Chief (Barr) I.e. Nwufo V. Federal Judicial Service Commission (2005)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

V.A.O. OMAGE, J.C.A.

This is an appeal against the judgment of Egbo-Egbo J., then of the Federal High Court, Abuja. The Judgment/ruling of the Court was delivered on 2/4/2003. The judgment/ruling was on the preliminary objection raised by the plaintiff/Appellant to the writ of summons filed and statement of claim filed by the Plaintiff. The writ of summons was filed; 28/5/02 and the statement of claim shows the following reliefs:-

(1)Q Declaration that the purported dismissal of the plaintiff, a principal legal officer, enter the Federal Capital Development; Authority released to the Federal Judicial Commission or secondment; not transfer of service for ruling a memorandum not petition dated 9th December, 1999 to the 6th Defendant as conveyed to the plaintiff vide defendant letter’s of 16th and 30th May, 2000 and reaffirmed by letter of 5th February, 2002, delivered to the plaintiff on 27/02/02 is null and avoid and of no effect whatsoever;

(2) Declaration that the plaintiff not having transferred his service from the Federal Capital Development Authority to the service of the 1st defendant was not subject to the…. powers of the 1st defendant as at 10th May, 2000, when the 1st defendant purportedly lack the decision to dismiss the plaintiff at deputy Chief Registrar of Court of Appeal.

The statement of claim of the Plaintiff filed on 30/5/2002, includes nine other reliefs prayed for, with thirty two annexure. They are contained in pages 9 – 33 of the record of proceedings filed in this appeal. The Plaintiff sued eight defendants, namely:

(1) The Federal Judicial Service Commission

(2) The Hon. Justice M.L. Uwais,

(3) The Hon. Attorney-General and Minister of Justice of Federation

(4) M. Justice M.M. Akanbi

(5) Hon. Justice Nzo Anyanwu

(6) Hon. Justice Umaru Abudulalhi

(7) Accountant General of the Federation

(8) The Inspector-General of Police.

All but the eight defendants entered in appearance to the plaintiff’s claim. The 1st, 2nd and 6th defendant’s were represented by one counsel, while the 4 and 5 defendants were respectively represents by different counsel.