Download PDF
The Claimant’s claim against the Defendants jointly and severally, among other claims is for a declaration that by the provision of section 3(1) and (2) of the Retirement age of staff of Polytechnics and Colleges of Education (Harmonization) Act 2012, the Claimant as an academic staff, shall retire from public service at 65 years of age. By a Motion on Notice dated and filed 18th September 2013, and brought pursuant to Order II Rules 1 and 2 of the National Industrial Court Rules, 2007, section 16 of the National Industrial Court Act Cap 155 Laws of the Federation 2004 and other inherent jurisdiction of this Hon. Court, the Claimant/Applicant seeks an order of mandatory injunction compelling the Defendant/Respondents to restore and/or reinstate the Claimant/Applicant to his office and as the Director of Academic Planning School of Business Education in the 1st Defendant college pending the determination of the substantive suit; and for such further order or other orders this court may deem fit to make. In support of the motion is a 10 paragraph affidavit, an Exhibit and a written address canvassing arguments in support of the motion. In opposition, the Defendants have filed a 14 paragraph Counter Affidavit and a Written Address. The Claimant has also filed a reply on points of law. Counsels on both sides have adopted their respective written addresses as their arguments in this application. The Claimant’s case is that this suit was instituted on the 1st day of July 2013, challenging the retirement of the Claimant. The suit was filed alongside two motions seeking the order of court to restrain the Defendants from retiring the Claimant pending the determination of the substantive suit. However, the motions could not be heard due to the court’s vacation. The Defendants proceeded to retire the Claimant on the 11th day of August 2013 when the motions were still pending before the court, and the Defendants had been duly served. Claimant’s counsel submission is that the Defendant’s act of retiring the Claimant despite the pendency of proceedings amounted to stealing a match against the Claimant. He relied on the dictum of Musdapher JCA as he then was in the case of NDIC vs. SBN PLC (2003) 1 NWLR (pt 801) 311 at 372 and the case of Daniel vs. Ferguson (1891) 2 chapter 27 at 30. He also cited the case of Coker vs. PEIS (2000) 6 NWLR (pt. 659) 78 where the court held that mandatory injunction is granted where damage or injury is so serious that the restoration of things to the status quo ante bellum is the only method where justice can adequately be done. The Defence counsel’s submission is that the reliefs sought in the Claimant’s motion for mandatory injunction are basically the same with the main reliefs in the substantive suit which is pending before this court. It is counsel’s further submission that the circumstances do no warrant the grant of a mandatory injunction of this nature. He said the facts of the case do not disclose that the Claimant has a strong and clear case to warrant the grant of an injunction of this nature. He stated that what the Claimant is urging this court to do is to apply a Federal Government Law to regulate the terms and conditions of employment in a state owed educational institution. He further submitted that damages and other legal remedies will be sufficient to put the Claimant in a favourable position. Counsel cited the authority of Buhari & Ors vs. Obasanjo & Ors (2003) 17 NWLR (pt 850) 587 at 638 to submit that since the act had been completed, the court could do nothing. An injunction he said, is not a remedy for a completed act, Ojukwu vs, Government of Lagos State (1986) 3 NWLR (pt 26) 39. This brings me to the facts as deposed to in the affidavits. The Defendants claim that they were not served and the processes of court until 12.15pm of 15th August 2013, at which time, the purported act had already been carried out. They also contended that the letter conveying the retirement notice the Claimant was written since August 30th 2012, a year earlier. These are facts which go to the root of the claim of the Claimant, and which must be considered in its totality. Having considered the arguments of counsel of both sides, I am inclined to agree with learned counsel for the Defendants that the reliefs sought by the Applicant in his application are basically the same with the main reliefs in the substantive suit. For clarity, the main reliefs in the substantive suit are:- 1. A Declaration of this Honourable Court that by the provision of section 3(1) and (2) of the Retirement Age of staff of Polytechnics and College of Education (Harmonization) Act,2012, the Claimant as an academic staff, shall retire from public service at 65 years of age. 2. A Declaration that Abia State College of Education (Technical) Arochukwu – the 1st Defendant has no power whatsoever to retire the Claimant pursuant to the provisions of the Retirement Circular from the Federal Ministry of Education dated January 15, 2010. 3. A declaration that the August 11, 2013 retirement of the Claimant is unlawful, illegal, null and void and of no effect whatsoever. 4. An Order directing the Defendants to reinstate the Claimant in his position as the Director, Academic planning, in the Defendants’ College. 5. A perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants, their agents or privies from retiring the Claimant until he has fully served up to 65 years of age as provided by statute. 6. OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE AN ORDER that the Defendants pay the Claimant the sum of Twenty-eight million and seventy three thousand, eighty-eight naira (N28,073,088.00) as emoluments for the unexpired residue of the Claimant’s remaining years in public service as follows: (a) Monthly earning of Two hundred and fifty-four thousand, three hundred and thirteen naira (N254,313.00) as consolidated salary for eight years totaling Twenty-four million four hundred and fourteen thousand and forty eight naira (N24,414,048.00). (b) Monthly consolidated allowance of Thirty eight thousand one hundred and fifteen naira (N38,115.00) in respect of the Claimant’s promotion but in arrears for eight years totaling Three million, six hundred and fifty nine thousand and forty naira (N3,659,040). A look at the claims reproduced above would clearly indicate that prayer No 4 in the substantive suit “An Order directing the Defendants to reinstate the Claimant in his position as the Director, Academic planning, in the Defendants’ College” is basically the same as the relief sought in the application for mandatory injunction, which is: AN ORDER of mandatory injunction compelling the Defendants to restore and/or reinstate the Claimant/Applicant to his office as the Director of Academic Planning – School of Business Education on the 1st Defendant College pending the determination of the substantive suit. Furthermore, the Claimant has indicated an alternative claim in his summons, qualifying the claim in monetary terms. This is a clear indication that the claim can be reduced to monetary terms, and this means that damages and other legal remedies will be adequate to compensate the Claimant if he succeeds. It is worthy of further note, that this action is brought under the originating summons procedure, and both parties had before now, filed their processes and the case was ripe for hearing. In the circumstance, the proper order to make will be for an accelerated hearing of the substantive suit. And since all the affidavits are already before the court, the court can proceed to a speedy dispensation of the suit. On the whole, and for all the reasons given, the application of the Claimant fails. However, this case is granted accelerated hearing, and will forthwith proceed to hearing. I make no order as to costs Ruling is entered accordingly Hon. Justice O.Y. Anuwe Presiding Judge