Jackson Gaius Obaseki & Anr. V. Gift Tobin Orukwo (2007)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

SAULAWA, J.C.A.

This is an appeal against the decision of the Federal High Court, Port Harcourt Judicial Division holden at Port Harcourt in suit No. FHC/PH/CS/554/2002, dated the 21st day of July, 2004, coram R.O. Nwodo, J. As it would appear from the record of appeal, on 23/9/2002, the respondent had filed a motion on notice in the trial court seeking the following reliefs:

(a) A declaration to the effect that by virtue of the decision of the High Court of Rivers State in suit No. PHC/270M/95 which notified {sic} the basis and/or grounds for which the applicant was summarily dismissed from the employment of Nigeria National Petroleum Corporation and/or Port Harcourt Refining Company Limited the applicant should be reinstated in the said employment by the respondent.

(b) An order of mandamus directing the respondents either by themselves their successors-in-title or agents to immediately reinstate the applicant as a staff of Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation and/or Port Harcourt Refining Company Limited and pay to him all his entitlements therein.

It’s instructive that after according an ample consideration to the oral and written submissions of the learned counsel to both parties, the learned trial Judge delivered judgment to the following effect:

In conclusion, I enter judgment for the plaintiff.

I hold that applicant having shown a legal right in the certiorari order quashing the decision that formed his dismissal and this order subsists. I hereby declare as prayed in relief 1:

By virtue of applicant having shown the existence of a legal right, and having demanded his reinstatement following the order quashing the decision that formed his dismissal and the respondent having refused to perform that duty relief 2 succeeds in part.

Exercising my discretion and under consequential omnibus prayer it is imperative to make this order. I hereby order mandamus should issue directing the respondent either by themselves, their successors in title or agents to ensure compliance to decision of court in exhibit C and based on that decision i.e. the order of certiorari therein to direct compliance in accordance with the process of law, I therefore so order.

Not unnaturally, being dissatisfied with the above decision of the trial court, the appellants filed this appeal on 15/12/04 upon five grounds of appeal.

It’s rather instructive that parties have filed and exchanged their respective briefs of argument, which they accordingly adopted on 26/02/07 when this appeal came up for hearing. The appellants have formulated four issues for determination in the brief thereof thus:

“3.1.1. Whether the trial Judge erred in issuing an order of mandamus on the appellants who were not the original parties sued by the respondent at the State High Court in suit No. PHC/270M/95 against whom the order of certiorari was issued.

3.1.2. Whether the trial court was justified in exercising jurisdiction where the respondent failed to serve the motion on notice for commencement of the action as required by section 13 of NNPC Act, Cap. 320, (LFN), 1990?

3.1.3. Assuming that the State High Court order of certiorari granted the respondent was right to apply for reinstatement in 1997 whether the respondent’s suit for reinstatement in 2002 was statute-barred by virtue of section 12(1) or NNPC Act, 1990?