Cristiana I. Yare V. National Salaries, Wages And Income Commission (2013)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

SULEIMAN GALADIMA, J.S.C. 

This is an Appeal against the Judgment of the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division (hereinafter referred to as the “Court below”) delivered on 19/5/2005 in favour of the Respondent. The Appellant was not satisfied with the decision, hence he appealed further to this Court.

The background facts leading to this appeal are summarized herein. The Appellant as plaintiff at the Federal High Court Abuja took out a writ of summons against the Respondent, as Defendant, claiming for the following declaration and orders by the said trial Federal High Court in his Amended Statement of Claim.

1. A declaration that the compulsory retirement of the plaintiff was unlawful as it did not meet the requirements of the Civil Service Rules. An order setting aside retirement of the plaintiff on the grounds that the antecedents leading to the retirement were unauthorized and unofficial thus cannot result in an official sanction.
2. An order of court reinstating the plaintiff to his office without prejudice to any promotion or benefit he may have been entitled to.
3. An order compelling the Defendants to pay the plaintiff all salaries, allowances and claims from date of the purported retirement till date and from the date of judgment until judgment is finally liquidated”.

The Respondent entered a conditional Appearance and filed a Statement of Defence and Notice of Preliminary Objection on the ground that the action is statute-barred and therefore the Court lacked jurisdiction to hear it. On 26/3/2002, the trial court in its considered ruling ordered a full trial as the court was unable to see the date of retirement complained of in the Statement of Claim. The court held:

“I have gone through the entire paragraphs of the Statement of Claim of the Plaintiff including the above mentioned reliefs of the plaintiff; there is nowhere the date of retirement complained of here is mentioned. It is only the defendant that brought out in the statement of Defence that the retirement was with effect from 9/12/99. In the light of the foregoing therefore, it is my view that since the date of retirement which is material and vital to the determination of time raised in this preliminary objection is not pleaded by the plaintiff there is no legitimate way of determining the issue without proceeding to full trial. I therefore defer deciding that issue until evidence is fully led in this matter.”

Thereafter the matter proceeded to trial and witnesses testified for the parties. The Appellant testified in person; he gave evidence that he was compulsorily retired and was served the letter of retirement dated 9th December 1999. The letter was admitted in evidence and marked “Exhibit 7”. He testified that upon receipt of Exhibit ‘7’ he wrote an appeal to the Senior Management Committee and the Committee relied on its letter of 4th January 2001. This letter was admitted in evidence and marked Exhibit ‘8’. On 23/6/2003, the trial court delivered its Judgment dismissing the Appellant’s claims and held that the Appellant came to court over one year after the cause of action arose, and therefore the action was statute-barred.

Dissatisfied with the decision of the trial court, the Appellant appealed to the lower court, which in its considered judgment on 19/5/2005 dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the learned trial judge.

Aggrieved, the appellant has decided to further appeal against the decision of the court below to this Court; filing three Grounds of Appeal. However, a close study at paragraph 3.0 of the Appellant’s Brief of Argument, has revealed that there is obvious error in the Ground of Appeal, the Appellant wants to abandon. It is stated that the Appellant has “abandoned Ground one of the Notice of Appeal thereby left with only Grounds One and Three.” The Appellant intends to abandon Ground 2. Therefore it is from Grounds 1 & 3 the Appellant has distilled a single issue for determination as follows:

“Whether the Court of Appeal was right to have upheld the decision of the Federal High Court in deciding that the cause of action arose from exhibit 7, without considering Exhibit’8′, which was tendered before the trial court?”

On his part, Learned counsel for the Respondent has decided to adopt a lone issue formulated by the Appellant arising from Grounds 1 and 3 of the Appellants’ Notice of Appeal.

The learned counsel for the Appellant has contended in the brief that at the core of the appeal is the question, when did the cause of action arise in the suit. Relying on the Stroud’s Judicial.

Dictionary on definition of “cause of action” he stated that the phrase comprises of every fact which if traversed, the plaintiff must prove in order to obtain judgment. Relying further on the cases of EGBE V. ADEFARASIN (1987) 1 NWLR (Pt. 47) at 20 and BELLO V. ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF OYO STATE (1986) 5 NWLR (pt. 45). Learned counsel submitted that from the state of pleadings in this suit the cause of action can best be described as a claim or combinations of events commencing from the issuance of Exhibit ‘7’ by the Respondent on the 1Oth day of December 1999 and the cause of action terminating on the 4th day of January, 2001. In other words that the computation of the three months period should have started 4/1/2001 when the appellant received Exhibit ‘8’.

The crux of the Appellant’s case at the Federal High Court, Abuja was that his compulsory retirement by the Respondent was wrongful and unlawful. That the cause of action being combination of facts that traverse Exhibits 7 and 8, became fully mature for court intervention, and ripe with the receipt of Exhibit 8, by the Appellant on the 4th January 2001. That is to say that the 3 months prescribed by Section 2(a) of Public Officer Protection Act should have started counting from 4th January 2001 and that filing of the 3rd March 2001 would be within time permitted by law. On this submission the Appellant’s learned counsel draws support from the Supreme Court case of AFOLAYAN V. OGUNRIDE (1990) 1 NWLR (pt. 127) 369 at 373 where the court referred to Halsbury’s Laws of England (3rd Ed. Vol. 1 page 6 Article 9, for the meaning of “cause of action” as follows”

“The popular meaning of the expression “cause of action” is that particular act of the defendant which gives the plaintiff his cause of action of complaint: