West African Examination Council & Ors. V. Mr. Monday T. Nkanta (2006)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

M. A. OWOADE, J.C.A.

This is an appeal from the judgment of the Honourable Justice A. O. Ajakaiye sitting at the Federal High Court, Calabar Division delivered on the 21st day of October, 2004. The Respondent as Plaintiff brought an action against the Appellants herein as Defendants in the Calabar Division of the Federal High Court, vide an originating summons filed on the 2nd day of August, 1999 challenging his purported dismissal from service of the 1st Appellant by the appropriate authority prescribed under Decree No. 17 of 1984 (now Public Officers Special Provisions) Act Cap 381 LFN 1990 by virtue of a letter of dismissal dated 30th April, 1999.

The Appellants as Defendants filed a Notice of preliminary objection to the originating summons. The Plaintiff/Respondent subsequently filed a motion to amend the originating summons to which the Defendants filed a counter-affidavit. Leave to amend was given to the Plaintiff/Respondent and he did amend the originating summons, whereby the Defendants/Appellants filed a counter affidavit to the Amended-originating summons. Before the lower court, the bone of contention between the parties was whether the Plaintiff was dismissed by the appropriate authority prescribed under Decree No. 17 of 1984 by virtue of letter of dismissal dated 30th April, 1999. Against this question in his Amended originating summons, the Respondent as Plaintiff claimed the following reliefs:

1. A Declaration that the purported dismissal of the Plaintiff by the Defendants letter (Ref. L/P/6769) of 30th April, 2003 is null, void and of no effect as same did not comply with the provisions of Decree No. 17 of 1984.

2. A Declaration that Plaintiff is still an employee of the West African Examination Council.

3. An order directing the 1st Defendant to pay to the Plaintiff all his financial entitlements and other benefits up to date.

In a considered ruling the learned trial Judge upheld the claims of the Plaintiff/Respondent and held at page 67 of the Record as follows:

“Since the act of the Defendants in dismissing the Plaintiff was not done in compliance with the provisions of Sections 1 and 4 of the Public Officers (Special Provisions) Act (Cap 381) LFN 1990 or Section 5 of the West African Examination Council Act (Cap. 468) LFN 1990, his dismissal as contained in the letter dated 30th April, 1999 (Exhibit E) is hereby declared null, void and of no effect whatsoever. In effect I declare that the Plaintiff is still an employee of the 1st Defendant.

In consequence therefore, I hereby order the 1st Defendant to pay to the Plaintiff all his financial entitlements and benefits up to date.”

Dissatisfied with this judgment, the Appellant filed a notice and grounds of appeal, containing five (5) grounds of appeal on 20/4/2005.

In his brief of argument dated 26/11/2005 and filed on 27/10/2005 before this court, learned Counsel for the Appellants distilled three (3) Issues for determination from the five (5) grounds of appeal. They are:

“1. Whether the originating summons procedure used in commencing this suit in the light of disputed fact did not occasion a miscarriage of justice.

2. Whether the learned trial Judge was right in awarding the payment of all financial benefits to the Respondent without knowing what the benefits are, is not being speculative.

3. Whether the learned trial Judge was right to hold that there was no evidence that Respondent dismissal was authorized by the appropriate authority and so assumed jurisdiction to hear and determine the suit.