Federal Capital Development Authority & Ors V. Dr. Charles Nzelu & Anor (2013)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

ABUBAKAR DATTI YAHAYA, J.C.A.(Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This appeal arose from the judgment of the High Court of Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, delivered on the 29th day of April 2011 in Suit No.FCT/HC/CV/382/09.

The claims of the respondents who were the plaintiffs at the trial court, in the joint Amended Statement of claim, are: –

(a) A declaration that the plaintiffs having been re-instated are entitled to all the financial benefits and promotions attached to their offices as staff of the 1st Defendant which they were deprived of from the dates of their purported disengagement and or retirement in 2006 till the date they assume duties.

(b) An order of this Honourable Court directing the payment of the financial benefits and other entitlements due to the plaintiffs from the day they were compulsorily disengaged and/or retired till the date they finally assume duties.

(c) An order of this Honourable Court directing the defendants to promote the plaintiffs to the salary grade levels of their colleagues employed the same time with them.

(d) A perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants whether by themselves, assigns, agents, privies or whosoever purporting to act on their behalf from interfering with the employment of the plaintiffs until they attain the statutory age of retirement or have put in the mandatory 35 years in service.

(e) The sum of N250 million as General Damages for the unlawful disengagement and or retirement.

At the trial, each of the respondents gave evidence. The appellants also called one witness.

The facts of the case, according to the Appellants, reveal that the respondents were informed that a re-structuring was going on in the FCT and as such, their services were no longer needed. This was in a letter dated the 1/10/2006. The respondents made many appeals to the FCT and at last, the appellants wrote a letter to the respondents on the 22/7/09 informing them that the 3rd appellant had approved their re-instatement subject to three conditions stated therein, and they were asked to write a letter of acceptance for further processing, should they accept the terms of the letter. They did not write such acceptance letter.

From the grounds of appeal, the appellants, in their brief of argument filed on the 26/7/11 by their counsel E. Achukwu, distilled two Issues for determination to be –

1. Whether the learned trial judge was right in holding that the Respondents have been validly re-instated into the service of the 1st appellant and as such that the respondents were entitled to all the financial benefits and promotion attached to their offices as staff of the 1st appellant from the date of the retirement till the date they resume duties.

2. Whether the learned trial judge was right in holding that the respondents’ suit was not caught by the time limitation placed on such suits by the Public Offices Protection Act, Cap P41, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004.

The respondents in their brief of argument deemed filed on the 8/10/12, identified three issues thus –