Media
- Home
- Details
Abuja---His Lordship, Hon. Justice Sanusi Kado of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, sitting in Abuja on Thursday 26th July 2018 in a landmark judgment dismissed suit filed by HON. JUSTICE UGBO. ONONOGBO (claimant) demanding for an order to quash the decision(s) communicated by the NATIONAL JUDICIAL COUNCIL (1st Defendant) dated 16th December 2016 suspending the Claimant from high judicial office to wit as judge of the High Court of Abia State for lacking merit.
This suit was commenced on 30/1/17, at Federal High Court, Umuahia. However, vide an order made on 7/7/17, this suit was transferred to this Court due to lack of jurisdiction on part of the Federal High Court to hear and determine the suit.
The Claimant on 4/12/17, refiled his originating motion on notice, sought among others; An Order of Certiorari to remove into the National Industrial Court of Nigeria for the purpose of its being quashed the decision(s) communicated by the 1st Defendant to the Claimant dated 16th December 2016 suspending the Claimant from high judicial office to wit as judge of the High Court of Abia State. An Order of Prohibiting the 3rd Defendant (i.e the Governor of Abia State) from proceeding with the “the removal of Hon. Justice U. Ononogbo from office for gross misconduct; Also An Order that this Application shall operate as a stay of the proceedings to which the application relates until the determination of the application or until the judge otherwise orders;
On the grounds that the Defendant’s decision to recommend that the Claimant be removed from the high office of a judge of the High Court of Abia State, “by dismissal for misconduct” to the Governor of Abia State (3rd Defendant) is unwarranted, draconian, high-handed and or irregular, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case.
That having regard to the circumstances, it would be inimical and invidious for the 3rd Defendant to take steps to remove the Claimant from high office as a judge of the High Court of Abia State while litigation is pending.
The crux of the facts as contained in the affidavit in support of the originating motion are that on 22/8/13, the Claimant while serving as vacation judge heard motion on notice and granted same. On 18/9/13, the Claimant vacated the order made on 22/8/13 and granted another order. It was also stated that there was no appeal against the orders made by the Claimant. A petition was written to the 1st Defendant against the Claimant. Consequent, upon which the 1st Defendant set up an investigation committee, to investigate the allegations. It was averred that in the course of the sitting of the 1st Defendant’s Investigation Committee, neither the parties to suit leading to the orders nor the counsel who appeared on their behalf validated any accusation of wrong doing. It was stated that unless the findings and recommendations of the 1st Defendant are quashed by this Honourable Court, the Claimant will be removed from office by way of dismissal for misconduct by the Governor of Abia State.
Counsel to the claimant Ikoro N. Ikoro, Esq submitted “Whether the decision and or recommendations made by the 1st Defendant in the circumstances of this case were fair, just and reasonable?
What this comes to, is that whether the 1st Defendant’s recommendation is fair, just and reasonable would require this Honourable Court to bear in mind that if a Judicial Officer can be removed on grounds that are not earth shaking, that decision cannot be fair.
It is the contention of Counsel that the orders granted on the 22nd of August, 2013 and 22nd of September, 2013 were not illegal and unlawful and have not been shown to have fallen outside the ambits of law or statute by anybody including investigative committee of the 1st Defendant. Therefore to label the said orders reckless, as the investigative committee of the 1st Defendant did, is most unfair, unjust and unreasonable as the Claimant exercised the required care and skill required of her in exercising her discretion, when she granted the said orders.
In opposition to this application, Counsel to the 1st defendant, Dr. Elijah Oluwatoyin Okebukola, Esq submitted and urges the Honourable Court to hold that the Claimant has not established any reasonable grounds to justify the relief of certiorari sought against the 1st Defendant.
Counsel urged the Court to find, from the Claimant's Exhibit, that as a result of the said orders, N200,OOO,OOO {Two Hundred Million Naira} was drawn from the account of Late Chief Dike Udensi Ifeagwu but only the sum of N83,OOO,OOO {Eighty-Three Million Naira} of the N200,OOO,OOO {Two Hundred Million Naira} drawn as probate fees was actually paid to the Probate Registry as assessed probate fees on estate of Late Chief Lord Udensi Dike Ifeagwu. It is further contended that the Court will find from the same Exhibit J that: but for the Claimant's orders in issue, the sum of N200,OOO,OOO {Two Hundred Million Naira} would not have been paid as probate fees into the account of a private legal practitioner out of which only the sum of N83,OOO,OOO {Eighty-Three Million Naira} was actually paid to the Probate Registry as assessed probate fees.
In addition, Counsel urged the Court to find, from paragraph 9.2 of the Claimant's Exhibit that, after investigating allegations made against the Claimant, the 1st Defendant arrived at the conclusion that the orders were reckless and
amount to misconduct on the part of the Claimant. On this premise, the 1st
Defendant took disciplinary action against the Claimant.
Counsel submitted that the 1st Defendant acted based on the recommendations of its Investigative Committee pursuant to the Committee's finding of fact. The decision taken by the 1st Defendant against the Claimant is pursuant to its powers.
It is the contention of Counsel that the Claimant having failed to establish the
breach of fair hearing by the 1st Defendant against her, she is not entitled to
the relief claim on this ground.
After painstakingly perusing the Originating Motion on Notice, reviewing the argument, processes filed, and the careful consideration to the oral and written submissions of Counsel for all the parties, the Court Presided by Hon. Justice Sanusi Kado expressed thus;
“I do not agree with the Counsel for the Claimant that the recommendations sought to be quashed were not product of consideration of exhibits A, B, C, G and H tendered by the Claimant at the proceedings of the investigation Committee.
“As earlier pointed out the 1st Defendant and its Investigation Committee that produced exhibit ‘J’ have requisite power to investigate the Claimant and make necessary recommendation as was done in this case.
On breach of observance of natural justice regarding fair hearing, his Lordship hold that the failure to give the Claimant summary is not fatal, since hearing has been concluded. Such failure to make available to Claimant draft report or summary cannot vitiate the work of the Committee.
“The issue raised here is out of point since fair hearing is during and not post hearing issue. When parties have closed their cases fair hearing cannot arise. I hold there is no denial of fair hearing.
“In view of all I have been saying, the application fails. The reliefs being sought are refused and the entire suit is hereby dismissed.” His Lordship ruled.
For Full Judgment, Click HERE
