Gurama L. Dekom V. Judicial Service Commission, Plateau State (2010)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

Z. A. BULKACHUWA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

The appellant, a Higher Executive officer on Grade Level 08/7 was the Registrar of the Chief Magistrate Court Barkin Ladi was dismissed by the Respondent on 2nd April, 2001. Consequent to his posting to the Chief Magistrate Court Barkin Ladi, he was the officer in charge of the open Registry of the Plateau State Judiciary, whose responsibilities included the receiving of mails, filing of same and forwarding the mails to the staff officer and responding to the mails within and outside the Plateau State Judiciary on behalf of the Chief Registrar.

In the course of his duties in 2000, the Appellant signed in service forms for some staff of the Respondent on behalf of the Chief Registrar for which he was queried for forgery on 9/1/2000.

A Senior Staff Disciplinary Committee chaired by the Chief Registrar was set up by the Respondent on the allegation of forgery. The appellant appeared before the Committee and on 2/4/2001 was issued with a letter of dismissal.

The Appellant being dissatisfied took out a writ before the High Court of Plateau State wherein he claimed the following reliefs;

1. A declaration in that the dismissal by the plaintiff from service of the Defendant is illegal, unconstitutional and void.
2. An order that the plaintiff be reinstated to his position before the purported date of dismissal and;
3. An order that the plaintiff be paid.

Pleadings were filed and exchanged by the parties, the case was heard wherein the appellant testified for himself and tendered some documents. The respondent rested his case on that of the plaintiff and counsel to the respective parties addressed the Court. In a considered Judgment delivered on the 26/3/2002 the trial court, nullified the dismissal of the appellant on ground of forgery but affirmed same on the ground of posting an officer out of state without authorization.

The appellant has now appealed to this Court on 2 grounds of appeal. Parties filed and exchanged their briefs of argument.

In the appellant’s brief which was deemed filed on 23/5/2006 these issues were identified;

1. Whether the Plateau State Judicial Service Commission Regulations, 1980 needs to be pleaded and tendered before a Court can act on it?
2. Whether due process was followed when the appellant was dismissed on the ground that he posted an officer out of station without authority?

The respondent in a brief deemed filed vide order of Court of 22/6/09 identified this issue for the determination of the appeal;

1. Whether the learned trial Judge was right in refusing to take judicial notice of the Plateau State Judicial Service Commission Regulations, 1980 (herein after called the regulations) as a result of which the appellant’s case was dismissed.

The issues formulated by the appellant are all encompassing to the grounds, I will in the circumstances adopt them in the determination of the appeal.

Issue 1 is based on ground 1 of the grounds of appeal which is a complaint against the finding of the trial Court at page 42 Lines 17-12 of the record where the Court partly held;

”Truly, these regulations were not pleaded and were not tendered. The said regulations are therefore not before the Court. The regulations which are not pleaded and are not tendered before the Court cannot therefore be made an issue before the Court…”

On this the appellant submits that by the combined effect of the provisions of Sections 73 and 74 (1) (a) of the Evidence Act, the Court ought to have taken judicial notice of the Plateau State Judicial Service Commission Regulations, 1980. That the said regulations which was made pursuant to the provisions of Section 185 of the 1979 Constitution, need not be pleaded and tendered before the lower court could act on it, relying on the evidential rule that a fact which is judicially noticeable need not be proved.

The sole issue of the respondent is formulated from ground 1 and so relates to the appellant’s issue 1.