Frederick Ighedosa Akinedo & Ors V. Edo State Government & Ors (2011)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

AMIRU SANUSI J.C.A. (Delivering the leading Judgment)

At the Edo State High Court of Justice (the lower court for short) the present appellants filed an Originating Summons against the present respondents seeking the under mention declaratory and injunctive reliefs.

The reliefs are

(a) A Declaration that the decision of the Edo State Executive Council on 27th September 2000 reducing the retirement age of public officers in the State from 35 years of service and 60 years of age to 28 years of service and 53 years of age is unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect whatsoever having regard to the provisions of Pensions Act Cap. 346 of the Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990 and Section 210 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999.

(b) A Declaration that the Edo State Government cannot apply pari passu the retirement ages prescribed by the Pensions Act and those laid down by the State Executive Council on 27/9/2000 as that will amount to double standard and therefore discriminatory.

(c) A Declaration that the retirement of the plaintiffs on the basis of that decision taken on 27/9/2000 by the Edo State Executive Council, is null and void and of no effect whatsoever

(d) An order setting aside the decision of the Edo State Executive Council on 27/9/2000 as it affects the plaintiffs on the ground that it was discriminatory against them in their application

(e) A Declaration that the plaintiffs are still in the service of the Local Government Service Commission and continue to be so until they retire either voluntarily or in accordance with the provisions of the Pensions Act.

(f) An Order that the defendants should forthwith reinstate the plaintiffs to their jobs.

(g) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendants by themselves, their servants, agents and privies from taking further steps to retire the plaintiffs prematurely or doing anything that will effect the employments and pension rights of the plaintiffs guaranteed by the Pensions Act, 1990 and the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

The facts giving rise to the filing of the Originating Summons against the defendant/respondent by the plaintiff are plain and straight forward. The plaintiffs and other colleagues of theirs, were employees of the Edo State Local Government service commission, but were forcefully retired from service by the 3rd defendants/respondents hereinafter to be refereed to simply as “Commission”. The said retirement was sequel to the Edo State Executive Council’s approval of the downsizing of the Edo State Public Service by applying the criteria of 53 years of age and 28 years of Service with effect from 30/9/2000. This decision of the Edo State government to retire the appellants/plaintiff s did not go down well with them, hence they filed Originating Summons at the lower court to challenge their retirements.

In response to the supporting affidavit annexed to the Originating Summons, the respondents filed counter affidavit and after being served with the counter affidavit the plaintiffs on the other filed a Reply to same. The lower court after the filing of affidavit, counter affidavit and Reply to counter affidavit by the parties learned counsel later took their own submissions. On 12/4/2001 the learned trial Judge delivered her considered judgment dismissing the plaintiff s suit in its entirety. Dissatisfied with the decisions of the lower court dismissing the suit, the plaintiff now appellant, filed an appeal to this court and to that effect filed a Notice of Appeal dated 4th March 2001 containing ten grounds of appeal. The original Notice of appeal was however amended with leave of this court granted on 5th of June, 2002.

The appellants herein, in keeping with rules and practice in this court filed the appellant’s Brief of argument on 17/6/2002 dated same day. Having been served with a copy appellant’s brief of argument, the respondent filed their joint Brief also on 16/8/2004 after his time to file same was extended by this court.

The appellants in their Brief or argument proposed five issues for the determination of the appeal, which read as follows:-