Abuja---His Lordship, Hon. Justice Z. M. Bashir of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, Abuja Judicial Division on Friday 25th May in a ruling/judgment dismissed suit against INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION for being statute barred In accordance with Public Officers Protection Act in a suit filed by MR. ALHAMDU DURAMI challenging his employment termination from service in 2003.
This matter was commenced via a general form of Complaint filed on the 12th of March, 2018. The Claimant MR. ALHAMDU DURAMI claimed against the INEC among others; AN ORDER of the Honourable Court setting aside of the interdiction and termination letters and grant the reinstatement of the Claimant to work with all rights, benefits, privileges, promotions and entitlement duly applicable. AN ORDER of the Honourable Court directing the Defendant to pay the Claimant the sum of N4,448,816.00 (Four Million Four Hundred and Forty Eight Thousand Eight Hundred and Sixteen Naira) being the Claimant’s outstanding salary from January, 2003 to January, 2018 at the rate of N24,712,00 per month.
Sometime in the year 2002 the Claimant as electoral officer at Yamaltu/Deba Local Government Area, Gombe State, was charged with the training of Adhoc Staff on conduct of voters registration exercise. The Claimant at all material time was not assigned an official vehicle in the discharge of his assignment. As a result of the demand of work, the Claimant’s vehicle broke down and he obtained the consent of his colleague an Assistant Electoral Officer Abdullahi (Audu) to use part of the training money to fix his car, which the Claimant promptly repaid. The matter was investigated and the Claimant was pardoned though he was placed on alternative administrative duties.
The Claimant was surprised to receive a letter from the headquarters of the Defendant six (6) months later, dated 9th January, 2003, placing the Claimant on Interdiction on conduct during the last Registration of Voter Exercise. He subsequently got the full details of the earlier interdiction on the 25th of February, 2003.
The Claimant was then expecting a formal invitation by the Defendant to enable him defend himself before the Disciplinary Committee as provided by the Defendant’s staff Condition of Service and the Public Service Rules, but all to no avail, only to receive a letter of termination of appointment from the Defendant after a long wait.The pleaded letter of termination is dated 4th September 2003.
The Defendant via notice of preliminary objection sought for An Order of this Honourable Court dismissing this suit for lack of jurisdiction and being competent on the grounds that the claimant instituted this suit on the 12th March, 2018, 15 years after he was terminated by the defendant which negate period three months provided by Section 2 of the Public Officers Protection Act Cap P41 Laws of The Federation of Nigeria 2004.
The claimant Counsel argued that the Public Officers (Protection) Act relied upon by the Defendant is not an absolute bar to the institution of proceedings.
After reviewing the argument of the parties, the Court Presided by Hon. Justice Z. M. Bashir expressed thus;
I have also taken a look at the complaint filed by the Claimant and same was filed on the 12th of March, 2018 as evidenced by the stamp of this court.
The above clearly indicates that this suit was filed 14 years and 6 months after the said letter of termination of employment was issued to the Claimant.
This is without doubt far outside the three months within which actions against public officers are to be instituted in accordance with the section 2 of the Public Officers Protection Act.
The Defendant no doubt has the duty to hire and fire, where such is not done in accordance with the laid down procedure and the Claimant is affected, the suit against the Defendant ought to be instituted within three months.
On the strength of the above authorities, the sole issue for determination is resolved in favour of the Defendant to the effect that this suit is statute barred and thereby robs this court of jurisdiction.
Consequently, the preliminary objection as raised by the Defendant is hereby upheld and this suit is hereby struck out for lack of jurisdiction.
