Federal Capital Development Authority V. Joshua Gyuhu Sule (1994)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

OLATAWURA, J.S.C. 

This appeal has raised once again the interpretation of S.4(2) of the Public Officers (Special Provisions) Decree No. 17 of 1984. Before going into the said Decree (hereinafter referred to as Decree No. 17 of 1984), I ought to state the facts which led to the action filed by the respondent.

The respondent who was a Principal Architect under the appellant filed an action in the High court of Justice of Federal Capital Territory, Abuja and by his amended Statement of Claim claimed the following reliefs:

“(1) Declaration that the letter reference No. FCDA/55/S.4/Vol.1/149 dated 31st of December, 1985 and signed by Shehu Dawaki purporting to terminate his appointment as Principal Architect with the defendant is illegal, null and void having been issued in disregard of rules of Natural Justice.

(2) Declaration that the purported termination of the plaintiff’s appointment by a Permanent Secretary vide letter reference No. FCDA.55/S.4/Vol. 1/149 is irregular and/in bad faith, and/or in breach of rules of Natural Justice and/or done without any legal authority and is therefore null and void.

(3) Declaration that the purported ter

mination of the plaintiff’s appointment by a Permanent Secretary Federal Capital Development Authority, Abuja vide letter reference No. FCDA.55/S.4/Vol. 1/149 dated 31st of December, 1985 was not done or purported to be done under Decree No. 16 of 1984, or and Decree No. 17 of 1984, therefore is null and void.

(4) Declaration that the plaintiff has been an Architect in the Building Department of the Federal Capital Development Authority Abuja since 3rd of August, 1978 and is still a Principal Architect in the Federal Capital Development Authority Abuja, and therefore entitled to rights, benefits and privileges (including) salaries attached to his office as Principal Architect in the Federal Capital Development Authority Abuja.

ALTERNATIVELY:

(5) Declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to salaries and other allowances attached to his post as Principal Architect as damages for loss of his post as Principal Architect of the Building Department of Federal Capital Development Authority Abuja until he attains the age of 65 years.”

The appellant in paragraphs 10 and 13 of its Statement of Defence among other things relied on Decree No. 17 of 1984 and that the action filed by the respondent was frivolous and incompetent. To bring out this defence, I reproduce hereunder paragraphs 10 and 13 of the Statement of Defence which read as follows:

“(10) In answer to paragraph 18(3) of the Statement of Claim, the defendant avers that the plaintiff’s appointment was terminated as required under Decree No. 17 of 1984 which specifically ousts the jurisdiction of the court in this suit. The defendant will lead evidence to this effect and calls on the plaintiff to proof (sic) the contract strictly.

(12) x x x x

(13) The defendant urges this Hon. Court to strike out this case because it is frivolous, vexatious and most of all incurably incompetent as the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter, and the defendant would before or at the hearing be heard to argue this paragraph pursuant to the provisions of order 10 Rule 21 of the Federal Capital Territory High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 1985.”