Jibril G. Yakubu V. Ajaokuta Steel Company Limited & Anor. (2009)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA, J.C.A.

This is an appeal against the Judgment of the Federal High Court Abuja Division delivered on the 3rd day of May 2006 In Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/331/2005 – JIBRIL G. YAKUBU VS. (1) AJAOKUTA STEEL COMPANY LIMITED (2) THE HON. MINISTER OF POWER & STEEL

The Plaintiff/Appellant in the Court below had by a Writ of Summons claimed for the following reliefs:-

“(1) A declaration that since the Plaintiff’s appointment was terminated for “service no longer required”, on the 9th May 1989 and the 1st Defendant admitted on oath at the High Court of Justice at Ajaokuta on the 26th day of October 1995 in case No. KGS/AJ/10/93 that “service no longer required” is not among misconducts in her staff conditions of service that would earn an officer a termination, the 1st Defendant has tacitly withdrawn the Plaintiff’s termination of appointment as the same termination of appointment was for “service no longer required”,

(2) A declaration that since the 1st Defendant admitted on oath on 26/10/95 at the High Court of Justice at Ajaokuta in case No. KGS/AJ/10/93 that “termination of appointment” is not one of the conditions in her pension scheme under which pension are payable, such admission was a withdrawal of the 1st Defendant’s intention to put the Plaintiff on a future and undetermined pension consequent upon the Plaintiffs termination of appointment by the 1st Defendant on 9/5/89.

(3) A declaration that the 1st Defendant misled the Court of Appeal in appeal No. CA/A/51/98 in July 2001 when it falsely claimed before that Court that the Plaintiff has been receiving his pension ever before his termination of his appointment was declared unlawful by the High Court of Ajaokuta on 26/10/95. Whereas no such pension has ever been paid to the Plaintiff by the 1st Defendant as is quite apparent in the 1st Defendant’s letter No. ASCL/MD/CCSLA/468/VOL. 11/232 dated 15/10/2003 to the Hon. Commissioner, Public Complaints Commission, Lokoja, indicating her consistent intention to commence payment of pension to the Plaintiff when he clocks 45 years of age. And, in another letter No. ASCL/MD/CSLA/648 VOL. II/248 dated 29th April 2005, addressed to the Plaintiff’s Counsel requesting the Counsel to advise the Plaintiff to come and do some clearance so that the 1st Defendant can put the Plaintiff’s name on her Pension List.

(4) A declaration that the Public Complaints Commission relying on her enabling Laws of the Federation, has the right to have investigated into this matter, and concluded and recommended to the 1st and 2nd Defendants in a letter No KG/PCC/COM/292/03/50 that the Plaintiff is still a bonafide staff of the 1st Defendant as the 1st Defendant did not appeal against the Judgment of the High Court of Ajaokuta which declared the termination of the Plaintiff’s appointment as unlawful on 26/10/95.

(5) A declaration that the refusal of the 2nd Defendant, as a statutory supervisor of the 1st Defendant to call the Plaintiff to office as strongly and repeatedly recommended by the Public Complaints Commission vide letter No. DG/PCC/COM/292/03/84 of 30th September 2004 is an abuse of administrative process and a tacit approval of the 2nd Defendant over 1st Defendant’s recalcitrant posture to address the destruction of the carrier life of the Plaintiff.

(6) An order of the Honourable Court directing the 1st and 2nd Defendants to jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff the sum of N250,000,000.00 (Two Hundred and Fifty Million Naira) as damages for:-

(a) The 1st Defendant to have refused and ignored to lawfully retire or terminate the Plaintiff’s appointment from her services up till date.

(b) The 1st Defendant to have misled Court of Appeal, in Abuja in July 2001 to believe that the Plaintiff was making a mockery of, and abusing the judicial process because the Plaintiff has been receiving his pensions.

(c) The 1st Defendant to have disregarded and ignored the Public Complaints Commission to return the Plaintiff to status quo in September 2001 thereby violating the enabling Laws of the Federation that established that commission.

(d) The 1st Defendant to have engaged in all sorts of falsehood which effects have culminated in the destruction of the Plaintiff’s carrier life as he is neither a retiree, a terminated officer, a pensioner nor dismissed from the services of the 1st Defendant.

(e) The 1st and 2nd Defendants to have subjected the Plaintiff, wife, aged parents and nine children to severe financial hardship and social embarrassment since 9/5/89 when his appointment was unlawfully terminated.