A. I. Wilson V. Attorney-general Of Bendel State & Ors (1985)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

NNAMANI, J.S.C. 

The appellant herein (plaintiff in the suit) commenced this action in the High Court of Bendel State, Benin City by a Writ of Summons filed on 27th November, 1980. The particulars of claim were as follows:-“PARTICULARS OF CLAIM

1. At all material times until the 6th day of June, 1975 the plaintiff was an Administrative Officer, Principal Staff Grade, in the Bendel (then Mid-Western) State of Nigeria Civil Service.
2. On 7th June, 1975 the Plaintiff compulsorily retired from the Civil Service of Bendel (then Mid-Western) State of Nigeria on grounds of age, having on 6th June, 1975 attained the age of 55 years.
3. Nevertheless, one year later, by letters dated 21st July, 1976, the Defendants purported to dismiss the plaintiff from the Bendel State Civil Service contrary to the Public Officers (Special Provisions) Decree 1976. AND the Plaintiff claims-

(a) A declaration that the purported amendment of his retirement from the Civil Service of Mid-Western State of Nigeria to dismissal from the Civil Service of the said State is invalid and void.

(b) A declaration that he is entitled to be paid N75,000.00 being Gratuity due to him upon Retirement, plus Pensions due for the months July, 1975 to July 1980.

(c) A declaration that he is entitled to the payment of further and continuing retiring benefits with effect from August 1980.

(d) An order for the said sums

(e) Further and other relief

(e) N500,000 being General Damages for loss of reputation and goodwill”

Pleadings were ordered, filed and delivered.

I do not consider it essential to set down all the paragraphs of the pleadings of the parties. It is sufficient to state those that indicate the crux of the matter between them. In his Statement of Claim, the Plaintiff averred in paragraphs 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 12 as follows:-

“1. Plaintiff was at all material times a Civil Servant in the Public Service of Mid-Western State of Nigeria (as it then was) until 7th (sic) 1975 when, on grounds of age (upon attaining 55 years on 6th June, 1975) he compulsorily retired from the service. In this connection, Plaintiff will at the trial rely on ‘a letter reference G.H.S.31/133 dated 2nd April, 1975 which issued from the Office of the 3rd Defendant to wit, the Military Governor’s Office (as it then was), Public Service Matters Department, Midwestern State of Nigeria (as it then was).

2. At all material times until 6th July, 1975 plaintiff was an Administrative Officer, Principal Staff Grade, namely of the status and grade of a Permanent Secretary assigned to Special Duties. Plaintiff pleads and will at the trial rely on all relevant public documents.
3. Over one year after Plaintiffs compulsory retirement on grounds of age, 2nd defendant on 21st July, 1976, purported to dismiss him from the Public Service of which the Plaintiff had ceased to be a member. Plaintiff will at the trial rely on 2nd Defendant’s letter No.S.100/T/27 dated 12th July, 1978, and more particularly on the attachment thereto, which attachment is dated 21st July, 1978.
4. Plaintiff avers that he has never seen the Reports and/or Findings of the Bodies mentioned in 2nd Defendant’s letter of 21st July, 1976, referred to in paragraph 6 above, and that these were never made available to him. Plaintiff pleads that the 2nd defendant relied and used the said Reports and Findings without first giving him an opportunity to see them or to comment on them. Plaintiff will contend at the trial that 2nd defendant’s purported act of dismissal, even if otherwise valid, which it is not, is unconstitutional.
5. Plaintiff pleads that the Findings of the body referred to by 2nd defendant as the Odje Commission of Enquiry are, in so far as they relate to plaintiff, null and void. Plaintiff will contend that the Commission of Enquiry refused jurisdiction under the instrument appointing it. Additionally plaintiff will contend at the trial that the said commission exceeded its jurisdiction.
6. Plaintiff claims that the Odje Commission offended against Natural Justice Rule and acted in excess of jurisdiction conferred on it by Midwestern State Notice No. 399 of 1975, which super added an express obligation to follow a judicial- type procedure in arriving at decisions. The said Notice No. 399 made statutory provision for parties to be heard.
7. Plaintiff pleads that at all material times 3rd defendant had no powers under any Act or law to authorise either directly or by delegation the purported dismissal of the Plaintiff. Plaintiff will contend that the purported act of the 3rd defendant in this regard is ultra vires, null and void.
8. Plaintiff claims that 2nd defendant’s purported act in dismissing him from the service, as evidenced by their letter dated 21st July, 1976, is illegal, null and void.”

In their reply the defendants in a joint statement of -defence averred in paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8 as follows:-

“3. The Defendants deny paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the Statement of Claim and will at the trial of this suit require that the averments in those paragraphs be proved as required by law.

4. In further reply to paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the Statement of Claim, the defendants aver that the Plaintiff was dismissed, that his dismissal was in keeping with the law and particularly the Public Officers (Special Provisions) Decree (now Act) of 1976.
5. In further answer to all the claims and allegations of the Plaintiff the defendants will contend at the trial as stated in the following paragraphs of this statement of defence.
6. The defendants will further contend in further answer to the Plaintiff’s claim that the acts complained of were done in good faith and without malice by appropriate authority who had competence to do the acts and that the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1979 which took effect on 1st October, 1979 did not have retrospective effect to invalidate “the acts done before it.
7. In answer to all the claims of the Plaintiff the defendants will raise by way of preliminary objection on a point of law the following issues:-

(a) That the court has no jurisdiction to entertain this suit by reason of the provisions of the Investigation of Assets (Public Officers and other Persons) Decree 1968 and the Public Officers (Special Provisions) Decree 1976;