Isaac Obiuweubi Vs Central Bank Of Nigeria (2011)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

BODE RHODES-VIVOUR, J.S.C.

The facts are rather straightforward. The Appellant was a senior employee of the Respondent Bank. On the 11th day of August 1987 he was put on suspension, and on the 30th day of October 1987 his appointment was terminated.

Aggrieved by the situation, he sued the respondent at the Lagos High Court. He sought a declaration that the decision to terminate his employment was unlawful, null, and void as it offends the Rule of Natural Justice. He also claimed his entitlements and general damages in the sum of N100,000 against the respondent bank. The Writ of Summons and statement of claim were filled in the Registry of the Lagos High Court on the 7th day of July 1988. The suit was before Fafiade J (as she then was). Pending before the learned trial judge was a Motion to dismiss the suit for want of jurisdiction. Reliance was placed on Section 3(3) of Decree No. 17 of 1984.

On the 14th of April 1989 the learned trial judge ruled that the Lagos High Court had jurisdiction to hear the case and adjourned hearing for the 25th and 26th of October, 1989. Trial never commenced before Fafiade J. Her Lordship retired and on the 22nd day of January, 1991 the case came before Olugbani J. (as he then was) for the first time. On the 15th of December, 1993 trial commenced with the appellant (as plaintiff) giving evidence. (See page 145 of the Record of Appeal). The plaintiff concluded his evidence on the 8th of October 1996. No witnesses were taken thereafter, then on the 23rd of September, 2002 the case came before Lufadeju J (as she then was) for the first time. Olugbani J. has since retired.

On the 23rd of September,2003 both Counsel adopted their written addresses on the issue of jurisdiction. Ruling was reserved by Lufadeju J for the 28th of October, 2003 but subsequently delivered on the 16th of December, 2003.

The objection to jurisdiction was for an order striking out the suit for want of jurisdiction in view of the provisions of Section 251 (1) (p) and (r).

In a considered Ruling delivered on the 16th of December,2003 the learned trial Judge said in the penultimate paragraph that:

“….By virtue of Section 25 1(i) (p) and (r) of the 1999 Constitution, only the Federal High Court has exclusive jurisdiction in Civil Cases and matters pertaining (among other things) to the Administrative action or decision of the Federal Government or any of its agencies.

And with the above reasoning the learned trial judge ruled that the Lagos High Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the case and struck it out. The plaintiff (as appellant) appealed to the Court of Appeal. The concluding part of the well considered judgment reads:

“…..In conclusion, I affirm the decision of the lower Court in its Ruling of 16th December, 2003 on the Respondents Motion on Notice. This appeal therefore fails. Each party to bear its costs”.

This appeal is against that judgment. In accordance with Rules of the court, the appellant filed his Brief on the 7th of December, 2006, while the respondent’s Brief filed on the 19th of March, 2007 was deemed duly filed and served on the 7th of July, 2010.

The appellant formulated four issues for determination. They are:

ISSUE I.

Whether the Court of Appeal after recanting the provisions of Section 236 (1) of the 1979 Constitution as the applicable law in this action and Section 251(i) (p) and (r) of the 1999 Constitution respectively was right to hold that the provisions of section 251 (i) (p) and (r) of the 1999 constitution operated in retrospect to deprive the State High Court of the jurisdiction it competently exercised in 1988 before the amendment that ousted its jurisdiction having regard to the fact that Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution did not contain abatement provision or have retroactive effect.