F.S. Uwaifo V Attorney-general Bendel State & Ors (1982)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

G. S. SOWEMIMO, J.S.C.

This case, which is an appeal to this court, started in the Bendel State High Court as suit No. B/264/79  and the writ of summons was issued out on the 2nd of October, 1979. The summons read thus -“The plaintiff’s claim against the defendants is for:-

(a)    A declaration that the Maidoh Assets Verification Panel exceeded its jurisdiction in that it failed to determine the issues contained in its terms of reference according to law.

(b)    A declaration that the Maidoh Assets Verification Panel exceeded its jurisdiction in that it heard and received evidence and/or representations from a number of persons behind the back of the plaintiff, and thus failed to observe the rules of law and that of natural justice.

(c)    A declaration that as a result of (a) and/or (b) above, the recommendations of the Maidoh Assets verification Panel are a nullity, void and of no effect.”

The pleadings were duly filed and delivered after amendments under the Bendel State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1976. Three points of law were raised under Order 22 rule 2. This reads:

“(2)  Any party shall be entitled to raise by his pleading any point of law, and any points so raised shall be disposed of by the Judge who tries the cause at or after the trial; provided that by consent of the parties, or by order of the  court or a Judge on the application of either party, the  same may be set down for hearing and disposed of at any time before the trial.”

The respondents were granted leave to set down for hearing as points of law for the defence, paragraphs 17, 18 and 19 of the amended statement of defence which read as follows:

“17.  The defendants in answer to all the claims of the plaintiff will at or before the hearing of this suit raise by way of preliminary objection on a point of law the issue that the  court has no jurisdiction to entertain this suit by reason of the provisions of the said Tribunals or Inquiries (Validation etc.) Decree 1977 ) particularly Sections 1, 2, 3 of the said Decree.

18.   In addition to paragraph 17 above, the defendants will further contend that by reason of the provisions of the said Tribunal or Inquiries (Validation etc.) Decree 1977 particularly Sections 2(1)(a)(b), 2(2) this action is void and shall be so declared.

19.   The defendants in addition to paragraphs 17 and 18 above will also contend that by virtue of the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1979, particularly Section 6(6) (d) and also the provisions of Investigations of Assets (Public Officers and other persons) Decree 1968 and the Public Officers (Special Provisions) Decree 1978 this action is not maintainable and should be dismissed/struck out.

19(a)  The defendants will also raise the point of law that on facts pleaded and/or before the court, the plaintiff has not established a right which may be adversely affected in the future by something wrongly already done by the defendants to entitle him to an order of injunction.

19(b)  The defendants will rely on the point of law that the present action which commenced only on 2nd October, 1979 is statute barred by virtue of the provisions of the Public Officers Protection Law Cap. 137 Laws of Bendel State of Nigeria since the act or default or neglect took place more than 3 months before this action.”

After hearing arguments by both sides, the learned trial Judge in his ruling stated inter alia as follows:-