Federal Airports Authority Of Nigeria V. Ogbonna Ani (2010)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

MOHAMMED L. TSAMIYA. J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the decision of Enugu State High Court (herein referred to as the trial court) delivered on 21st November 2003.

The facts of the case according to record of this appeal are that, Respondent as plaintiff sued the Federal

Aviation Authority of Nigeria, (the defendant) as watchman. He was employed by the then Nigeria Airports Authority (N.A.A.) on 13th December 1976. He was absorbed into permanent establishment in the Federal Public Service on

1st April 1977 , and on 1st April 1981 he was confirmed into permanent and pension able post. On 11th December 1989, one Isaac., alleged that his shop within the Airport Hall was broken into by unknown person. The Respondent being among the security men on duty on the night of the incident, was charged to Court with his colleagues

before the Chief Magistrate Court Enugu with burglary and stealing and was interdicted. After the trial, the Respondent was discharged and acquitted on 25/8/1995. By a letter dated 11/9/1995, and signed by one O. M. Osinubi (Mrs.) the Respondent was dismissed from service pursuant to S.1(1) of the public Officers (special (provisions) Act 1983 (Decree No.17)Thereafter, on 25/7/2001 the Respondent sued Federal Civil Aviation) of Nigeria the Defendant at the High Court of Enugu State, Enugu, seeking:

A. (i) the withdrawal of his dismissal letter issued against him.

(ii) Re-instatement to the service and placement at par with his Counterparts.

(iii) payment of all moneys due to him from 11th September 1995 till date or, Alternatively;

B (i) Retirement with effect from the dare he would have put in 35 years of service or attained 60 years which

ever is earlier,

(ii) payment of all his entitlements enblock from 3rd August 1990 when he was interdicted up till the effective date of hrs retirement as afore said.

At the trial court the main thrust of the Respondent’s case was that the proper procedure was not followed

before his employment was brought to an end. The trial court, in a considered judgment delivered on 21/11/2003, granted all the reliefs sought before it.