Frank E. A. Okoro V Delta Steel Company Ltd & Anor (1988)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

NOOMA-EG 8A, J.C.A.

In the substantive suit filed by writ of summons the plaintiff, who is plaintiff/respondent to the motion now being considered on appeal claimed against the defendant, herein referred to as the defendant applicant, as follows:  

“1. N100.000.00 (One hundred thousand naira) being damages for wrongful, unlawful and malicious dismissal of plaintiff on the 2nd day of March. 1984 as per defendants letter to the plaintiff on the same day at Ovwian-Aladja in Udu Clan within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court. 2.    A declaration that the purported dismissal of the plaintiff by the defendant is null and void.

3.    An order of interim injunction restraining the defendants and their servants or agents or privies from quitting the plaintiff by force or by any other legal process from the house and premises at the Security Quarters of Delta Steel Township which plaintiff occupies as servant or tenant of the first defendant pending the determination of this suit. 4.    An order of perpetual injunction to restrain their servants and agents and privies from quitting the plaintiff from the said house and premises occupied by plaintiff in the Security Quarters described under claim (3) above:”

Pleadings were settled, filed and delivered in the main suit. After the preliminary matters had been finally concluded, the defendant applicant filed a motion on notice under sections (1)(a)(d), 2(a)(b), 3( 1)(2)(3)(4) and (5) of the Public Officers (Special Provisions) Decree No). 17. 1984 of 31/12/83 and also under order 22(2)(3) Cap. 65 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, Laws of the Bendel State of Nigeria, 1976, praying the court below “for an order that the proceedings in this action are abated, discharged and made void because the action was instituted after the promulgation of the Public Officers (Special Provisions) Decree No. 17 of31/12/83, and for such further and any other orders as the Honourable Court may deem just to make in the circumstances.” The material paragraphs of the Better and Further affidavit sworn to in support of the application by an accredited representative of the defendant applicant read:

‘2. That the 1st defendant/applicant is a corporate body established under a Federal Law by the Federal Republic of Nigeria whose operative base is al Ovwian/Aladja and it is owned by the Federal Government of Nigeria.

5. That at all material time to the cause of this action, I was a public officer, the Manager (Personnel Administration) under the employment of the 1st defendant applicant, but at present, i am in the Estate Management sector in the Estate Services Division of the Delta Steel Company limited. 6. That pleadings have been exchanged in this action.

7. That the plaintiff/respondent, at all material time to the cause of this action was a Public Officer under the employment of the 1st defendant applicant and was working in the Security Department of the internal security control at the premises of the 1st defendant/applicant at Ovwian/Aladja.

8. That I have carefully read and understood the contents of the summons to this action filed on 3O/3/84, the statement of claim filed on 19/7/84 and the statement of defence of both defendants filed on 4/6/85 and especially paragraph (2) of the statement of defence.

9.     That our solicitor, Chief J.G. Bukata, informed me and I verily believe him, that under the provisions of the Public Officers (Special Provisions) Decree No. 17 of 31/12/83 that the proceedings in this action are abated, discharged and are made void.

10.    That the plaintiff/respondent- a public officer -an employee of the 1st defendant applicant was written a letter of dismissal by the 2nd defendant applicant acting for the Acting General Manager who is also a public officer as well as the appropriate authority.

11.     That at all material time to the cause of this action the said Acting General Manager of the 1st defendant/applicant had the authority and power to make any appointment, to remove, suspend, dismiss, re-appoint or reinstate any person or public officer who was an employee of the 1st defendant applicant. 12.     That the letter of dismissal of the plaintiff respondent reference No. APA/B220/271/84 dated 2/3/84 signed by the 2nd defendant applicant for the Acting General Manager is herein attached and is marked Exhibit A,

14.     That as at 3/10/79 the public officer as well as the appropriate authority in charge of the 1st defendant/applicant was called the Project Coordinator and the 1st defendant applicant was known then as Delta Steel Complex. 15.     That the plaintiff/respondent a Public Officer and an employee of the 1st defendant/applicant was dismissed by his employer on 2/3/84.

16.     That the action by the plaintiff/respondent against the two defendants/appellants is for wrongful, unlawful and malicious dismissal as pleaded by him. 17.    That the general conduct of the plaintiff respondent as a public officer in relation to the performance of his duties has been such that his further or continued employment by the 1st defendant applicant in the relevant service would not be in the public interest and hence he was dismissed or removed summarily. 18.     That reasonably believe that proceedings in this action have been frustrated by the operation of law, and as such, further continuation of this action is a gross abuse of court process in this Honourable Court.’ In a counter-affidavit deposed to, opposing the motion, the plaintiff respondent swore: 2.    That I am familiar and conversant with the facts of the case. 3.    That the motion paper filed by the defendants on 10/10/86 together with the attached affidavit hive been served on me and I have read and understood same.