Francis Adesegun Vs Central Bank Of Nigeria (1991)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

AKPATA, J.S.C.

Decree No. 17 of 1984, that is, Public Officers (Special Provisions) Decree 1984, is revisited. The Decree enabled the appropriate authority at any time after 31st December, 1983 to dismiss or remove a public officer summarily from his office; or retire or require the public officer to compulsorily retire from the relevant public office. No civil proceedings could lie or be instituted in any court if the dismissal or removal or retirement was by the appropriate authority.

Amongst the issues for determination in this appeal is whether the plaintiff was removed pursuant to the Decree by the appropriate authority, that is, whether the Central Bank of Nigeria or its Board or Management was the appropriate authority in the circumstances of this case.

The plaintiff, Francis Adesegun Katto, was employed as a clerk on 8th April, 1968 by the defendant Bank, Central Bank of Nigeria. By 1st January, 1982, he had risen to the position of a Senior Manager on Grade Level 13 on a salary of N13,600 per annum at the time. On completion of fifteen years of service he was awarded a Certificate of Meritorious Service dated 28th December, 1983. About a year and half later, that is, on 1st June, 1984, he was served with a letter of termination of appointment for no apparent reason. When all representations to appropriate quarters to get him reinstated yielded no favourable result, he instituted an action, the subject matter of this appeal, claiming:

“(a) A Declaration that the Defendant’s purported termination of Plaintiff’s appointment on 1st June, 1984 by virtue of Defendant’s letter of that date was wrong in law, null and void and of no effect;

(b) Order on the Defendant to re-instate the Plaintiff to his former position in the defendant’s employment before the wrong (sic) termination with all necessary entitlements that would have accrued to him had he not be (sic) so wrongly terminated: OR

A declaration that Plaintiff is entitled to gratuity and pension according to the Defendant Staff Manual AND an Order to the Defendant to pay him his gratuities immediately and his pension to start to run at his 45 year anniversary;

(c) N200,000.00 (Two Hundred Thousand Naira) special and general damages for the wrongful termination of the Plaintiff’s appointment which claim include Plaintiff’s salary up to voluntary retirement age if Plaintiff is not re-instated; AND

(d) N100,000.00 (One Hundred thousand Naira) general (aggravated) damages for the defamation suffered by the Plaintiff as a result of the Defendant’s wrongful termination.”

It was the main defence of the Central Bank before the High Court of Justice, Niger State by way of oral submission by counsel, that the court had no jurisdiction to entertain the action because, according to it, the Public Officers (Special Provisions) Decree, No. 17 of 1984 empowered it to dismiss or remove its officers or employees, and that the Federal Military Government (Supremacy and Enforcement of Power), Decree 1984 and the Public Officers (Special Provisions) Decree No. 17 of 1981 ousted the jurisdiction of the Court.

In his judgment the learned trial judge, Umaru Agora, J., was of the view that since the defendant did not plead any specific Decree in its statement of defence which allegedly ousted his jurisdiction, counsel’s submission could not be a substitute for what was required by law to be pleaded. The learned trial Judge however went further to consider the effect of Decree No. 17 of 1984 which empowers “the appropriate authority” to dismiss or remove a public officer summarily from his office, and referred to Section 4(2) of the Decree which states that “in the operation of this Decree the appropriate authority – (i)-in respect of any office which was held for the purposes of any State, shall be the Military Governor of that State or any person authorized by him; and (ii) in any other case, shall be the Head of the Federal Military Government or any person authorised by him or the Supreme Military Council”.

The trial judge was of the view that it was only when the power to dismiss or remove under Section 1 (1) of the Decree has been exercised by an appropriate authority in conformity with Section 4(2) of the Decree that no civil proceedings could be instituted in any court. He pointed out that the Central Bank of Nigeria was neither a Military Governor nor the Head of the Federal Military Government. He also made the point that it was not shown that the Bank was authorised by the Head of the Federal Military Government or the Supreme Military Council (now the Armed Forces Ruling Council) to write and issue out Exhibit 8 terminating the plaintiff’s appointment. He referred to the fact that throughout the proceedings the defendant did not tender the Federal Military Government’s circular of 7th February, 1984 which it pleaded in paragraph 7 of the statement of defence that it would rely upon at the trial to prove that it had the authority to terminate the appointment or the plaintiff, The learned trial Judge therefore concluded that he had jurisdiction to hear and determine the suit.

In resolving the totality of the evidence adduced before him the learned trial Judge referred to the fact that no reason was given in Exhibit 8 for terminating the plaintiff’s appointment and that no allegation of misconduct against the plaintiff was pleaded in the statement of defence, He also found that no disciplinary committee, as opposed to an investigating panel, was set up as required by the Staff Manual of the Bank to deal with allegation of irregularities and misconduct against the plaintiff and that the termination of his appointment was not in accordance with Chapter 5 of the Staff Manual, Exhibit 7, which governed the appointment and termination of any staff of the Bank. He accordingly declared the termination of the plaintiff’s appointment null and void and of no effect.

The learned trial Judge was satisfied that the plaintiff was entitled to either reinstatement or to the payment of his gratuity immediately and his pension to start to run at his 45th year anniversary. He accordingly ordered that: