Igbiki Amangi Dukoke V.inspector-general Of Police Nigeria Police Force & Ors. (2011)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

This appeal is against the decision of Federal High Court Yenegoa in the suit No FHC/YNG/CS/466/2003 delivered on 6th November, 2006 by Okechukwu J. Okeke, J. The judgment dismissed, in its entirety, the suit of the Appellant, as the plaintiff. The writ in the suit was specially endorsed with the statement of claim. The appellant was a Sergeant in the Nigeria Police.

He was deployed to Okpoama, Bayelsa State on Quick Intervention duty for peace keeping in volatile flash points in the area. The head of his unit was one Mr. Ejiofor (ASP). The appellant and the said Mr. Ejiofor (ASP), allegedly did not have the best of mutual or inter personal relationship. The said Mr. Ejiofor, ASP caused the appellant to be tried on Orderly Room Trial on five count charges for offences against discipline in accordance with the provisions of the Police Regulations. Appellant was, between February and March, 1999 duly tried on the five charges and convicted on all count charges except one.

In consequence of the conviction the appellant was dismissed from the Nigeria Police. The Appellant, in the Statement of Claim, had pleaded that “his trial at the Orderly Room and ultimately his dismissal from the Force was maliciously motivated by Mr. Ejiofor (ASP), the head of the Quick Intervention Unit at Okpoama.” The appellant, did not in the statement of claim, state who constituted the Orderly Room panel that tried him. Suffice only that he averred therein that the panel was headed by Mr. Austin Tanno, who at the material time was of the rank of Assistant Superintendent of police (ASP). His contention is that as a Sergeant, that he was, the Adjudicating Officer, Mr. Austin Tanno (ASP) was not, by virtue of the provisions of part xvi. Section 373(1) and the Second Schedule to the Police Regulations, Cap 359 1990 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, competent to try him to make out the sentences awarded against him. The writ was taken out on 29th July, 2003, more than 4 years since the Orderly Room trial. The respondents filed their statement of Defence upon leave granted by the court below having extended time for doing so.

The respondents therein pleaded protection of Public Officers (Protection) Act, averring “that this cause of action arose on May 5, 1999 and this suit was filed on 27th July, 2003. On 4th October, 2006 this point of law in the defence was set down for hearing and duly heard in open court. In the reserved ruling delivered on 6th November, 2006 the court below up held the objection to the suit and declared that the suit of the appellant was statute barred, and accordingly dismissed it. The appeal is against the decision. The court of appeal considered all the issues raised in the case before it held that the appeal lacks merit and thereby affirmed the decision of the trial court.

---

Other Citation: (2011)LCN/5072(CA)

[/membership]