Civil Service Commission & Anor V. Akwa Ibom State Newspaper Limited & Anor (2013)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

UZO I. NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

The Appellants were the defendants in the trial court. The plaintiffs/respondents sued the Appellants and claimed Inter alia:

“(i) A declaration that the letter of the 1st Defendant Ref.AKC/S/00192/41 of 23/10/1997 issued by 1st Defendant purporting to terminate the appointment of the plaintiff from the service of Akwa Ibom State on account of wrong doing was wrongful, vindictive, malicious and contrary to the rules of natural justice, being in breach of the fundamental rights of fair hearing of the plaintiff.

(ii) An order for the reinstatement of the plaintiff to the job and office to complete his service for the 1st and 2nd Defendants.

(iii) An order for payment of all arrears of salaries, allowances and entitlements of the plaintiff from and including the month of November, 1997 till date of reinstatement at the rate applicable to his rank at the time of termination.

(iv) 2 Million Naira against 1st-3rd defendants as general damages arising from wrongful termination of appointment, loss of promotion and cost of litigation.

(v) The sum of N2.5 million Naira being general damages for defamation of the Plaintiff.

(vi) An injunction restraining the Defendants from further harassing or defaming the plaintiff or otherwise interfering unlawfully with his employment.”

At the end of the trial, the trial Judge delivered its considered judgment on 12th day of April, 2010 against the defendants in suit No.HU/281/1999. Being dissatisfied, the Appellants filed a notice and five grounds of appeal. The Appellants’ brief was filed on 21st day of February, 2012 but deemed properly filed and served on 26th June, 2012. The Appellants distilled 4 issues for determination as follows:

“1. Whether the trial court was right in dismissing the application of the appellants contesting the jurisdiction of the court to hear the matter for being state barred and contrary to the provisions of Section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act. (Ground 3).

2. Having regard to the totality of the evidence adduced. Whether the trial court was right in holding that the termination of appointment of the 2nd Respondent was not done pursuant to the provisions of Decree 17 of 1984. (Grounds 1 and 2).
3. Whether the trial court was right in awarding the 2nd Respondent any amount of money as general damages after ordering for his reinstatement and payment of his arrears of salary, allowances and other entitlements up to date. (Ground 5).
4. Whether from the reliefs sought by the 2nd respondent, the trial court was right in restraining the appellants from further acts of interference with the 2nd respondent’s employment (Ground 6).”

The 1st Respondent filed no brief. The 2nd Respondent filed his brief on 26th July, 2012 and distilled three issues for determination as follows:

“1. Whether the trial court was right in dismissing the Appellants’ Notice of Objection which alleged that the Plaintiff’s action was statute barred. (Ground 3).

2. Whether the trial court was right in holding that the termination of appointment of the 2nd Respondent was not done pursuant to the provisions of Decree 17 of 1984. (Grounds 1 and 2).
3. Whether the trial court was right in granting the reliefs in the lower court. (Grounds 5 and 6).”

There is also an Appellants’ reply brief to the 2nd Respondent’s brief filed on 29th day of November, 2012 but deemed properly filed and served on 26th February, 2013.

The Appellants, in his brief raised a question of jurisdiction of the court to hear this appeal, it being statute barred. The appellants as defendants in the trial court, also raised those same issue but was overruled by the trial Judge.