Festus Mrakpor & Anor V. Police Service Commission (2016) LLJR-CA

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

UDO I. NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A.

This is a cross appeal against the Judgment of the High Court of Lagos State delivered on the 6th day of October, 2006 by Hon. Justice Olufadeju.

The Cross-Appellants as Claimants took out a writ of summons against the Cross- Respondent as Defendant claiming the following reliefs:-
“(1) A declaration that the dismissal of the Plaintiffs from the Nigeria Police Force by the Defendants without proper trial is wrongful in that it violates the Plaintiffs’ fundamental right to fair hearing under the 1979 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria,
(2) A declaration that the Police Orderly Room Trial initiated and conducted against the Plaintiff in absentia and judgment thereof are unconstitutional, null and void and of not effect having been conducted in the absence of the Plaintiffs and having been based on the original offence for which the Plaintiff were discharged and acquitted.
(3) A declaration that the Police Orderly Room Trial initiated and conducted against the Applicants in absentia is a violation of the Applicants’ fundamental right to fair

1

hearing under the Nigerian Constitution.
(4) A declaration that any finding, action and/or order based on the said orderly Room Trial is consequently null and void and of no effect.
(5) A declaration that the order of dismissal awarded against the Plaintiffs by the Defendants is excessive having regard to all the circumstances of this case and in particular the Plaintiffs condition of service.
(6) A declaration that the Plaintiffs are, to all intents and purposes, still in the service of the Defendants; to wit, the Nigeria Police Force notwithstanding the purported dismissal.
(7) An Order of the Honourable Court reinstating the Plaintiffs in the service of the Defendants; to wit the Nigeria Police Force with effect from 8th June, 1983,
(8) A declaration that the Plaintiffs are entitled to all accrued salaries/allowances/benefits hitherto enjoyed by them and flowing from their employment with the Defendants.
(9) An Order mandating the Defendants to pay the Plaintiffs the sum of N168,614.50 more particularly described and itemized in Plaintiff Statement of claim hereinafter filed in this action.

The Cross-Respondent on its

2

part filed its Statement of defence. At the trial the Cross- Appellants testified for themselves and called no other witnesses while the Cross-Respondent failed/neglected to lead any evidence in support of their statement of defence despite series of adjournments granted to the cross-
Respondent to come defend its case. Consequently, the trial judge closed the Cross-Respondent’s case and ordered parties to file their respective written addresses.

In delivering its judgment, the trial judge while substantially granted all the reliefs of the Cross-Appellants, refused to reinstate the Cross-Appellant (on the grounds that the Cross-Appellants who were dismissed on 13th March 1983, a period of over 20 years in view of supervening events, probably policemen might have been appointed to replace the Cross-Appellant) notwithstanding her finding that the Cross-Appellants are entitled to reinstatement and without awarding damages, in lieu of reinstatement. Hence this Cross-appeal.

By an amended Notice of Appeal filed on 14th day of February, 2007, the Appellant appealed against the decision of the trial Court. On the other hand, by a notice of cross appeal

3

filed on 4th day of January, 2007 the Respondents/Cross-Appellants also cross appeal against the decision. On the 23rd June, 2015 the Appellant’s appeal was struck out for want of diligent prosecution (failure by the Appellant to file its brief of argument), leaving the cross appeal.

It is the contention of learned counsel for the cross appellant that the trial judge having found that the cross appellant were entitled to reinstatement, the trial Court had no legal basis for refusing to order reinstatement. He contended that the basis upon which the learned trial judge refused to order reinstatement is not supported by any evidence before the learned trial judge. According to counsel, the conclusion by the learned trial judge that due to effluxion of time and likely supervening events, the offices of the cross appellants are likely to have been occupied by new appointments is not supported by evidence. He relied on the case of MERCHANT BANK OF AFRICA V WILLOUGHBY (1987) 1 SC; FIRST BANK OF NIGERIA PLC V AKPARABONG COMMUNITY BANK LTD (2006) AFWLR (PT.319) 927; TRANSBRIDGE CO LTD V SURVEY INTERNATIONAL (1986) 4 NWLR (PT.37) 576. Therefore that finding is

4