Zamfara State House Of Ass. Service Comm & Ors V. Governor Of Zamfara State & Ors (2015)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

TUNDE O. AWOTOYE, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is the judgment in respect of the appeal against part of the decision of the High Court of Zamfara State, presided over by the Hon. Justice Bello Aliyu Gusau delivered on 21/12/2012 in suit No ZMS/GS/SS/2011.

The appellants were the plaintiffs at the lower Court. The plaintiffs commenced an action at the court below by way of originating summons to challenge the dissolution of the 1st and 9th plaintiffs/commission and the removal of 2nd-8th and 10th-12th appellants from the office as members of the 1st and 9th appellants.

After hearing the parties, the court below though found in favour of the appellants that the dissolution of the 1st and 9th appellants and the removal of 2nd to 8th and 10th-12th appellants were unconstitutional, it refused the reliefs No 9,10,12,13 and 14 for injunction and reinstatement.

Miffed by the said decision, the appellants by a notice of appeal filed on 19/1/2012 appealed challenging the decision on 1 ground which reads:

“GROUND

The learned trial Judge fell into grave error when in declining to make an order reinstating the Appellants to their employment and restraining the Respondent from appointing other persons to replace the appellants he held thus-

“similarly, when a court holds that statutorily protected employment has been terminated otherwise than in accordance with the prescription of the Law that court would proceed to make a consequential order for the reinstatement of the employee and restrain the offending party who has demonstrated a disposition from taking any steps or doing anything that would interfere with the rights, function and powers of the aggrieved party.

But this case ease present a rather peculiar situation. The defendants in this case have clearly demonstrated their unwillingness to work with the 2nd-9th and 11th-15th plaintiffs hence it is clear that there would be no harmony in the working relationship between the parties to the detriment of the good people of Zamfara State whom all parties are supposed to be serving.

Furthermore, the position of the 10th-15th plaintiffs complicates the situation even the more. The 10th plaintiffs is in law the body responsible for conducting elections to the third tier of government (i.e. the Local Government Councils) in this country. This court takes judicial notice of the fact that the tenure of local government councils in Zamfara State have since expired and that all such councils in the State presently are being manned by caretaker committees or so called sole administrator against the spirit of democratically elected councils envisaged by the Constitutions supra.

It seems to me that given the very deep seated difference and consequent disharmony between the parties, it is unlikely that the defendants before this court would provide the necessary funding and enabling environment such as would enable the 10th plaintiffs to carry out its function of organizing and conducting local government elections to usher in democratically elected council should this court direct that the 11th-15th plaintiffs be reinstated to their various offices or that the defendants be restrained from making appointments to reconstitute these offices. To a slightly less extent, the same may be said for the 2nd-9th plaintiffs.

It seems therefore that no practical purpose would be served by making an order of reinstatement or restraint in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants. In any event, it would appear to be futile to make such orders as it would be impossible to monitor and enforce it. For this reason, I am in agreement with the Abdul Ahmed learned Director of Civil litigation for the Defendants that the plaintiffs should not be forced on the defendants by an order of reinstatement as that would be counter-productive.

Therefore, to the extent that they seek to restrain the defendants in relation to the 2nd-9th and 11th-15th plaintiffs or reinstate the said plaintiffs or publicize the reinstatement of the said plaintiffs, this court will decline or refuse reliefs 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 19, 20 and 21 claimed by the plaintiffs and same are hereby dismissed as this would amount to imposing the 2nd-9th and 11th-15th plaintiffs on the defendants as well as clog the attainment of a smooth transition and the good administration and governance of Zamfara State.”

The appellants subsequently, on 12/2/2014, sought and obtained leave to amend the said Notice of Appeal.