Download PDF
This is a matter filed at the High Court of Enugu State but transferred to this Court pursuant to an order of that Court made on 14th day of May 2012. Before the matter was transferred the Applicants had been granted leave by the said Enugu State High Court on 29th day of September, 2009 to apply for an order of Mandamus of the court. Thereafter the Applicants filed a motion on notice dated and filed on 2nd day of October, 2009. The motion is praying the court for the following reliefs: 1. An order of the Honourable Court compelling the respondents and other officers working under them to actually reinstate and assign duties/responsibilities to the applicants as Public servants working in the 1st respondent’s Institution and to restore them forthwith all perquisites of the office including their salaries/allowances calculated or reckoned from the period of 16/7/07 till date. The grounds for the application were that: 1. The applicants were workers in the employment of the 1st respondent, the Government of Enugu State headed by the then Governor Chimaroke Nnamani had sometime in 1999 instructed all heads of Government offices and the Public Service to disengage as many workers as could be done ostensibly to prune down expenses. 2. That sadly, the applicants were affected by the exercise and thus their services were disengaged from the service of the 1st respondent which is totally and wholly owned by the Government Enugu State of Nigeria. 3. In the course of time and several representations in between, the new Governor of Enugu State Barr S. I. Chime, had then had a rethink and revisited the matter, by a written directive dated 16/7/07, the Government of Enugu State instructed and or ordered that all the public servants affected by the disengagement exercise including the applicants be reengaged immediately. 4. Pursuant to the directive/instruction, the respondents had by a letter of 18/8/07 ordered the applicants’ reinstatement but amazingly and in utmost bad faith till date they have still failed to assign any duties to or restored to them the perquisites of their offices including their salaries/allowances. 5. That the respondents had later informed the applicants that the Head of Service of the state was against their reinstatement. 6. That the said Head of Service had directed and or opined that the order of the Governor for the reinstatement related only to civil servants and not to the applicants who are Public servants. 7. That meanwhile the letter of 16/7/07 supra written by the secretary to Government of Enugu State on behalf of the Government of Enugu State directing that he (sic) reinstatement of the applicant and other talked about all workers disengaged from the Public service of Enugu State, it did not make any dichotomy between civil and public servants. 8. The respondents ought as sub-ordinate officers to the Governor and the secretary to /government of Enugu State of Nigeria, to abide by the directive of their superiors and reinstate or re-engage the applicants in the service of the respondents without much ado as they had been directed to do. 9. That propelled more by malice than by any altruistic reason, the respondents have been scrapping up disingenuous reasons just so as not to implement the directive of Government. 10. That the applicants ought to have made this application before now but could not do so since they were duty bound to exhaust all administrative avenues open to them to have the matter resolved. 11. That beyond inviting the persons whose names appear on the face of Exhibit “A” for an interview on 18/8/09, the applicants demands to be actually reinstated, assigned to their duty posts and granted the perquisites of their offices as Public officers in the employment of the 1st respondent have not been met, they have therefore not been actually reinstated till date. 12. That the respondents being Public officers also in the employment of the Government of Enugu State are bound to abide by and carry out the directives and instructions of even that Government especially its Chief Executive, the Governor. 13. That the policy of Government to re-engage these unfortunate and hapless Public servants is well reasoned and or thought out by the Government, it has received great acclaim from majority of the people of the State and even beyond, the respondents have no option in the circumstances than to implement it. 14. The applicants are left with no other option in the circumstances than to make this application to the court. The motion is supported by a 3 paragraph affidavit deposed to by one Priscilla Ezebilo, a litigation clerk in law firm of the solicitor to the applicants. Attached to the affidavit are Exhibits A, B, C, D and E and a Written Address dated 16th September 2009 in support of the application. The respondents on their part on the 25th day of January 2010 filed a Counter-affidavit of 17 paragraphs deposed to by one Emeka Ezema a Principal Assistant Registrar of Personnel at IMT, the 1st Respondent. Annexed to the said counter affidavit is a written address dated 2nd day of November 2009. The applicants also on 1st of March 2010 filed a further affidavit of 6 paragraphs deposed to by Priscilla Ezebilo, a litigation clerk in the law firm of the counsel for the applicants. The applicants equally filed along, a reply address dated and filed on 1st March 2010 in response to the written arguments of the Respondents. The respondents then deposed to a further counter affidavit of 11 paragraphs deposed to by one Emeka Ezima, a Principal Assistant Registrar Personnel in IMT, the 1st Respondent. Attached to the said further counter affidavit is one exhibit, Exhibit “A”. In an apparent reaction to this further counter affidavit of the respondents, the applicants filed a further and better affidavit of 5 paragraphs deposed to by Priscilla Ezebilo on 8th March 2010. The learned counsel to the parties adopted their respective written addresses on the 23rd of November, 2012. I have carefully considered the arguments and submissions of the parties as well as the affidavits and counter affidavits with their respective exhibits and authorities cited and relied upon by counsel to the parties in this matter, and there are two issues that arise for the determination of the court in the case. These are: 1. Whether or not this suit of the applicants is not statute barred in view of section 20(1) of Actions Law, Cap 4, vol. 1 Laws of Enugu State 2004? 2. Whether or not in the circumstances of this suit, the applicants have satisfied the conditions for the order of mandamus to issue against the Respondents? On the first issue, the Respondents’ counsel argued that the applicants have not been able to bring this suit within the time allowed by law for them to bring it. He also contended further that a pre-action notice of three months has not been given to the 2nd respondent before the suit was initiated. Counsel submitted that the basis of his arguments is to be found in section 20(1) of the Actions Law of Enugu State, Cap 4 Laws of Enugu State 2004. He submitted that the applicants had a period of six years within which to bring the suit but did not do so. Therefore having failed to do so within the six years time limited for bringing the action, the suit is incompetent and should be dismissed. He referred to the case of Williams vs Williams (2008) 5 SCNJ p. 157 and NPA vs Lotus Plastics Ltd ((2006) MJSC vol. 2, p. 48. On the aspect of pre-action notice learned respondents counsel submitted that the 2nd respondent, being a public officer is entitled to 3 months pre-action notice under section 11(2) of the State Proceedings Law Cap 147 Laws of Enugu State 2004. He then submitted that no such notice was given and consequently having failed to comply with this statutory requirement the court should discountenance and disallow the application of the applicants since it manifests incompetence relying on the case of Nigercare vs Adamawa (2008) 3 SCNJ p.30. In his own response in relation to the issue of statutory limitation of 6 years counsel submitted that the suit is not statute barred because the applicants are asking for an order of court that would begin to count in their favour as from 16/7/2007 and having brought the action in 2009 it cannot be said to be statute barred as the six years had not yet elapsed. He referred to the relief number one of the applicants. On the aspect of pre-action notice, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the case of Nigercare Dev. Co. Ltd vs Adamawa State Water Board and & Ors, supra, is not applicable to this case because the proceedings in that case were commenced by writ of summons whereas the proceedings in this case are by way of judicial review. He further added that it is trite law that in matters for judicial review as the present case, service of pre-action notice is not necessary, referring to the cases of Ezenwa vs Bestway Electrical Manufacturing Co. Ltd (1999) 8 NWLR (PT. 613), 61 at 78, Nnaemeka Udene vs Raphael Ugwu (1997) 3 NWLR (Pt. 491), p. 57, Attorney-General of the Federation & Ors vs Chukwumeka Agwuna (1995) 4 NWLR (Pt. 388) p. 234. On the point of six years limitation period, I have carefully perused the provisions of Section 20 of the Actions law of Enugu State Cap 4, Laws of Enugu State of Nigeria 2004. The relevant portion of the law relied upon by the parties indeed states: “20.(1) The following actions shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued, that is to say- (a) actions founded on simple contract or on tort;…” Thus the critical question is when did the cause of action in favour of the claimants arose? The answer should be discernible from the processes of the applicants as that is the trite position of the law. See the case of Abubakar vs Bebeji Oil & Allied Products Ltd & 2 Ors (2007) 2 SC 48. In this case the applicants have stated in their originating process that the letter of 16/7/2007 written by the Secretary to the State Government of Enugu State gave them the cause for the right of action for which they are before the court. I agree with them that even going be their relief 1, they are seeking for an order to be restored to their respective positions as from the 16th of July 2007, and not the year 2001 when they were initially terminated. Furthermore, subsection (6) of the said section 20 of the Actions law of Enugu State clearly provides that: “(6) This section shall not apply to a claim for specific performance of a contract or for an injunction or for other equitable relief”. Going by this provision and the fact that the applicants are seeking for the equitable relief of mandamus, it is clear that the issue of limitation period as provided in section 20(1)(a) of the law cannot be said to apply to the case. On the second aspect of pre-action notice, I have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel to the parties. I have equally read the authorities referred to by the learned counsel for the applicants that pre-action notice is not necessary in this application for Mandamus and I agree entirely with him that the authorities do show that in applications for the prerogative writs, a party does not need to give any pre-action notice. See the case of Ezenwa vs Bestway Electrical Manufacturing Co. Ltd (1999), supra. Therefore in the circumstance there is no difficulty in resolving the first issue in favour of the applicants. On the second issue, the question is whether the applicants have satisfied the conditions for the issue of the order of Mandamus against the respondents. The applicants have placed their case on the provisions of sections 59 and 60(1) of the Administrative law of Enugu State which provide as follows: 59. The court shall have power to issue an order of Mandamus commanding a subordinate authority to exercise its public duty. 60. (1)The duty to be enforced must be of a public nature, created and vested in the subordinate authority by law, custom or contract. Learned applicants counsel submitted that the respondents are subordinate authorities to the Government of Enugu State and the Secretary to the Government of the state both by law and custom and are bound to effectuate and or give effect to the policies of the Government of the day in the state. Counsel posited further that the Government had decided to re-engage all workers in the Public service of the state who had been disengaged by the former Government of Dr Chimaroke Nnamani, and that a written directive in that regard was issued by the Government and it cannot be imagined that for any reason, the respondents would fail to give effect to that directive. To counsel, it does not lie in the mouth of even the Head of Service of Enugu State to overreach or set aside the directive of the Government of the State. He referred to the case of Fawehinmi vs IGP (2002) 5 SC (Pt. 1) p. 63 at 97 where the Supreme Court held that “the prerogative writ of mandamus is issued or ordered by the court to secure or enforce the performance of a Public duty.” In responding to the application the respondents referred to the IMT Law Cap 97 Volume IV Laws of Enugu State 2004 and stated that the 1st respondent is a statutory body created under the said law. He stated further that mandamus is a relief which can only be granted where there is an existing duty which must be of public nature, created and vested in a subordinate authority by law, custom or contract, relying on section 60 of the Administrative law of Enugu State, Cap 6, Vol. 1 Laws of Enugu State, 2004. The learned respondents’ counsel made the point that the respondents are bound to obey the directives of the Governing Council of the institution and that the letter of the Secretary to the State Government dated 16th July 2007 was never directed, meant for or issued to the respondents. That the said letter equally referred to staff disengaged in 1999 and not those who were dis-engaged in 2001 such as the applicants. In his reply to the response of the respondents the applicants counsel submitted that by the statutory provisions of the IMT Law Cap 97, Vol. IV, Laws of Enugu State 2004, sections 7 and 11 thereof the Institute cannot be said to be autonomous of the Government of Enugu State and are therefore subject to the direction of the State Government. But more critical to the case before the court, learned applicants counsel submitted that by the letter of the Registrar of the 1st Respondent, dated 18th August 2007 the applicants have been reinstated and that the complaint of the applicants is mainly the practical steps of the said reinstatement which includes the provision of responsibilities and payments of salaries and other perquisites of office. Learned counsel then referred to sections 30(7) and (8) of the IMT Law Cap 97 Laws of Enugu State to make the point that the applicants who are public servants are entitled to the payment of their remunerations as they are not under any suspension or form of disciplinary measure. From my consideration of the processes and submissions of learned counsel to the parties in this case, the applicants are seeking for an order of mandamus to be issued against the defendants. The basis of the application is the letter of the Secretary to the State Government of Enugu State dated 16th July 2007 which states as follows: OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY TO THE STTAE GOVERNMENT RE-INSTATEMENT/RE-ENGAGEMENT OF DISENGAGED WORKERS FROM ENUGU STATE PUBLIC SERVICE His Excellency, the Governor of Enugu State, Sullivan I. Chime has approved the re-engagement of Staff of Enugu State Public Service who were disengaged from service in 1999 as follow: i. The period of disengagement should be converted to a period of Leave Without Pay. ii. Effective date of engagement is 1st August, 2007 and the identification Committee should have completed assignment before 31st July 2007. 2. You are requested to take steps to implement His Excellency’s directive accordingly. Signed Martin Ilo Secretary to the State Government. The applicants further rely on the letter of the Registrar of the 1st respondent dated August 2007 which in its content states that: “Following the Enugu State government’s magnanimous decision to reinstate workers that were disengaged from the Institute between 1999 and 2001, the Institute Management directed that all reinstated staff should report to their Head of Department or Unit of their last posting before the disengagement exercise for assignment of duties. However, the reinstated staff are requested to please appear before a Committee on the reinstatement for further processing.” A careful look at the first letter shows that a directive was given by the Governor of Enugu State on the reinstatement of the disengaged workers and has specifically fixed the applicable year to 1999. Equally also the second letter from the Registrar of the 1st Respondent is a general directive which itself is not conclusive as it states that further steps need to be taken by the staff for the completion of the reinstatement when it stated that: However, the reinstated staff are requested to please appear before a Committee on the reinstatement for further processing. Looking at both of these letters, the question is do they really amount to the existence of a Public duty created by either law, custom or contract for which this court should compel the performance of through the order of Mandamus? i do not think so. this is because an order of Mandamus is to be issued where there is duty to the applicant. see the case of Chief Gani Fawehinmi v Col. Halilu Akilu & Anor (1987) LPELR-1257 (SC) where the Supreme Curt held that: the law is certain that the proposed recipient of the order must be an individual, body, or tribunal, or inferior court with a public duty to the applicant. it is not available where there is no duty but only a discretion.