Saidu Garba V. Federal Civil Service Commission & Anor (1988)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

ESO, J.S.C. 

This appeal arose as a result of the incident that followed the unfortunate fire inferno which took place in “NECOM HOUSE” building in Lagos. The fire fiercely gulped the tall sky-scraper on 24th January 1983. Two people died, but over 600 other lives were saved.

The Appellant, who was a fireman, was there with his men, for so he said, to put off the fire. They eventually succeeded after a grueling grind. In any event, the Appellant claimed he put out the fire, while the Respondents denied that he performed the feat. That however was not the gravamen of the trouble to come.

On 31st January, 1983, a week after the fire incident, the Appellant, with nineteen others, was arrested and charged with the murder of the two men that died. Two weeks after he was charged with the murder, the Appellant, precisely on 16th February 1983, brought an application before the High Court, under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, to have the indictment quashed and the indictment was quashed by the Court, (Bada J.).

The Appellant’s ordeal was just starting. For, on 21st February, 1983, he was interdicted by a letter and this interdiction was renewed in yet another letter. Again, he went to Court, but this time, he sought

“A declaration setting aside as illegal, invalid, unconstitutional null and void and of no effect whatsoever the two letters dated 21st February, 1983 and 6th of April, 1983 with reference Numbers MIA/5194/S.1/2 and MIA/5194/S.1/T/27 respectively from the Permanent Secretary Federal Ministry of Internal Affairs to the Plaintiff interdicting the Plaintiff.”

In a nineteen-paragraphed Statement of Claim, he averred, inter-alia-

“that at no time after the charge of murder was quashed by the Lagos High Court on the 16th of February 1983 was he again charged or re-arrested for murder.

that he has since not been charged before any court of law for any offence.”

The Plaintiff then said he would contend, at the trial of this action that his interdiction was illegal, invalid, null and void for the following reasons:-

“(a) It is contrary to RULE 04115 of the Federal Government Civil Service Rules.

(b) Since no criminal charge has been preferred against the Plaintiff in a court of law there is no basis for the interdiction of the Plaintiff.

(c) The process of interdiction of the plaintiff is contrary to RULE 04116 of the Federal Government Civil Service Rules in that the process of Interdiction has been violated by the Permanent Secretary Federal Ministry of Internal Affairs.

(d) That the interdiction violated the principle of Natural Justice in that the Plaintiff was not heard before the interdiction was made.”