Iheukwumere Egesi V. Secondary Education Management Board (Semb) & Ors (2014)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

ITA GEORGE MBABA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the decision of Imo State High Court in Suit NO.HOW/247/2004, delivered by Hon. Justice Duroha Igwe, on 3/5/2007, whereof the trial Court dismissed the claims of the Plaintiff (Appellant herein). The claim of the Plaintiff was declaratory in nature, namely:

“(1) A declaration that the inclusion of the name of Plaintiff as No.30 at page 9 of the Government white paper on the report of the Panel to investigate illegal employment in the Secondary Education Management Board from 1999 to May, 2003 is wrongful, void and of no effect.

(2) A declaration that the Plaintiff is still an Administrative Officer II on Grade Level of step 2 in the Imo State Secondary Education Management Board and as such he is entitled to all his salaries, allowances and/or emoluments.

(3) A declaration that the purported dismissal of the appointment of the Plaintiff as contained in the letter reference IM/SEMB/NT/11108/1/89 of 15/6/04 is wrongful, void and of no effect.

(4) Injunction restraining the Defendants, their agents, servants from preventing the Plaintiff from performing the functions and duties of his office or interfering with the enjoyment of his right, privileges and benefits attached to his office.

(5) An Order compelling the defendants, to restore the Plaintiff to his post and office and to all the rights and privileges and benefits attached to his office”.

(See paragraph 23 of the statement of claim filed on 6/7/2004 (pages 6 and 7 of the Records of Appeal).

A brief facts of the case at the Court below showed that the 2nd Defendant (Honourable Commissioner for Education, Imo State) on 3/9/03, inaugurated a panel of 5 Persons to investigate what it called illegal employment in the 1st Defendant from 1999 to 2003. The Plaintiff had taken a study leave, without pay, in 1987 for 4 years at the University of Calabar and returned in 1992 for reinstatement.

He was told there was embargo on employment that, he should wait for the embargo to be lifted. He waited till 7/8/2003, when the 1st Defendant reinstated him on salary grade level 08 step 2. The Panel inaugurated by the 2nd defendant, however, included his name in their report, as one of those illegally employed and recommended his dismissal.

The Plaintiff said he was never invited for questioning by the Panel, and could not have been invited, because he was employed in 1984 and reinstated after his study leave on 7/8/2003, which period was outside the investigation by the Panel. The 2nd defendant accepted the recommendation of its Panel and dismissed him on 15/6/2004.

The Respondents maintained that Appellant was purportedly granted study leave by the 1st Defendant for 4 years in 1990, with retrospective effect from 1987, contrary to the circular on study leave; that the study leave expired in 1991 but Appellant did not return to work and did not apply for reinstatement, until 17/2/2003, as per Exhibit H; that the Board of the 1st Defendant (Appellant’s employer) rejected Appellant’s application for reinstatement (Exhibit G), but the Secretary of the Board of 1st Defendant, subsequently, re-instated Appellant, as per Exhibit C.

Respondents argued that the Edict establishing the Board of the 1st Defendant did not give the Executive Secretary the power to re-instate officers. The trial Court gave judgment in favour of the Defendants (Respondents herein), and dismissed Applicant’s claims.

Appellant filed this appeal on 3/7/2007 and raised twelve (12) grounds of appeal, as per pages 162 to 168 of the Records of Appeal, transmitted to this Court. Appellant filed his Brief of arguments on 15/7/10 and distilled three (3) issues for determination, as follows: