer, the highest academic cadre in the Nigerian Polytechnic structure, in 1991. The claimant averred that she was at different times appointed as Acting and subsequently substantive Head of Department of Graphic Design between 1983 and 1991 and in 2004 by various Rectors of the defendant including Mr. Olubunmi Owoso the defendant’s Rector at the time this action was instituted. The claimant stated that she had also served as a Chairperson and as a Member of various Committees of the defendant between 1980 and 2007. The claimant stated that by April 2007, she had put in about 38 years of meritorious service in the employment of the defendant and this service was unequivocally acknowledged and commended by the defendant through the aforementioned promotions and appointments. The claimant averred that on or about 26th April, 2007, she received a letter dated 28th March 2007 from the defendant terminating her employment. The claimant stated that she responded to the said letter of termination by her letter dated 30th April, 2007 demanding to know why her employment was unceremoniously and prematurely terminated. That the defendant informed her by its letter dated 23rd May, 2007 that her employment as a Chief Lecturer in the defendant was terminated because her qualifications fall below the minimum B.Sc. degree qualification required for academic staff in the lectureship cadre in the College. The claimant stated that upon careful perusal of the said letter dated 23rd May, 2007, the termination of her employment was based on the supposed ground that she did not possess the entry qualification or mandatory skills as at the time she was employed by the said Commission in 1969 as an Assistant Lecturer (Art). The defendant claimed to derive its power to do this from the Federal Government Policy Guidelines on Public Service Reform of March 2006. The claimant stated that during her 38-year service in the defendant she participated in several accreditation exercises carried out by the National Board for Technical Education (NBTE), the supervisory Organ of Federal Polytechnics in Nigeria, and her academic qualifications and mandatory skills to continue to lecture in the College have never been queried or found wanting. That contrary to the defendant’s letter dated 23rd May, 2007 and its understanding of the said Guidelines, she presently has, and has always had the requisite qualifications as a Lecturer in the defendant right from the day of her employment in June 1969 by the Federal Public Service Commission. The claimant stated that nevertheless, a circular was issued by the Director General, Bureau of Public Reforms dated 16th July, 2007 directing all Federal Ministries and Heads of Extra-ministerial departments and agencies to re-instate all staff who were supposedly affected by the Civil Service Reforms but the defendant refused to re-instate her. The claimant stated that she is the only staff who was not re-instated in her Department while some other academic staff affected in the School of Art Design and Printing were re-instated by the defendant on the basis of the circular dated 16th July, 2007. The claimant stated that while the severance was being enforced by the defendant part of her salary was being paid into her account monthly with First Bank of Nigeria Plc. without the issuance of any pay slip to her from July 2007 to September 2008. The claimant stated that she continued to render her services to the defendant by teaching her students in spite of the psychological warfare the defendant waged against her by refusing to officially re-instate her. The claimant stated that the defendant recognized and accepted that she was still under its employ as she carried out her duties and functions as Chief Lecturer until her retirement in May 2008. She stated that she indeed taught the students and conducted the examinations with the knowledge and acquiescence of the defendant. The claimant avers that the actions of the defendant may not be unconnected to her petitions to the President and Commander in Chief of the Federal Republic of Nigeria about the unwholesome acts of the defendant and its Principal Officers. The claimant stated that the defendant’s Rector Mr. Olubunmi Owoso at the time took the petitions as complaints against his person and therefore tried ways and means to remove her from the system including giving her queries and instigating his office to issue the said letter of termination on the basis that she lacked requisite entry qualification at the point of engagement. The claimant stated that prior to the letter of termination dated 28th March, 2007, the defendant had earlier issued her with a letter of Notice of Retirement on the basis that she has spent 35 years in the service of the Federal Government of Nigeria which was contrary to the Public Service Rules. The claimant stated that she responded to the defendant via her Solicitor’s letter dated 26th March 2004 wherein she notified the defendant of the abrogation of the 35 years in service rule. The claimant avers that the defendant’s letter of 17th March, 2004 was written in spite of the Federal Government directive through various circulars of the Federal Ministry of Education that academic staff retirement age is 65 years. The claimant also avers that before her termination letter of 28th March, 2007, the defendant’s Rector Mr. Owoso instigated and caused the defendant’s Council to write and threaten her that her appointment shall be terminated summarily if she does not desist from writing petitions against the defendant. The claimant avers that the termination letter of 28th March, 2007 was as a result of the threat already issued to her. The claimant stated that after several attempts to get her re-in stated by the defendant failed, she contacted her Solicitors who wrote to the defendant demanding her re-instatement. The claimant avers that the defendant responded to her Solicitor’s letter by its letter dated 18th December, 2007. The claimant averred that she formally retired from the employ of the defendant in May 2008 by her letter dated 24th June 2008 informing the defendant of her retirement and the defendant’s letter dated 17th July 2008. The claimant averred that until her retirement in May 2008, she was on the CONTISS 15 Salary scale and that she is entitled to her pension which is managed by Leadway Pensure PFA Ltd. She further avers that the payments which Leadway Pensure PFA Ltd has received thus far from the defendant are deductions from her salary, being her contributions to her pension fund. The claimant stated that the pension managers have not released her pension to her because the defendant is yet to confirm her retirement from which said confirmation is required by the pension managers to process the release of her pension to her. The claimant avers that she was allocated her residence, Quarter 39, Aggrey Road, Yaba, Lagos, by the Federal Ministry of Housing and Environment by a letter dated 11th February 1983; that houses at Aggrey Road are not part of the properties located within the college compound of the defendant and therefore are not part of the properties which the Federal Government transferred to the defendant. The claimant averred that as a direct consequence of the Monetisation Programme of the Federal Government, the Federal Executive Council in 2004 approved Guidelines for sale of all non-essential residential houses all over the Federation, to be leased to qualified sitting tenants. That pursuant to the Guidelines, she expressed her interest in the purchase of the said residence, Quarter 39, Aggrey Road, Yaba, Lagos, on 25th August 2006 and she paid the registration fee. The claimant stated that by a letter dated 28th February 2007 from the Presidency Implementation Committee of the White Paper on the Commission of Inquiry into the Alienation of Federal Government Landed Property to the occupants, she was informed of the offer for sale of the Federal Government Properties located on Aggrey Road, Yaba, to all qualified sitting tenants who expressed interest. The claimant stated that she was thereafter informed of the arrangement for the valuation of the property by a letter dated 22nd April 2008 from the Presidency Implementation Committee of the White Paper on the Commission of Inquiry into the Alienation of Federal Government Landed Property. The claimant averred that the property was offered to her to purchase by the Federal Government and she accepted the offer; and that the property, Quarter 39, Aggrey Road, Yaba, Lagos, belongs to the Federal Government and not the defendant. The claimant (CW1) testified in support of her case, and also called Omorogieva Imohe (CW2) retired lecturer of the defendant college. They adopted their statements on oath. They were in the exact terms of the pleadings and relied on her documents. Under cross-examination the claimant confirmed that she attended Chelsea College of Art where she obtained a Diploma in Art and Design. The claimant informed the court that at the time she attended the college in 1961, it was a Polytechnic and that the Diploma was equivalent to the B.A Degree issued by a University. She said she was not aware Chelsea College was granted a University status in 2004, and stated that she did not acquire additional qualifications while in the defendant’s employment. The claimant confirmed that she was aware of the Public Service Rules 2006. She told the court that she understands the 60 years and 35years rule for retirement; and she stated that for academic staff the retirement age is 65 years. The claimant informed the court that she was born on May 14, 1943 and that she was 64 years in 2007 and retired in 2008 when she attained the age of 65 years. The claimant said she spent over 38 years in service and did not exceed her service period. The claimant told the court that 39 Aggrey Road was allocated to her as official quarters in 1983. The claimant told the court that she was not aware that she had to vacate her official quarters within 90 days of retirement because under the monetisation policy of the Federal Government, she expressed her interest to buy the quarters and paid N10,000. The claimant confirmed that she was aware of the White Paper on Housing. She said she filed an action against the defendant in 2004 because it trespassed on her property; and that she did not win or loose neither did the court order her to leave the quarters. She said she did not appeal the Judgement of the Court. The claimant told the court that she was teaching students after her employment was terminated on the authority of the defendant. She said she was paid a part of her salary after her employment was terminated, and that this never occurred during her service years with the defendant. DW2 under cross-examination told the court that he joined the defendant in 1983. He informed the court that the claimant’s appointment was arbitrarily terminated by the defendant in April 2007, and she kept on working until she retired officially in 2008. DW2 said he did not know who authorised the claimant to keep on working. He stated that his appointment was wrongly terminated by the defendant and he was not given a reason initially; but he was subsequently reinstated. DW2 said he did not work between the period he was disengaged and his reinstatement. The claimant then closed her case. Case of the defendant The defendant’s case on the pleadings is that the claimant was employed as Assistant Lecturer in 1969. The defendant averred that the claimant was a Chief Lecturer in the Department of Graphic Design in the School of Art, Design and Printing of Yaba College of Technology, and her employment has since been terminated by the letter dated the 28th day of March 2007. The defendant stated the termination of the claimant’s appointment was based on the directive of the Federal Government that academic staff without entry qualification and mandatory skills for their jobs should be exited from the Civil Service; the claimant was exited from the defendant because she did not have requisite qualification at the entry point. The defendant averred that going by the current revised Federal Government of Nigeria Policy on appointment of academic staff of Federal Polytechnics, the claimant’s qualifications: Yaba Technical Institute Certificate 1961, Diploma Art and Design 1965, and LCC Certificate in Art Design London 1966, fall below the minimum Bachelor of Science Degree qualification required for academic staff in the academic cadre. The defendant stated that the circular of 16th July, 2007 emanating from the office of the Director-General Bureau of Public Reforms has nothing to do with the severance of the claimant’s services or her reinstatement thereof, as the said circular was not meant and was never sent to the College Tertiary Institutions, but to core Civil Service which the College is not part of. The defendant stated that there is no Government Circular directing it to re-absorb exited staff; that the members of staff that were exited in the claimant’s department were so done on medical grounds only and were reinstated subsequently on the recommendation of the Medical Board that was set up to look into their individual cases. The defendant stated that the management did not pay the claimant salary after her appointment was terminated. The defendant further averred that the money being paid into the different bank accounts of all members of staff whose services were terminated including that of the claimant is not their salary (hence no pay slip was required or issued), but a stipend paid on compassionate ground to alleviate the economic hardship they were passing through pending when the Bureau of Public Reforms pays them their severance benefits. The defendant stated that the Head of Graphic Designs never assigned any class to the claimant after her employment was terminated; and that its letters and queries to the claimant were written in compliance with the administration and internal management of the institution and had nothing to do with the letter of termination dated 28th March, 2007. The defendant further stated that it was never at any time instigated by the Rector Mr. Olubunmi Owoso to write and demand for the claimant’s notice of retirement, or to write and threaten the claimant with termination of her appointment over the Petitions she wrote against the management. That any action taken by the its officers in this respect was done in official capacity and in accordance with due process of law. The defendant further stated that the query dated 12th May, 2004 issued to the claimant was on gross indiscipline resulting from her breach of the provisions of Chapter 16, Paragraph 16.2 of the Federal Polytechnics Staff Manual. The defendant stated that the compulsory retirement age for all grades in the Civil Service of the Federal Government is Sixty years (60 years) or thirty-five years (35 years) of pensionable service whichever is earlier. The defendant averred that the letter dated 8th June, 2006 issued to the claimant by the Council of the defendant came after the claimant was given the right of fair hearing at the Panel of the Council set up (at the behest of the Honourable Minister of Education) to look into the allegations she levelled against the management of the defendant. The defendant vehemently denies the averments in paragraphs 31-32 of the Amended Statement of Claim and states that the employment of the claimant with the defendant was terminated by virtue of a letter dated the 28th day of March 2007. The defendant hereby puts the claimant to the strictest proof of her averments. The defendant stated that it is not its responsibility to process the claimant’s pension entitlement, rather it is the claimant’s duty to collect and submit the forms to confirm her retirement which she has failed to do till date. The defendant stated that the property where the claimant stays belongs to it and was allocated to her by virtue of her employment and is to vacate the premises after retirement or resignation. The defendant averred that the Federal Government has put on hold the sale of properties in Federal Tertiary Institutions; and that the Federal Government never at any time sold the said property to the claimant or any of its staff, neither did the claimant pay for it as a mere expression of interest does not confer ownership rights or title to the property. The defendant stated that other staff of the defendant expressed interest in the properties they occupied by payment of a non-refundable fee of N10,000.00 but none of the properties was sold to them because the Federal Government stopped the sale of properties in Lagos. The defendant further averred that all staff of the defendant are to vacate the houses allocated to them by the defendant within 90 days of retirement to make way for incoming employees of the defendant by virtue of paragraph 15.8 of the Federal Polytechnic Staff Manual but the claimant has failed and refused to vacate the house which she occupies as a result of her employment even after her employment was duly terminated. The defendant averred that ownership of all the properties in Tertiary Institutions were originally conferred on the Federal Government but later conveyed to the Institutions by the Government, and the general public including the claimant was notified of the said transfer through a publication at page 17 of The Guardian Newspaper of Tuesday 22nd day May, 2007; and that the Federal Government stopped the sale of Government properties in Lagos. The claimant was duly informed by the Federal Ministry of Housing and Urban Development in a letter dated 4th day of February, 2004 that the property was allocated to her as “Official Quarter” and not on “Owner Occupier” basis and that upon retirement or resignation, the claimant was expected to vacate the property within a specified time period. The defendant averred that throughout the claimant’s employment she paid to it her rent on the property. The defendant further averred that a final judgment had been delivered in Suit No: FHC/L/CS/753/03 in respect of this property and the claimant is estopped from raising the same issues before this Court. The claimant called one witness Biekoroma Charity Amapakabo (DW) a Public Servant. She adopted her statement on oath. It was in the exact terms of the pleadings and she relied on the defendant’s admitted documents. Under cross-examination, DW told the court that she is Director Special Duties and no longer the Registrar of the defendant as her tenure ended in October 2007. DW stated that her position in 2004 was Deputy Registrar and she confirmed that the claimant was a Lecturer in the Department of Graphic design. DW told the court that the claimant’s employment was terminated on the Directives of the Federal Government, and that the reason the claimant was terminated was that she did not possess the requisite qualifications at point of entry. DW confirmed that the claimant was admitted as Assistant Lecturer in 1969, and that she was not aware of the entry qualification in 1969. She informed the court that there was a process of monitoring of Lecturers to ensure that they have teaching skills that is accredited by the NBTE. DW told the court that the claimant was Head of Department at one time and was offered the position of Head of graphic design in 2004. DW confirmed that there was a directive from the Ministry of Education on the retirement age of academics, and that there was no directive abrogating the 35 years rule. DW upon being shown exhibit C17 admitted that the defendant served a notice of retirement on the claimant in March 2004, but stated that it was not an act of harassment in the light of exhibit C31. DW1 confirmed that she was aware of the monetization policy, and stated that the claimant’s quarters was not listed in exhibit C33 to be transferred. DW informed the court that the Federal Government stopped the sale of properties in Lagos; and that the processing of retirement benefit and pension is done by the Pension Commission. The defendant then closed its case. Final address The defendant’s final address is filed on 25th June 2018. The claimant’s final address is dated and filed 19th July 2018. The defendant’s reply on point of law is dated 26th July 2018 and is filed the same day. Counsel adopted their respective final addresses. Learned counsel to the defendant submitted the following issues for determination: A. Whether the claimant’s suit commenced on the 16th of April, 2008 at the Federal High Court before it was transferred to this Honourable Court and re/filed on the 18th March, 2015 is statute/barred having regard to Section 2(2) (a) of the Public Officers Protection Act? ALTERNATIVELY B. Whether the claimant has discharged the evidential burden of proof so as to be entitled to his reliefs? C. Whether the claimant’s employment was lawfully terminated by the defendant? D. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, whether the claimant is required to deliver possession of the Official Quarter situate at Aggrey Road, Yaba, Lagos State, to the defendant? He submitted that the claimant’s suit because it is Statute-barred pursuant to Section 2 (a) of the Public Officers Protection Act as same was instituted outside 3 months of accrual of cause of action. It was his further submission that the cause of action arose in March 2007 when her employment was terminated and this suit was instituted on the 16th April 2008 about one year after the cause of action accrued. That consequently, the court is deprived of jurisdiction to entertain it. He cited Ogunbanwo V OAU Ile-Ife [2016] LPELR-40291 (CA), INEC V Ogbadibo Local Govt [2016] 3 NWLR (Pt 1498) 167 at 197, Ibrahim V Lawal [2015] 17 NWLR (Pt 148) 490 at 522. Learned counsel submitted that the claimant has failed to place before the court the terms and conditions of her employment and the manner in which it was breached citing Amodu Amode [1990] 5 NWLR (Pt 150) 356. He argued that the defendant lawfully terminated the claimant’s employment on the basis that her qualifications at the entry point fell below the minimum qualification for academic staffs. Learned counsel contented that the claimant’s employment is not one with statutory flavour and that she is not entitled to special damages or re-instatement referring to Olatunbosin V NISER [1988] 3 NWLR (Pt 80) 25 at 55. He submitted that the property situates at Quarter 39 Aggrey Road Yaba, Lagos belongs to the defendant, and the claimant is estopped from raising the issue of ownership because a final judgement has been delivered in this regard by the Federal High Court in Suit No: FHC/L/CS/753/03. He stated that the claimant is expected to vacate from the property on disengagement from service. He finally submitted that the claimant failed to prove her case in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, 2011 and it should be dismissed with substantial cost. Learned counsel to the claimant submitted the following issues for determination: i. Whether the claimant’s employment was wrongfully terminated by the defendant? ii. If issue 1 is resolved in the affirmative, whether the claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought in her Complaint? iii. Whether the claimant’s employment with the defendant is tied to her lawful occupation of the property known as Quarter 39, Aggrey Road, Yaba? Learned counsel to the claimant submitted that the defence of limitation was not specifically pleaded and as such the defendant cannot rely on it having waived its right to raise it citing Shamsideen Abolake Bakare V Nigerian Railway Corporation [2007] LPELR- SC.51/2002. She further submitted that this suit is not caught by the Limitation it falls within the exceptions to the Limitation Law of continuing damage, a the defendant’s malicious acts, abuse of office with no semblance of legal justification citing Okolie & Ors V INEC [2017] LPELR-43405 (CA), A-G Rivers State V A-G Bayelsa State [2013] 3 NWLR (Pt 1340) 123, Podo V Gombe State Government & Ors [2016] LPELR-40815 (CA) 20-26. Learned counsel submitted that on the evidence adduced, the defendant has not established the reason it terminated the claimant’s employment citing Professor Dupe Olatunbosun V NISER [1988] 1 NSCC 1025. She submitted that the claimant’s employment is one with statutory flavor and she is therefore entitled to all the reliefs she is seeking citing Shitta-Bey V Federal Public Service Commission [1981] 1 SC 40, Chukwumah V Shell Petroleum Dev Co [1993] 4 NWLR (Pt 289) 512 at 539, UNTHMB V Nnoli [1994] 8 NWLR (Pt 363) 376 SC. Learned counsel submitted that the principle of estoppel is not applicable in respect of reliefs vi and vii as the issue at the Federal High Court was a tortious claim for trespass which is distinct from the present relief based on the Federal Government Monetisation Policy. Learned counsel to the defendant in reply submitted that the claimant has misapplied the authorities in respect of the issue of Limitation and the exception of continuing injury or damage and referred to the decisions in Popoola Elabanjo V Chief Ganiat Dawodu [2006] 7 SC 24, Adekoya V Federal Housing Authority [2008] 4 SC 167, INEC V Ogbadibo Local Govt supra. It was his submission that the act of the defendant is not a relevant consideration for the applicability of the Public Officers Protection Act citing Rahamaniyya United (Nig) Ltd V Tonimas Nig Ltd [2006] 31 WRN 179, [2006] 9 NWLR (Pt 986)189 at 210, Fajumolu V University of Ilorin [2007] 2 NWLR (Pt 1017) 74 at 88. He finally submitted that Limitation is a jurisdictional issue that can be raised at anytime in the High Court, the Court of Appeal and even for the first time in the Supreme Court citing Buremoh V Akande [2017] LPELR-41565 (SC), Ebere & Ors V IMSU & Ors [2016] LPELR-406129. He then urged the court to dismiss the suit for want of jurisdiction. Decision I have carefully considered all the processes filed, the evidence led, the written submissions, arguments and authorities canvassed by Counsel in the final addresses in this matter. The issues for determination in this judgement are: (i) whether this suit is caught by the limitation law; (ii) If it is not, whether the claimant’s appointment was wrongfully terminated; (iii) whether the claimant ought to be entitled to the reliefs she is seeking. Learned counsel to the defendant has submitted that the defendant is a Public Officer, and that this action is caught by the provisions of Section 2 (a) of the Public Officers Protection Act CAP P1 LFN 2004 and is therefore statute barred. This issue is raised for the first time in final address after the court has heard evidence adduced at the trial. It is settled law that the issue of jurisdiction is fundamental. The court is required and must first determine this issue that questions its judicial authority and power to entertain this matter. Where a court lacks jurisdiction to determine a suit, the entire proceedings however well conducted, and the judgment will be a nullity. A court is only competent to entertain a case when the subject matter of the case is within its jurisdiction and there is no feature in the case which prevents the court from exercising its jurisdiction; and the case comes before the court initiated by the due process of law and upon the fulfillment of any condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction. See Madukolu V Nkemdilim [1962] NSCC 374 at 379-380, Duru V Yunusa [2010] 10 NWLR (Pt. 1201) 80 at 101-102, and Hope Democratic Party V Obi [2011] 12 MJSC 67. The defendant is an artificial person and on the authorities, the Public Officers Protection Act applies to both natural and artificial persons. See Ibrahim v JSC [1998] 14 NWLR (Pt 584) 1, Nwaogwugwu v President FRN [2007] 1 ALL FWLR (Pt 389)1327, Offoboche V Ogoja L.G [2011] 16 NWLR (Pt 739) 458 at 489. There is no dispute that the defendant is a Public officer. Section 2 (a) of the Public Officers Protection Act CAP P1 LFN 2004 provides as follows: 2. Where an action, prosecution or other proceeding is commenced against any person or any act done in pursuance or execution of any Act or Law or of any public duty or authority or in respect of any alleged neglect or default in the execution of such Act, law, duty or authority, the following provisions shall have effect: (a) The action prosecution or proceedings shall not lie or be instituted unless it is commenced within three months next after the act, neglect or default complained of; or in case of a continuance of damage or injury, within three months next after the ceasing thereof. In deciding whether a case is statute barred or not, the only process the court has to look at is the writ of summons and the statement of claim alleging when the wrong was committed which gave rise to the cause of action, and comparing that date with the date the writ of summons was filed. If the time on the writ of summons is beyond the period allowed by the Limitation law, the action is statute barred. See Elabanjo v Dawodu [2006] 6-7 SC 24. A cause of action is said to be statute barred if in respect of its proceedings it cannot be brought because the period laid down by the limitation has elapsed. See Egbe v Adefarasin [1987] 1 NWLR (Pt 47) 1 at 20, Udoh Trading Coy Ltd v Abere[2001] 11 NWLR (Pt 723) 114. From the pleadings, the claimant received a letter of severance from service on or about 26th April 2007, from the defendant which she challenged. She continued to render her teaching services to the defendant who continued to recognized her as Chief Lecturer and paid a salary into her account from July 2007 to September 2008. The conduct of the defendant in permitting the claimant to continue to render teaching services and paying a part salary is indicative that there was still an employment relationship between the parties. The right to action therefore did not accrue on March 28, 2007 when the letter was written or April 23, 2007 when the claimant received the letter. Time did not begin to run because there was still an employment relationship with work being done and salary being paid up until September 2008. The claimant retired in May 2008. This suit was instituted at the Federal High Court on the 16th April 2008. On the state of the pleadings and the conduct of the parties, the exact date the cause of action arose cannot be ascertained. See Gbadehan V Kiladejo [2012] 16 NWLR (Pt 1326) 392 at 422. This action was instituted while there was still an employment relationship between the parties. I hold that this suit is not statute barred. The Public Officers Protection Act is not applicable, and the court is not deprived of jurisdiction to entertain and determine this action. The law is settled that when an employee complains that his/her employment has been unlawfully terminated, he/she has the burden not only to place before the court the terms and conditions of the employment but the manner in which the said terms or conditions were breached by the employer. See Okoebor v Police Council [2003] 12 NWLR (Pt 834) 444, Idoniboye-Obu v NNPC [2003] 2 NWLR (Pt 805) 589. As required, the claimant has placed before the court her appointment documents (exhibits C1 to C7), letters of severance (exhibit C8 & C10), statements of account (exhibit C14), exam score sheets (exhibit C15), allocation of quarters (exhibit C21), expression of interest (C23), staff houses status clarification (exhibit C27), other service documents. The Federal Public Service Commission approved the appointment of the claimant as Assistant Lecturer on 9th June 1969. The Ministry of Establishments thereafter wrote the claimant informing her that she had been offered appointment in the Federal Public Service and on “the terms and conditions laid down for the Federal Public Service of Nigeria and to the current General Orders, Regulations and Instructions” as seen in her appointment documents. The claimant’s appointment is gazetted as seen in exhibit C5. She is a Public Officer of the pensionable cadre. Learned counsel to the defendant has argued that the claimant has failed to place before the court the terms and conditions of her employment contract. The Public Service Rules govern the conditions of service of Federal Public Servants. See Shitta-Bey V Federal Public Service Commission [1981] 1 SC 26 at 35, Iderima v. RSCSC [2005] 16 NWLR (Pt. 951) 378, Stephen Imuzei Akhiojemi & anor v. Administrative Staff College of Nigeria & anor [2014] 43 NLLR (Pt. 135) 240. The Public Service Rules have been made pursuant to the powers conferred by the Constitution and have constitutional force. They invest the public servant over whom they prevail, a legal status, which places their employment over and above the common law relationship of master and servant; and introduces in such employment relationship the vires element of administrative law. The claimant’s appointment is therefore not one of master and servant relationship as learned counsel to the defendant has urged the court to hold. It is an employment with statutory flavor and I so hold. See Shitta-Bey V Federal Public Service Commission [1981] 1 SC 40, National Electric Power Authority V Ango [2001] 15 NWLR (Pt 737) 627 at 649 -650, Idoniboye-Obu v NNPC [2003] 2 NWLR (Pt 805) 589. It is the law that an employer is not bound to give any reason for terminating the appointment of its employee but where the employer gives a reason, the law imposes on him a duty to establish the reason to the satisfaction of the court. See Olatunbosin v NISER Council [1988] 1 NSCC 1025; [1988] 3 NWLR (Pt 80) 25. The relevant portion of the defendant’s letter is reproduced as follows: 28th March 2007, Dear Madam, LETTER OF SEVERANCE FROM SERVICE I am directed to inform you that as a result of the on-going restructuring exercise in the Public Service of the Federation, your services are no longer required with effect from March 30, 2007. Your entitlement has been computed and endorsed by the Bureau for Public Service Reforms (BPSR). The Federal Government has assured that the payment will also be effected soon after the pre-retirement training as scheduled by the BPSR. You may check the amount payable to you at the College Bursary. Please note that you will be paid three months salary in lieu of notice. You are kindly requested to hand over all Government property in your possession to the Head of your Department. Thank you for your past services to the College, while the management wishes you success in your future endeavours. Yours Faithfully, G.A.Akinleye SAR (Estab) For: Registrar. Upon the claimant’s written protest to the defendant about her disengagement, the defendant wrote her a second letter (exhibit C10) dated 23rd May, 2007. The relevant portions of the letter are reproduced: RE: LETTER OF SEVERANCE FROM SERVICE Please be informed that your severance from service of the college was in compliance with the Federal Government policy guidelines on Public Service Reform. The criteria for determining staff exited as provided by the government are as follows: -------------------------------- vi) Staff without entry qualification or mandatory skills for their job; You have been exited because your qualifications, i.e Yaba Technical Institute Cetificate, 1961, Diploma Art and Design 1965 and LCC Certificate in Art Design, London 1966, fall below the minimum B.Sc Degree qualification required for academic staff in the lectureship cadre. Thank you. G.A.Akinleye PAR (E) For Registrar DW under cross examination told the court that the reason the claimant’s employment was terminated was because she did not have the required qualifications at point of entry; and DW admitted that she was not aware of the entry qualifications in 1969 when the claimant was appointed. The criteria listed as number vi, upon which the defendant wrote the severance letter is very clear and unambiguous: “staff without entry qualification or mandatory skills for their jobs”. There is no evidence that the defendant made any attempt to ascertain from the Federal Public Service Commission that appointed the claimant the entry qualification required for the position at the time of the claimant’s appointment. There is also no evidence that the defendant ever queried the claimant’s academic qualifications. The defendant surely does not expect this court to believe that the Federal Public Service Commission, and the Ministry of Establishments in 1969 appointed the claimant into the Federal Public Service without her possessing the entry qualifications for the cadre of Assistant Lecturer! This would than mean that the defendant is questioning the integrity of the appointment process of the admired and enviable Federal Public Service Commission 1969! There is no doubt in my mind that the Federal Public Service Commission approved the appointment of the claimant in 1969 because she had the entry qualification for the position of Assistant Lecturer (Art). Furthermore, I find that the defendant appointed the claimant as Head of Department Graphic design (exhibit C7) for a period of four (4) years 1st October 1987 to 30th September 1991. The appointment was renewed on 13th November 1991 for another 4 years period from 1st November 1991, to 30th September 1995. Again the defendant appointed the claimant to Head this same Department for a period of two (2) years with effect from 9th February 2004. If the claimant did not possess the mandatory skills for the job, why did the defendant continue to appoint her to Head the Department? The evidence of both the claimant and DW is that the claimant participated in the monitoring and accreditation exercises for Lecturers carried out by National Board for Technical Education. I find from the conduct of the defendant, by continuously appointing the claimant as the Head of Department Graphic design that it knew the claimant possessed the entry qualifications and had the mandatory skills required. There can be no doubt that the defendant was satisfied and happy with the professional skills of the claimant. It was therefore wrong for the defendant to use the criteria listed as number vi contained in the policy guidelines as the instrument authorizing it to write the letter disengaging the claimant when it knew that the claimant was qualified, and did not fall into the said criteria vi stipulated by Government. I find that the action of the defendant was definitely unjustified. The evidence is that the defendant had earlier made an unsuccessful attempt in March 2004 to unlawfully retire the claimant as seen in exhibit C17 on the premise that she had spent 35 years in service contrary to the Federal Government circulars and directives directing that the retirement age in Tertiary Institutions is 65 years. From the totality of the evidence, the defendant has failed to establish the reason it disengaged the claimant from the service. The claimant did not fall into the criteria the defendant used in disengaging her. This was definitely not in line with the Federal Government directives and guidelines; I so hold. Upon her disengagement from service as evidence by exhibit C8 and C10, the defendant allowed the claimant to continue her duties. She was the examiner in the following courses GDS315, GDS411 as seen in exhibit C15 which is the students results sheets signed by the claimant on the 23rd July 2007. Furthermore, the claimant’s statement of accounts (exhibit C14) for the period August 2017 up until September 2018 reveal that the defendant continued to pay her a “salary” of N87,825.94. DW’s evidence is that the money was a stipend paid on compassionate ground to alleviate the economic hardship pending when the Bureau of Public Reforms pays the severance benefits of disengaged staff. Why would an employer continue to pay a disengaged staff a “stipend” for a period of one year after disengagement? The defendant has not shown the court where it derived the authority to do this, or the financial regulations that permit it to do this. The claimant is a Public Officer of the established and pensionable cadre and is guaranteed security of tenure by the Public Service Rules. Her employment is one with statutory flavor. I find that the defendant unlawfully determined the right of the claimant to remain in employment in the Public Service. I hold that the claimant’s disengagement is unlawful, null and void and of no effect. The letter of severance from service dated 28th March 2007 is hereby nullified, and set aside. The claimant is entitled to automatic reinstatement. She is reinstated into the defendant as Chief Lecturer with all her salaries, allowances, rights and privileges from 28th March, 2007 until her retirement in May 2008. See Shitta-Bey v Federal Public Service Commission supra, Iderima v Rivers State Civil Service Commission supra, Olatunbosun v NISER Council [1983] 3 NWLR (Pt 80) 25. Her retirement from service in May 2008 is hereby confirmed after a service period of 35 years as provided by the Public Service Rules for academic staff. The defendant is ordered to pay the claimant her full outstanding salaries, allowances and terminal benefits within 30 days. The defendant is also ordered to inform Leadway Pensure PFA Ltd of the claimant’s retirement from its services and facilitate the payment of her pension. The claimant is seeking a declaration that she is entitled to her residence, Quarter 39, Aggrey Road, Yaba Lagos, allocated to her by the Federal Government and offered for sale to her by the Presidential Implementation Committee of Inquiry into the alienation of Federal Government Property which offer she accepted; and an order of Perpetual Injunction restraining the defendant from intimidating, or ejecting her. The unchallenged evidence is that the Federal Government has suspended the sale of the properties. In evidence is the judgement of the Federal High Court delivered in Suit No: FHC/L/CS/753/03 in respect of this property. I have read the Judgement and I agree with learned counsel to the defendant that the claimant is caught by the principle of issue estoppel, and consequently estopped from raising the issue of ownership as this has been decided by the Federal High Court in a final judgement between the parties on on 2nd February 2007. For all the reasons given above, I hereby declare and make the following orders: 1. The claimant is a Public Officer of the established and pensionable cadre; and her employment is one with statutory flavour. 2. The claimant’s disengagement is unlawful, null and void and of no effect. The defendant’s letter of severance dated 28th March 2007 is nullified; and hereby set aside. 3. The claimant is reinstated into the defendant as Chief Lecturer with her full salaries, allowances, rights and privileges from 28th March, 2007 until her retirement from service in May 2008. 4. The defendant is ordered to pay the claimant her full outstanding salaries, allowances, and terminal benefits. 5. The defendant is ordered to inform Leadway Pensure PFA Ltd of the claimant’s retirement from its services and facilitate the payment of her pension. 6. The ownership of Quarter 39, Aggrey Road, Yaba Lagos has been decided by the Federal High Court in the Judgement delivered on 2nd February 2007 in Suit No: FHC/L/CS/753/03. 7. Costs of N100,000.00 awarded the claimant. All sums are to be paid within 30 days. Thereafter, the sums will attract interest at the rate of 15% per annum. Judgement is entered accordingly. _________________________ Justice O.A.Obaseki-Osaghae