Mohammed Jibrin V. Nigerian Electric Power Authority (2003)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

ZAINAB ADAMU BULKACHUWA, J.C.A.

The appellant as plaintiff before the Federal High Court, Abuja, initiated this action by a writ of summons, filed on the 6th September, 1995 and vide his amended statement of claim filed on the 1st of April, 1996, claimed the following reliefs:

1. A declaration that the purported dismissal of the plaintiff from the service of the Nigerian Electric Power Authority by the defendant is illegal, null and void.

2. A declaration that the plaintiff is still in the employment of the Nigerian Electric Power Authority.

3. An order of the court compelling the defendant to reinstate the plaintiff to his status as an employee of the defendant without prejudice to his entitlements and promotions which might have accrued to him during the period of his dismissal.

4. An order of the court compelling the defendant to pay all the plaintiff’s salary and the entitlements in arrears from July, 1994 when his salary was stopped to February, 1995 when he was purportedly dismissed by the defendant.

5. An order of injunction restraining the defendant, his servants, agents, etc, from further interfering with the plaintiffs performance of his duties as a civil servant.

Pleadings were filed and exchanged by the parties and trial started before Senlong, J. Before the determination of the case, however,  Senlong, J. was transferred and the case was tried de-novo before Auta, J. and a fresh trial started on the 20th day of May, 1999. The plaintiff testified for himself and three witnesses testified for the defendant, and the trial court in determining the matter, dismissed the plaintiff’s claim who being dissatisfied, has now appealed to this court on these grounds of appeal:

Ground of appeal
1. The learned trial Judge erred in law, when he held that the adhoc committee upon whose findings plaintiff appointment was terminated was merely an investigatory and exploratory body and need not abide by the rules of fair hearing and natural justice as embodied in the staff regulation rules.

Particulars of error
Chapter 3 of the staff Rules deals with discipline of staff. Section 33:02 of this chapter, deals with dismissal of staff. Section 33: 16 of the Rules made provision for summary dismissal for absence of duty and the defendant refused to exercise that right, but still decided to give the plaintiff a hearing under section 33:4(1) and so the respondent ought to safeguard that the disciplinary rules regarding the conduct of that ad-hoc committee as enshrined in the Rules has to be complied with.

2. The learned trial Judge misdirected himself as to the facts and evidence before him when he held as follows:
“The plaintiff admitted that he has been absent from his duty post when he engaged himself playing football.”

Particular of errors
There was no strong evidence before the court to support the above assertion of the Honourable Judge.

Throughout the judgment, the Honourable Judge did not pronounce on exhs. D, E, F, G, H, J, K and L, as it affirms the fact that plaintiff has been very regular in his job throughout the period complained of in his query.

3. The learned trial Judge erred in law and reached a very wrong conclusion when he held as follows: “Therefore based on the provisions of Articles 35 of exh. B, the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed from his job without any formality if the defendant constituted a panel to investigate him before they terminated his appointment as far as this court is concerned, it is not a ground to challenge the termination of his appointment that he was not given the opportunity to cross-examine the people who testified before the panel.