Rt. Hon. P. Ebebi V. Speaker Bayelsa State House Of Assembly & Ors. (2011)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

M. DATTIJO MUHAMMAD, (OFR),J.C.A (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the ruling of the Bayelsa State High Court, coram Adokeme J, delivered on the 29th day of June 2010 in Suit No. YHC/201/2010 commenced by the Appellant herein as the plaintiff against the Respondents as the defendants thereat. The court declined jurisdiction over the suit. The facts of the case that brought about the Appeal are hereunder supplied.

The 1st Respondents, the Speaker of the Bayelsa State House of Assembly, on the 1st June 2010 received a Notice of Impeachment purportedly signed and issued by the 6th – 22nd Respondents. The Notice contained allegations of gross misconduct against the Appellant then the Deputy Governor of Bayelsa State. The 2nd Respondent, the Bayelsa State House of Assembly is said to have, on the very 1st June, 2010, resolved to have the Appellant served with the said Notice of Impeachment. It is the Appellant’s case that he is yet to be so served. The unsigned Notice has, on the authority of the 1st and 3rd Respondents, been published on the 5th and 9th June 2010 edition of the This Day Newspaper. The Appellant asserts that he became aware of the Notice of impeachment from these publications.

It is Appellant’s further case that as at 8th day of June 2010 when the 2nd Respondent resolved and directed the 5th Respondent, the Bayelsa State Chief judge, to constitute a panel to investigate the allegations of gross-misconduct contained in the purported Notice of Impeachment, neither himself nor all the members of the 2nd Respondent were served, as required by law, with the said Notice. Indeed, as at 10th June 2010 when he took out the writ against the Respondents, the Appellant was neither served with nor was his response to the said Notice howsoever procured by the 2nd Respondent. These irregularities, the Appellant avers, inform his action, wherein by paragraphs 13 and 14 of his statement of claim he seeks the declaratory and injunctive reliefs to invalidate the purported Notice of Impeachment, the 2nd Respondent’s proceedings of 8th June, 2010 including the resolution directing the 5th Respondent to investigate him.

The Appellant, by his motions exparte and on Notice, further sought interim and interlocutory injunctions to restrain the 5th Respondent from constituting the panel that is to investigate him and if so constituted to restrain the 1st – 3rd and 6th – 22nd Respondents from receiving any such Report and or acting on same.

On being served with Appellant’s writ, statement of Claim and the two applications, the Respondents filed their respective statements of defence denying the averments in Appellant’s statement of claim and contesting the other processes. In his statement of defence, the 5th Respondent inter alia alleged that the seven persons he was directed by the 2nd Respondent to empanel had been constituted on the 9th June, 2010. The 1st – 3rd and 6th – 22nd and 4th Respondents in addition to their statements of defence, filed separate Notices of motion praying the court to strike out Appellant’s suit.

The two motions for the striking out of the Appellant’s suit were jointly heard and the lower court in a considered ruling dated 29th June 2010 struck out suit No. YHC/201/2010 for want of jurisdiction.

Being dissatisfied, the plaintiff at the lower court has appealed against the court’s ruling by his notice dated and filed on 20th July 2010 as amended.

Parties have filed and exchanged briefs of arguments as required by the rules of this court. Two issues have been identified in the brief settled by learned senior counsel to the Appellant Alex A. Izinyon. The issues read:-

“(i) whether the lower court was right when it held that it had no jurisdiction to entertain suit No. YHC/201/2010 and consequently struck out same?

(ii) Whether the lower court in its ruling infringed upon the Appellant’s fundamental human right to fair hearing?

The two similar issue formulated in the 1st – 3rd and 6th – 22nd Respondent’s brief for the determination of the appeal read thus;-

1. Whether in view of the undisputed facts available to the trial court it was right to decline jurisdiction in this matter.
2. Whether the Appellant was accorded fair hearing by the trial court.

Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN for the 4th Respondent also distilled two issues in their brief for the determination of the Appeal. The issues read:-

“(i) Considering the clear and unambiguous provisions of section 188 of the 1999 constitution and judicial authorities on impeachment, whether the lower court was not right in declining jurisdiction to entertain the Appellant’s suit.