Local Government Service Commission & Ors. V. Ezekiel Oluwole Bamidele Dada (1997)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

MUKHTAR, J.C.A.

As plaintiff in the lower Court the respondent instituted an action against the appellant/defendant claiming the following reliefs:-

1. A declaration that the termination of the plaintiff’s appointment through a letter dated 26th November, 1987 signed by Alhaji M.O. Ashiru, the Executive Secretary to the first defendant, is null and void and of no effect whatsoever as it is contrary to the rules of Natural Justice and the provision of section 33 of the 1979 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, and Staff Regulations 39F (iii) of the Local Government Staff Regulations Cap 63 Vol. IV of the Laws of Ogun State. 1978.
2. An order reinstating the plaintiff into the Local Government Service of Ogun State without any loss of benefit and/or salary.
3. In the alternative, an order by the court that the 1st defendant should pay to the plaintiff the following:-

(a) the sum of N287,469 as salary for 13 and half years at N21,294.00 per annum until year 2001 when the plaintiff will reach the retiring age of 60 years.

(b) The sum of N40,458.00 being gratuity for 28 years of service up to and including the year 2001 when the plaintiff will become 60 years old.

(c) The payment of Annual Pension of N20,221 from December, 1987.

(d) The sum of N10,221.12 as arrears of monthly pension for one year from December, 1987 to November, 1988.

(e) The sum of N50,000.00 as general damages for wrongful termination of the plaintiff’s appointment.

(f) The cost of this suit.

The case of the plaintiff as is averred in the statement of claim is that he rose to the grade of Administrative Officer Grade I in the employment of the 1st defendant, and has never received any query throughout his career in the Civil Service which spanned from 1/6/73, until 1987 when he received a letter from the 1st defendant reprimanding him for poor leadership role. Even though the decision to reprimand the plaintiff was based on a report of a panel set up to investigate an alleged uncooperative and inordinate behaviour of one Dr. Egunjobi, the report was not made available to the plaintiff to defend himself, and he was not queried on the said report before he was reprimanded. After the letter of reprimand the plaintiff’s appointment was terminated without being given a fair hearing.

In their defence the defendants averred that by virtue of being the Chief Executive of the state the Military Governor of Ogun State has overall control and authority in respect of termination of appointment of the staff of the Local Government in the state, and so plaintiff’s appointment was terminated by the Military Governor of Ogun State in exercise of his power. This was done in pursuance to the provisions of the Public Officers (Special Provisions) Decree No. 17 of 1984, by virtue of which the Court lacks jurisdiction. As regards the Administrative Panel of Enquiry, the plaintiff appeared before it, and in fact the reprimand was not the basis for the termination of his appointment. Besides, the 1st defendant has the right to do so with a month’s notice or payment in lieu, but in this case the plaintiff is not entitled to such. Evidence were adduced and addresses were made by counsel. After evaluation of evidence and consideration of the addresses learned trial judge found in favour of the plaintiff as follows:-

“All told, plaintiff’s action succeeds and both exhibits F and J are declared invalid, ultra vires, null and void and have no legal effect. Plaintiff is hereby awarded the total sum of N491,465.12 as damages for the wrongful termination of his appointment with defendants in lieu of the alternative order of reinstatement into his former employment and post.”

Dissatisfied with the decision the defendants appealed to this Court on eight grounds of appeal. In compliance with the Rules of this Court both parties exchanged briefs of argument, which were adopted at the hearing of the appeal. The following issues were formulated by the appellants in their brief of argument for determination.

1. Is Public Officers (Special Provisions) Act Cap. 381 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990 (hereinafter referred to as Decree 17 of 1984) the applicable law in the determination of the respondent’s appointment? If so was his appointment validly determined under that law?
2. Does the Court have jurisdiction to hear and determine the claim of the plaintiff/respondent?
3. Was the award of N491,465.12 as damages to the plaintiff not an erroneous estimate of the plaintiffs entitlements?
4. Whether the judgment was not unreasonable having regard to the evidence led in the case.

The issues were adopted by the respondent in his brief of argument. I will take the first issue first, and in doing so I will reproduce the relevant averments of the plaintiff in respect of this issue. They are:-

12. The plaintiff further states that, in that letter (No. PP.218.210/ of 26th November, 1987) i.e two days after the letter of reprimand the first defendant informed the plaintiff that the 3rd defendant had instructed it (first defendant) that the plaintiff’s appointment in the Local Government Services should be terminated with immediate effect on the ground of public policy. The first defendant then went ahead to terminate the plaintiff’s appointment with effect from 26th November, 1987.
13. The plaintiff will further contend that the purported instruction by the 3rd defendant for the termination of his appointment on the ground of public policy is wrongful and of no effect as the plaintiff was never given any hearing. The plaintiff contends that it was the duty of the first defendant to advise 3rd defendant on the correct procedure for dealing with Local Government staff, assuming that the 3rd defendant did in fact give the purported instruction for the termination of the plaintiff’s appointment.
14. The plaintiff finally avers that the petition to the 3rd defendant dated 11th December, 1987 asking for a review of his case in such away that his termination of appointment could be converted to retirement to take effect from 2nd July, 1988 when he would have put in fifteen years in the service to qualify for pension was not replied.

It is clear from the above averments that the plaintiff knew very well that the termination of his appointment was at the instance of the 3rd defendant. Whether he knew that this was done in pursuance to the provisions of Decree No. 17 of 1984 is another matter, but before I Answer this, I will reproduce the letter of termination Exh. ‘J’ which states inter alia:-