E.P. Iderima V. Rivers State Civil Service Commission (2005)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

ONU, J.S.C.

The appellant was the Principal Accountant in the Rivers State Ministry of Works, and he was dismissed from service by the respondent, the Rivers State Civil Service Commission on 27th August, 1986. Appellant’s dismissal was consequent upon the theft of the sum of N32,037.29 which was in his custody and forming part of public revenue. The cause of the theft was investigated by a Board of Enquiry set up, by the Accountant General of Rivers State pursuant to the Rivers State Financial instructions/regulations and after a thorough investigation by the Board of Enquiry in which the appellant participated, the Board attributed the theft to the negligence and carelessness of the appellant and his failure to take necessary precautions.

A report containing a record of the proceedings of the Board of Enquiry in which the appellant participated and its findings was forwarded to respondent, being the body responsible for the discipline of public officers of the appellant’s cadre.

Subsequently, the appellant was issued with a query by the respondent, asking him to show cause why he should not be dismissed from the service of the Rivers State Civil Service in view of the carelessness, negligence and failure to take necessary precautions leading to the loss of Government funds. The appellant responded to this query but his response was considered inadequate by the Respondent which then held him (appellant) solely responsible for the loss and proceeded to dismiss him from service

Dissatisfied with his dismissal, the appellant commenced an action in the Port-Harcourt Judicial Division of the High Court of Rivers State claiming as follows: –

1. Declaration that-

(a) the plaintiff is still Principal Accountant in the Civil Service of the Rivers State of Nigeria.

(b) the purported dismissal of the plaintiff from the Rivers State Civil Service contained in the letter CPSC/6/3468/97 dated 27th August, 1986 is ultra vires the defendant and therefore null and void and of no effect whatsoever.

2. An injunction restraining the defendant, its servants and/or agents from preventing the plaintiff from performing the functions and duties of the office of Principal Accountant in the Civil Service of the Rivers State or from interfering with his enjoyment of the rights, privileges and benefits attached to the said office.
3. An order of the court restoring the plaintiff to his post and office or offices and to all rights and privileges attaching thereto.”

After the exchange of pleadings by both parties, evidence was led by either side. The learned trial Judge (lately Chief Judge of Bayelsa – K. D. Ungbuku, C. J) dismissed the appellant’s claim in its entirety.

The appellant being dissatisfied with the said decision appealed to the Court of Appeal, Port-Harcourt Division (hereinafter referred to as the court below), canvassing that the Rivers State Civil Service Commission, did not comply with its own rules before dismissing the appellant. The learned Justices of the court below nevertheless dismissed the appeal, holding that reliance by the Civil Service Commission on the report of the Board of Inquiry set up under the Financial Instructions was in substantial compliance with the Civil Service Rules, thereby rendering the statutorily prescribed and mandatory investigation under the Civil Service Rules unnecessary.

In his notice of appeal dated 15th June, 2000 containing four grounds, the appellant submitted two issues as arising for determination.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

(1) Whether the non-compliance by the Rivers State Civil Commission, with the Civil Service Rules in failing to investigate the allegations of impropriety against the appellant can be excused by reliance on the report of a Board of Inquiry that does not form part of the Civil Service Rules in terms of personnel, procedure and mission intendment.

(2) Whether the admission by the Court of Appeal that the trial Judge made a mistake by “treating the matter as if it was a simple case of master and servant” does not amount to a concession that there was a failure of justice, no consideration having been given to the statutory provisions which gave the appointment of the appellant “a statutory flavour.”

The respondent proffered from the two remaining grounds (the third having been abandoned) of appeal a sole issue for determination,to wit: