Shaidu Nda Maliki V. Michael Imodu Institute For Labour Studies (2008)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

SOTONYE DENTON WEST, J.C.A.

This is an appeal against the decision of the Federal High Court Holden at Borin delivered on 31st day May, 2005.

The facts of the case can be stated as follows: The Appellant joined the Respondent in January, 1990 as a Senior Administrative Officer after having passed through the due process of employment. He was issued a letter of appointment. He was in the service of the Respondent until the 13th day of October, 1992, when he was suspended indefinitely from work. The indefinite suspension was as a result of an inquiry into an allegation of contract racketeering which was contained in an article published in the Guardian Newspapers of 10th of August, 1992. The management of the Respondent empanelled a committee of enquiry to look into the allegation and to report back on its findings.

The Committee invited officers of the Respondent to appear before it and say what they knew about the “contract syndicate”. Appellant was also invited to appear before the committee to say what he knew about the syndicate. In the course of the Appellant’s appearance before the committee, he alleged that certain members of the committee testified against him, claiming that they had information at their disposal implicating the Appellant in the rumoured contract racketeering. The Appellant denied having anything to do with any such syndicate.

At the conclusion of hearing of the committee, a report was prepared and submitted by the committee, indicting the Appellant along with two other officers for their involvement in the rumoured syndicate. The management of the Respondent in reacting to the indictment of the Appellant suspended him from work indefinitely and the matter was reported to the supervisory minister, the Hon. Minister for Labour and Productivity for his information and necessary action. The suspension was followed by the termination of the appointment of the Appellant purportedly on the advice of the Hon. Minister for Labour and Productivity on the 2nd day of January, 1993.

Being dissatisfied with the indefinite suspension without pay and the purported termination of his appointment purportedly on the advice and authority of the Hon. Minister, the Appellant engaged the Hon. Minister in a series of correspondence to complain against the suspension and the purported termination of his appointment between January, 1993 and sometime in 1998, a period of about five years. Being not satisfied by the ultimate reply of the Hon. Minister confirming the fact of his dismissal from work, which was made by the Hon. Minister vide a reply to a letter which the Appellant’s counsel had written to the Hon. Minister on his behalf, the Appellant went before the Federal High Court, Holden at Ilorin in his amended Statement of Claim in 1999, seeking the following reliefs.

1. A DECLARATION that the purported letter of termination of his appointment 27/01/93 is ruse, inexistent and void;
2. A DECLARATION that his indefinite suspension from work without pay vide letter of 13/10/92 is wrongful, unconstitutional and void;
3. AN ORDER reinstating him into the Defendant’s employment with effect from 13/10/92 and his placement at the appropriate position as he would have attained but for the unlawful suspension and purported termination.

ALTERNATIVELY

Special and general damages for wrongful suspension.

Pleadings were filed and exchanged in the Court bellow, and at the end of trial, the learned trial judge entered judgment against the Appellant dismissing the claims of the Appellant in its entirety having found as a fact that same had been statute barred and also that the Appellant had failed to prove his case on the preponderance of evidence.

The Appellant, not being satisfied with the decision of the lower Court dismissing his claims, has appealed against the said decision to this Honourable Court, seeking an order of this Court to set aside the judgment of the lower Court. In his Notice of Appeal dated the 20th day of June, 2005 and filed the 21st day of June, 2005, he formulated five issues for the determination of this appeal which issues are distilled from the five grounds of appeal as contained in the Appellant’s Notice of Appeal. The essence of these grounds of appeal is of great importance in the determination of this appeal and are hereby reproduced.

The grounds of appeal with their particulars are as follows:

1. Error In Law:

The learned trial judge erred in law in holding that the Appellant’s claim is statute barred.

Particulars of Error:

(i) Contrary to the Respondent’s claim that the Appellant’s appointment had been terminated since 1993, Exhibits 9, 9A and DW13 unequivocally suggest that the Appellant’s appointment had not been terminated.