The Federal Polytechnic Nekede, Owerri & Anor V. MR. Louis O. Nwaozor (2014)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

FREDERICK O. OHO, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

The Respondent (as Plaintiff in the trial Court) filed a writ of summons on the 16th day of September, 2002 against the Appellants (as Defendants at the trial court) and by an Amended Statement of Claim dated the 26th day of October, 2004 at paragraph 19 claimed the following reliefs.

“19 Wherefore the Plaintiff claims against the Defendants as follows:

1. A Declaration of the Honourable court that the dismissal of the plaintiff from the Federal Polytechnic Nekede, Owerri on the 30th April, 1999 and confirmed by the 2nd Defendant on 15-5-2002 is wrongful and therefore null and void.
2. An Order of the Court that the Defendants should reinstate the Plaintiff to the service of the Federal Polytechnic Nekede, Owerri with full payments to the Plaintiff of his salaries, entitlements, allowances and benefits without loss of seniority.
3. N500,000.00 General Damages.”

By a Further Amended Statement of Defence also dated the 26th day of October, 2004 the Appellants denied the Respondent’s claims and at paragraph 3 of the said Further Amended Statement of Defence, the Appellants indicated that at the trial or prior to the trial, that the Appellants as Defendants shall apply to the Honourable Court to set down and determine the preliminary points of law, to wit; that the suit is incompetent for want of jurisdiction and no justiciable cause of action when the suit was instituted by virtue of the provisions of the Public Officers (Special Provisions) Decree No. 17 of 1984 (Cap 381) laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990.

On the 18th day of February, 2008, the Appellants carried through their earlier notice to so do as per their paragraph 3 of their Further Amended Statement of Defence by filing unto Court, a Motion on Notice in which they simply asked for;

“An Order of Court striking out this suit for lack of jurisdiction in that the action is statute barred and the suit is incompetent”.

This Application had in its support, an Affidavit of 10 paragraphs and to which the Exhibits ‘A’ and ‘B’ were attached. The Exhibit ‘A’ herein is a copy of the letter of removal of the Plaintiff from the employment of the Federal Polytechnic, Nekede, Owerri, Imo State dated the 29th day of April, 1999.

The Exhibit ‘B’ is yet another letter titled; “RE-RATIONALIZED STAFF IN 1999” dated the 15th day of May, 2002 by which the Respondent was informed of the 2nd Appellant’s approval of an earlier recommendation under which the Respondent was dismissed from the Federal Polytechnic Nekede, Owerri, Imo State.

The Respondent’s Counter Affidavit of 13 paragraphs was filed on the 22nd day of April, 2008. There is attached to this Counter Affidavit a total of two Exhibits. The Exhibit ‘A’ is a copy of a letter dated the 21st day of March, 2001 by which the Respondent was advised to properly route his letter of Appeal for a review of his dismissal/request for re-instatement through the proper channel, i.e., through his last Head of Department, Director of School, the Rector and finally to the Chairman of Council. The Exhibit ‘B’ is the same as the one attached as the Exhibit ‘B’ to the Affidavit in support of the main application under consideration. Written arguments were ordered to be filed by Learned Counsel to the parties.

The brief facts of this case is that by a letter dated the 29th day of April, 1999 and titled; “Removal from the Federal Civil Service” the Respondent was informed of his dismissal from the Federal Civil Service with effect from the 30-4-1999 by the former Head of State and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, General Abdulsalami Alhaji Abubakar by virtue of the powers conferred on him under the Public Officers Special Provisions Act (Decree No. 17 of 1984) in the public interest.

On the 15th day of May, 2002 after considering the report of an Appeals Committee set up by the Appellants to look into the cases of those they termed: “Rationalized Staff” and by another letter headed; “Rationalized Staff in 1999”, they informed Respondent that due to the reasons in their said letter, and for which reasons his appeal was turned down that the earlier decision dismissing him was irreversible.

Following the receipt of this letter, the Respondent approached the lower Court on the 16th day of September, 2002,whereupon he sued for wrongful dismissal. After joining issues with the Respondent at the lower Court, the Appellant subsequently filed an Application challenging the lower Court’s jurisdiction to entertain the matter on grounds of Statute of Limitation. The Respondent commenced the action in the lower Court on the 16th day of September, 2002, whereas the letter of Dismissal served on him had been dated the 29th day of April, 1999. The Respondent insists that the cause of action in this case arose, not from the date of the letter of dismissal dated 29-4-1999, but from the date of a subsequent letter, dated the 15-5-2002 by which his dismissal was re-stated and declared irreversible by the Appellants.

The learned trial Judge received arguments from both sides of the divide and on the 14th day of October, 2008 delivered its Ruling. In its Ruling, the learned trial judge had this to say:

“Having held that the plaintiff’s suit commenced on the 8th of August, 2002 and not the 16th of September, 2002 (when His Lordship endorsed the Originating process upon resumption from the Court’s annual vacation, this Application fails in its entirety and is accordingly dismissed.”