Mr. Olasupo Adedeji & Ors v. Central Bank of Nigeria & Anor (2022)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report – SUPREME COURT

TIJJANI ABUBAKAR, JSC (Delivering the leading judgment)

The suit grounding this appeal commenced at the trial Federal High Court, Lagos Division by the 11 appellants in this appeal for themselves and on behalf of the over 1000 rationalised staff of the Central Bank of Nigeria, the 1st respondent in this appeal. The action was commenced by originating summons on the 19th day of May, 2003 praying for the following:

“a. A declaration that the 1st respondent being an autonomous legal body is not subject to the Federal Government control in its affairs with its staff.

b. A declaration that the Federal Government directives to the 1st respondent to embark on rationalization of its staff is wholly violative of the 1st respondent’s contractual relationship with its staff.

c. A declaration that the 1st respondent rationalization exercises on the instigation and Directive of the Federal Government between 1996, 1998 and 10th of March, 2003 is wholly violative of chapters 4-6 of the 1st respondent’s staff manual.

d. An order nullifying the purported rationalization exercise conducted by the 1st respondent on ‘the directives’ of the FederalGovernment (an interloper) who is neither the employer of the applicants nor a privy to the contractual relationship existing between the applicants and the 1st respondent.

e. An order directing the 1st respondent to reinstate the applicants immediately to their respective posts without loss of seniority or benefits”.

The originating summons is supported by twenty-four-paragraph affidavit sworn to by the 1st appellant Mr. Olasupo Adedeji. The 1st defendant filed an application comprising exhibits evidencing the purported rationalisation; there was filing and exchange of various multiple documents by the parties before the hearing of the originating summons.

The suit was heard and determined by the trial Federal High Court wherein the action filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed. The plaintiffs became miffed by the decision of the trial court and therefore filed an appeal before the lower court. The Court of Appeal affirmed the decision of the trial court. The appellants obtained leave of court and further appealed to this court via an amended notice of appeal filed on the 4th day of August, 2014.

The appellants through learned counsel Adekunle Ojo filed amended appellants’ brief of argument on the 18th day of March, 2021, the brief was deemed as properly filed and served on the 19th day of September, 2022. Learned counsel also filed amended appellants’reply brief on the 18th day of March, 2021, the reply was deemed as properly filed and served on the 19th day of September, 2022. Out of the five issues initially crafted by learned counsel for the appellants, he applied to withdraw the 5th issue for determination. It is therefore taken that, learned counsel for the Appellants submitted four issues for determination, and the issues are as follows:

“1. Whether, by the provisions of the Central Bank Act, 1990 and the extant Central Bank of Nigeria Staff Manual, the 1st respondent can lawfully take and execute specific policy directives regarding the management of its internal affairs with regards to the appellants’ employment from the 2nd respondent? and if not, is not the execution of the rationalization exercise in compliance with the 2nd respondent’s express directives a violation of the employment relationship between the appellants and the management of the 1st respondent bank?

2. Whether, having regard to the provisions of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) Act, 1990 and the CBN Staff Manual, the employment of staff of the 1st respondent bank enjoy statutory flavour under the Act, and if so, was the employment of the appellants validly and duly terminated by the 1st respondent in compliance with chapter 3(2) and (3), chapter 4(1) and chapter 6(2) (14) of the staff manual. Respondent in compliance with chapter 3(2) and (3), chapter 4(1) and chapter 6(2)(14) of the staff manual?
3. Whether the learned Justices of the court below erred in law when they held in their judgment that the appellants’ case failed because of appellants’ failure to call oral evidence?
4. In view of the peculiar circumstances and facts of this case coupled with the age long legal principle that if an act is void and a nullity, it is to all intents and purposes void as you cannot put something on nothing; WHETHER the applicants/appellants are not entitled to be reinstated to their jobs with the Central Bank of Nigeria?

The learned counsel for the 1st respondent Oladipo Tolani, Esq., filed the 1st respondent’s brief of argument on the 14th day of April, 2022, the brief was deemed as properly filed and served on the 19th day of September, 2022. Counsel nominated three issues for determination, but at the hearing of the appeal he applied to withdraw the 3rd issue for determination. The remaining two issues are therefore reproduced as follows:

“a. Whether having regards to the circumstances of this case, the termination of the appellants’ employment vide the rationalization exercise embarked upon by the 1st respondent sometime in years 1996 and 1998 was valid and effectual. (Grounds 1, 2, 4, 5 & 6).

b. Whether having regards to the circumstances of this case, the appellants’ employment with the 1st respondent can be said to be one with statutory flavour as to entitle the appellants to reinstatement into the employment of the 1st respondent. (Grounds 3 & 10)”.