Media
- Home
- Details
Hon. Justice K. D. Damulak of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria sitting in Sokoto, has struck off a case against FEDERAL COLLEGE OF EDUCATION (TECHNICAL) GUSAU for wrongful retirement from service.
MOHAMMED LAWAL DARDA’U, who had challenged through his counsel P.M. Lasco Esq seeks for a determination of the question whether the termination of his appointment before the end of his tenure is not void. The claimant also sought for a declaration that he is entitled to remain in office till 29th June, 2020 and an order of reinstatement among others.
The claimant’s case is that he is a civil servant and at all times material has been holding the appointment as Bursar of the defendant and that his appointment as Bursar is regulated by the regulations and guidelines of the defendant. That he was first appoint for a period of five years on 7th June, 2010 and upon expiration of the tenure he was reappointed for another five years period with effect from 30th June, 2015 which would expire only on 29th June, 2020. That the respondent by a letter dated 28th June, 2017 purported to remove him from office. That he protested to the head of service and the head of service in a letter dated 7th November, 2017(exhibit 4) declared as ‘invalid’, the letter that purportedly terminated his appointment. That he then resumed office for three days in November, 2007 and was locked out of office whereupon he instituted this suit.
The defendant counsel A.A. Jibril Esq submitted that the appointment of the claimant was on secondment, thus his appointment is not only regulated and governed by the provisions of section13 (1) and (4) of the Federal Colleges of Education Act but also by the provisions of the Public Service Rules and other Federal Government regulations.
Counsel submitted that the circular applies to the claimant and same should be given a natural and ordinary meaning which is that the claimant having failed to retire upon taking up a tenured appointment is liable to retirement upon attaining the retirement age of 60 years.
Counsel argues that claimant has not challenged his retirement from the Federal Civil Service by the NCCE and that the removal of the claimant from office is consequent upon his retirement by the National Commission for Colleges of Education and was not wrongful.
Upon the above, Counsel concluded that the action ought to have been instituted within three months and failure to do so has robbed this court of jurisdiction to hear and determine the suit.
The court presided by Hon. Justice K. D. Damulak after reviewing the argument of parties, said “It is true that by reason of Section 2(a) of the public officer’s protection Act, no action shall lie against a public officer after three months; it is also not in doubt that the defendant herein is a public officer. It is also true that between 28th June, 2017 when the claimant was removed from office and 27th November, 2017 when this suit was filed is a period of five months. However, the claimant argues that his cause of action did not arise on 28th June, 2017 and that his case s exempted from application of the Public Officers Protection Act.
It is therefore clear that the case at hand, being one challenging termination of employment, is not exempted from the application of the provisions of the Public Officers Protection Act. The provision of the Public Officers Protection Act applies to this case. I so hold.
The court also finds that this suit having been filed on 27th November, 2017, a period of five months after the accrual of the cause of action. Accordingly the action is statured barred by reason of section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act. I so hold.
On the whole, this suit is incompetent, same being statute barred by reason of section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act. This suit is therefore struck off the cause list.
I make no order as to cost.
Judgment is entered accordingly.
For Full Judgement click here
