Chief Augustine A. Nawa V. Attorney-general, Cross River State & Ors. (2007)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

JEAN OMOKRI, J.C.A.

This is an appeal against the judgment of Hon. Justice Philomena Ekpe of the High court of Cross River State delivered on 19th day of December, 2005 in Suit No. C/450/99.

The appellant, Chief A. A. Nawa, instituted proceedings against the respondents, Attorney-General of Cross River State and 2 others, before the High Court sitting in Calabar, where he claimed:

“(1) A declaration that the purported malicious, vexatious and pre-mature retirement of the plaintiff from his substantive civil service career position as Permanent Secretary was done mala fides therefore ultra vires the powers of the defendants and not in accordance with any procedure permitted by law.

(2) An order re-instating the plaintiff to his substantive career position as Permanent Secretary in the Civil Service of the Cross River State.”

The appellant testified for himself and tendered 6 Exhibits as PW1 but called no other witness. The respondents also called one witness for the defence to the claim. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial judge dismissed the claim of the appellant. Dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial court, the appellant appealed to this court on the 26th day of January, 2006 on two grounds. The grounds of appeal are:

“1. The learned trial judge erred in law when he held that the termination of the employment of the appellant a career civil servant was at the pleasure of the respondents.

Particulars Error [sic]

(a) The decision of the trial judge fall short of the decided case of NEPA VS. ANGO (2001) 17 WRN 142 or (2001) 15 NWLR(Pt. 737) 627 at 631 – where it was held that an employee whose appointment has statutory flavour has no right to terminate his appointment at will because the employee does not hold his appointment at the pleasure of such employer.

(b) The trial judge erred when he held that respondents can unilaterally terminate employment of the appellant whose employment was with statutory flavour.

2. The learned trial judge erred in law when held that the 1999 Constitution does not say that the respondents must abide by the Civil Service Rule of Cross River State in order to hire or fire the appellant as Permanent Secretary.

Particulars of Error

(a) The learned trial judge erred when he held that the appellant employment was not subjected to any other statute apart from the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria 1990.

(b) The learned trial judge failed to consider the provisions of the Civil Service Rules and Regulations which governed the manner upon which the appellant may be retired or removed from service in reaching its decision.”

The appellant filed his brief of argument dated 24/7/06 and filed on 27/7/06.