Enugu State Civil Service Commission & Ors. V. Agu Geofrey (2006)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

BADA, J.C.A.

This is an appeal against the decision of an Enugu State High Court in suit No. E/683/2001 – Enugu State Civil Service Commission and 2 others v. Agu Geofrey, delivered on the 22nd day of September 2003 wherein it was held inter alia that the prevention of the plaintiff now respondent by the defendants now appellants from carrying out the functions and duties of his office is unconstitutional, illegal, null and void in that it is contrary to the provisions of the Anambra State Civil Service Rules (applicable to Enugu State) and that the plaintiff remains in the employment of the Enugu State Civil Service with all the rights and privileges of a bona fide civil servant in Enugu State including salaries and other benefits attached to his office.

In order to appreciate this appeal, it is necessary to refer to the facts leading to the appeal. Briefly the facts are that the respondent a public servant under the Public Service of Enugu State was disengaged by the appellants through a published statement sometimes in October 1999. Consequent upon the published statement, the respondent and others similarly affected by the publication protested by embarking on industrial action by way of strike. Subsequently a meeting was held between the disengaged workers including the respondent through his representatives and the appellants’ representatives on the 29th and 30th November, 1999.

Pursuant to the agreement reached at the meeting, the respondent resumed his duties and was paid his October and November 1999 salaries.

However, on or about 22nd May, 2000 the appellants in disregard to the agreement earlier reached between the parties prevented the respondent from carrying out the functions and duties of his office and refused to pay his salary from December 1999 till date.

The respondent after issuing the necessary pre-action notices to the appellants, challenged the action of the appellants in court and prayed for the following reliefs-

“(1) A declaration that the prevention of the plaintiff by the defendants from carrying out the functions and duties of his office is unconstitutional, illegal, null and void in that it is contrary to the provisions of the Anambra State Civil Service Rules (applicable to Enugu State).

(2) A declaration that the plaintiff is still in the employment of Enugu State Civil Service with all rights and privileges of bonafide civil servant.

(3) An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, agents, privies whosoever or howsoever called from preventing the plaintiff from performing any of his functions and duties of his office or interfering with his employment, and the rights and benefits attached to his office.

(4) A mandatory order compelling the defendants to pay the plaintiff all his salaries, benefits and allowances accruing to him as a civil servant of Enugu State Civil Service with immediate effect from December 1999 to date.”

At the conclusion of hearing, judgment was delivered in favour of the respondent in part, only legs 1 and 2 of the claims were granted.

Being dissatisfied with the decision, the appellants appealed against the judgment while the respondent cross-appealed.

The appellants/cross-respondents formulated only one issue for determination as follows-

“Whether the trial court was right in holding that the case was not statute-barred as the respondent did not commence the action within 12 months after the cause of action arose as is required by section 11(1) of the State Proceeding Law, Cap. 131, Laws of Anambra State of Nigeria, 1986 (applicable to Enugu State).