Engr. Emmanuel Kenneth Uzor V. The Honourable Minister Of Works Housing And Urban Development & Anor (2013)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

On the 3rd of October, 2002, the Federal High Court, sitting at Enugu per C.M.A Olatoregun J. rendered judgment in suit No. FHC/EN/CS/11/89 in favour of the appellant herein, as plaintiff therein ordering that:

1. “the continued suspension of the plaintiff is unlawful, null and void.
2. the plaintiff is to be reinstated without any loss of seniority and/or benefits.
3. the 3rd Defendant is directed to pay to the plaintiff all his legitimate claims and entitlements withheld by the 1st to 3rd Defendants prior to the plaintiff’s suspension from duty.
4. the plaintiff’s monthly Salary of N5,800.00 per month from October 1996 to February 1999 – N127.000.00 and from 1998 to today that is the date of this judgment is awarded to him. Such payments to take into consideration the various Federal Government Salary increases to date.
5. the plaintiff’s Leave Bonus from 1995 – 1998 at the rate of N4,500.00 per annum = N18,000.00 and from 1999 till this year that is the year of this Judgment is also awarded to him. Such payment to reflect the various Federal Government increases in Annual Leave Bonus.
6. Outstanding Receipts Incurred in the Maintenance of the Federal Highways in Benue State by the plaintiff = N70,000.00 is also awarded to him.
7. the sum of N100,000.00 (One Hundred Thousand Naira) is awarded as General Damages for the uncertainty and suffering which the plaintiff suffered in the last six years while he remained on suspension.
8. this shall be the judgment of this court.”

On the 20th November, 2006 the appellant filed a motion on notice praying for an order committing the respondents to prison for contempt of court for disobeying some of the orders of the trial Federal High Court made on 3rd October, 2002.

In the affidavits in support of the application and in the affidavits in opposition of the application, both sides agree that the respondents complied with the judgment and order of the court but disagreed on whether the respondents complied with orders 2 and 3 that the appellant be reinstated to his employment without any loss of seniority and/or benefits and that all his claims and entitlements withheld by the 1st to 3rd respondents prior to the appellant’s suspension from duty be paid to him. After considering all the affidavits filed and the written addresses by both sides, the trial Federal High Court per A. Abdul-Kafarati J held that the respondents had fully complied with the said orders of the court by reinstating the appellant to his employment and paid him all allowances and benefits. The trial court then dismissed the application for committal. Dissatisfied with this decision of the trial court, the appellant on the 18th November, 2010 filed a notice of appeal commencing this appeal No. CA/E/341/2010 on two grounds. The appeal was brought out of time with leave of court obtained in CA/E/208M/2009. Both sides have filed, exchanged and adopted their briefs of argument in this appeal. The briefs are the appellant’s brief, 1st respondents’ brief and appellant’s reply brief. The appellant in his brief of argument raised the following issues for determination.

1. Was the court below right in holding that the orders of court complained about by the Appellant in this appeal have been complied with by the respondents?
2. Did the court below properly consider the Appellant’s affidavit evidence and bundle of documents on his reinstatement with loss of seniority and/or benefits and failure to pay all legitimate claims and entitlements withheld by the respondents?

The 1st respondent in its brief, formulated, in other words, the same issues for determination as follows:

1. Was the court below right in holding that the orders of Honourable Justice OLATOREGUN complained about by the Appellant in this appeal have been complied with by the Respondents?
2. Whether or not the court below properly considered the affidavit evidence and bundle of documents at his disposal before arriving at the decision to dismiss the motion for committal.

I adopt the issues formulated by the appellant and will determine this appeal on the basis of those issues.

Let me start with the issue of whether the trial court was right in holding that the respondents had complied with the orders that the appellant be reinstated to his employment without any loss of seniority and/her benefits and be paid his withheld claims and entitlements.

Learned Senior Advocate for the appellant has argued that the trial court was wrong in holding that –

(i) “the said orders 2 and 3 were complied with by the respondents

(ii) the said orders did not say that the respondents were to place him on grade level 17 or a particular grade level.

(iii) because the appellant was reinstated to his employment and promoted to grade level 15, the respondents had complied with the order of court.”

The Learned Senior Advocate further submitted that –

(i) “The respondents failed to fully comply with paragraph 3 of the order of court to pay the plaintiff all his legitimate claims and entitlements withheld by the respondents by not properly placing the appellant on grade level 17 with effect from 1st January, 2005. The Appellant having lost his seniority and/or benefits, he also lost all his legitimate claims and entitlements withheld by the respondents prior to the appellant’s suspension from duty.”

(ii) “The affidavit evidence and the documentary exhibits filed by the appellant in support of his motion for committal shows that the respondents have not complied with paragraph 2 of the drawn up order having been reinstated with loss of seniority and/or benefits, the appellant has lost his legitimate claims and entitlements withheld by the respondents prior to the appellant’s suspension, the respondents thereby failing to fully comply with paragraph 3 of the drawn up order of court.” (sic)