Alhaji Hamza Dalhatu V. Attorney General, Katsina State & Ors (2007)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

OLUKAYODE ARIWOOLA, J.C.A

This appeal is against the Judgment of the Katsina State High Court of Justice, delivered on 1st day of November, 2005 by the Hon. Justice Sadiq Abdullahi Mahuta, the Chief Judge in Suit No. KTH/1/2005 wherein the Plaintiff’s suit was dismissed.

The facts of this case are as follows: The Plaintiff, (herein after referred to as the Appellant) was an employee of the Public Service of Katsina State.

Sometime on 3rd November, 1997 by special posting, he was seconded to the service of Katsina State Legislature. Thereafter, on 4th September, 2002 by a resolution of the Katsina State House of Assembly, (herein after referred to as the 4th Respondent) the Appellant was appointed a Clerk of the 4th Respondent in accordance with the provisions of the 4th Respondent’s Staff Law No.5, 2001.

Subsequently, by a letter dated 30th December, 2004 from the Office of the Head of the Civil Service, Katsina State, (herein after referred to as 2nd Respondent) the Appellant was purportedly removed from the 4th Respondent as the Clerk of the House requesting the Hon. Speaker of the 4th Respondent, (herein after referred to as 3rd Respondent) to release the Appellant for redeployment to the mainstream Civil Service of the State. The 3rd Respondent later obliged the request of the 2nd Respondent and by his letter dated 4th January, 2005 requested the Appellant to report to the 2nd Respondent’s office. One Bello Iro Dabai was later made to replace the Appellant as Clerk of the 4th Respondent.

Aggrieved by his redeployment from the 4th Respondent, the Appellant filed an action by Originating Summons praying the lower court for the determination of the following question with the consequential reliefs-

“Whether in view of the combined effect of the Provisions of Section 93 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 and Sections 6, 13 and 18 of the Katsina State House of Assembly Staff Law No. 5 of 2001 relating to the appointment of the Plaintiff as Clerk of the Katsina State House of Assembly, and the Provisions of Section 8 of the said Law No.5 of 2001 relating to the removal of the Plaintiff as Clerk of the Katsina State House of Assembly, the Defendants have power or right to remove the Plaintiff as Clerk of the said House of Assembly by the redeployment of the Plaintiff to the mainstream Civil Service of Katsina State via letter reference No. KTS/HOS/S/31/S.1/VOL.II/486 dated 30th December, 2004 emanating from the office of the Head of Service Katsina State and corresponding letter reference No. S/KTHA/ADM/15/VOL.1/12 dated 4th January, 2005 from the Office of the Honourable Speaker Katsina State House of Assembly without due regard and compliance with the procedure prescribed for the removal of the Plaintiff as Clerk of the Katsina State House of Assembly by Section 8 of the Katsina State House of Assembly Staff Law No.5, 2001.

CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEFS:

1. DECLARATION that the Defendants have no power or right to remove the Plaintiff as Clerk of the Katsina State House of Assembly through redeployment of the Plaintiff to the mainstream Civil Service of Katsina State in the manner purported to be done by the Defendants or in any other manner howsoever except in accordance with the Provisions of the Katsina State House of Assembly Staff Law No.5, 2001.
2. DECLARATION that the Plaintiff’s purported removal as Clerk of the Katsina State House of Assembly by the Defendants via letter Reference

No.KTS/HOS/S/31/S.1/VOL.II/486 dated 30th December, 2004 and letter reference No. S/KTHA/ADM/15/VOL.I/12 dated 4th January, 2005 redeploying the Plaintiff to the mainstream Civil Service of Katsina State was ultra vires, illegal, null, void and of no effect whatsoever.

3. AN ORDER setting aside any step or direction or order of the Defendants which seeks to interfere with or violates the Plaintiff’s right to the office of the Clerk of Katsina State House of Assembly to which the Plaintiff was duly appointed in accordance with the Katsina State House of Assembly Staff Law NO.5, 2001.
4. AN ORDER that the Plaintiff is still the Clerk of the Katsina State House of Assembly.
5. AN INJUNCTION restraining the Defendants, their servants, agents or privies from removing or purporting to remove the Plaintiff as a Clerk of the Katsina State House of Assembly in any manner howsoever save in accordance with the provisions of the Katsina State House of Assembly Staff Law NO.5, 2001.
6. AND FOR such further consequential order or orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstance.”

The Respondents filed two separate Notices of Preliminary Objection. The 1st and 2nd Respondents filed one, while the 3rd and 4th Respondents filed the other, both dated 1st day of February, 2005 respectively. On 23rd February, 2005, the Preliminary Objection of the 3rd and 4th Respondents was taken by the trial court. The counsel to the 1st and 2nd Respondents associated with the objection of 3rd and 4th Respondents and adopted the counsel’s submissions as his own. He urged the court to strike out the objection filed by the 1st and 2nd Respondents and this was accordingly struck out by the Court.

On 14th April, 2005, the Preliminary Objection of the 3rd and 4th Respondents was overruled by the court and the suit proceeded to hearing. In his judgment of 1st November, 2005, the trial court

dismissed the Plaintiff’s case. Dissatisfied with that decision of the lower court, the appellant filed an appeal with three grounds of appeal contained in the Notice of Appeal dated and filed on 31st January, 2006. The said three grounds of appeal are as follows:-

“GROUNDS OF APPEAL

1. ERROR IN LAW

The learned trial judge erred in law when he held in the following passage of the judgment of the court thus: