Mr. Richard Omidiora & Anor V. Federal Civil Service Commission & Ors (2007)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU, J.C.A.

This is an appeal against part of the judgment of Hon. Justice Chukwura Nnamani of the Federal High Court delivered on 1/12/2005.

Therein a single judgment was given in respect of the consolidated cases of FHC/IL/CS/l0/2001, FHC/IL/CS/11/2001 and FHC/IL/CS/12/2001. The facts that led to this appeal are as follows:-

The Appellants had filed separate actions before the trial Federal High Court. Prior to the commencement of hearing the suits were consolidated as the cause of action, issues for determination and the Defendants were the same. Both Appellants were employed by the Federal Civil Service and were engaged as lecturers of different cadres in the Federal Training Centre Ilorin. They were dismissed on 6/5/99 from service after receipt and reply to a query based on an anonymous petition. They appealed through domestic channels of redress without a favourable outcome and filed an action at the lower court. The claim of the Appellants as adumbrated in the writ of summons is as stated below:

“The Plaintiff was a Senior Lecturer/Senior Education Officer with the Federal Training Centre, Ilorin, until 30th April, 1999 when purporting to act on the strength of an anonymous petition and without just cause the Defendant acting in concert dismissed the Plaintiff from service vide a letter dated 16th April, 1999 signed by an unauthorized officer. On assumption of office on the 29th May, 1999 the present Federal Government set up a panel to review the Plaintiff’s case among others but in a report of the panel published on 14/12/2000, Ref No. TSR.02/197/T/241 signed by one Dr. C.J.G. Orjioke, Permanent Secretary, and Public Service Office of the Plaintiff’s purported dismissal was affirmed as he was not one of those re-absorbed.

WHEREOF the Plaintiff claims against the Defendants jointly and severally as follows:

1. A Declaration that his letter of dismissal dated 16th April, 1999 is null, void and of no effect as it is founded on an anonymous petition.
2. A Declaration that the purported letter of dismissal dated 16th April 1999 is incompetent, null and void as it is signed by an unauthorized officer.
3. An Order for the immediate re-instatement of the Plaintiff to the service of the 1st Defendant as a Senior Lecturer with the Federal Training Centre, Ilorin.
4. An Order for the payment of all salaries and allowances due to the Plaintiff from May, 1999 until he is reinstated
5. An Order for the restoration of all rights inclusive of all promotions due to the Plaintiff DATED this 15th day of January, 2001. ” (Page 2 of the Record of Proceedings)

Pleadings were filed and issues joined. After the trial court dismissed the preliminary objection of the Respondents to the jurisdiction of the court, the case went to trial. By the trial stage, the Respondents’ counsel had abandoned the defence and the court proceeded to trial pursuant to Order 15 r. 15 of the Federal High Court Civil Procedure Rules 2000. In a considered judgment the learned trial judge held that the action of the Respondents was a nullity, because the petition, the basis of the disciplinary action against the Respondents was anonymous, the letter of dismissal was not signed by the appropriate authority and finally that the procedure adopted in dismissing the Appellants breached the legal doctrine of fair hearing. The lower court decided that the Appellants’ dismissal is a nullity.

His Lordship however decided not to grant the claim for reinstatement and payment of the Appellants’ salaries and allowances during the period that he found that their appointment had been unlawfully terminated. It is against that aspect of the judgment of the lower court that an appeal has been lodged before this court.

The Appellants grounds of appeal with their particulars are set out below for clarity:

“1. The court erred in law when it held, ‘I have thoroughly perused the Plaintiffs’ Statement of Claim and no where did the Plaintiffs plead special circumstances to warrant reinstatement. The Court on its own had looked at the facts of this case to see if special circumstances can be deduced I am afraid I was unable to see any”

PARTICULARS OF ERROR IN LAW:

(i) The learned trial court agreed that the Appellants’ employment is one with statutory flavour and governed by the Civil Service Rules.

(ii) The learned trial court found that the dismissal of the Appellants is null and void and of no effect being in brazen breach of the Civil Service Rules, manual of employment, discipline and promotion in the Civil Service and all tenets of fair hearing.

(iii) It is now moot that a finding that a dismissal from an employment with statutory flavour is null and void is a finding for special circumstance and the only relief proceeding from such a finding is immediate reinstatement.