Back

The court has exclusive jurisdiction in civil causes and matters relating to or connected with any labour, employment, trade unions, industrial relations and matters arising from workplace, the conditions of service, including health, safety, welfare of labour, employee, worker and matter incidental thereto or connected therewith.

LIVE Proceeding VIRTUAL COURT

News


Dissolution Of Office: Industrial Court Faults Imo State House Of Assembly Resolution, Orders Payment Of Salaries, Allowances For Unexpired Tenure Within 30 Days


1259 Friday 5th October 2018

 

Owerri --His Lordship, Hon. Justice O. O. Arowosegbe of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, Sitting in Owerri on Friday 5th October 2018 in a landmark judgment faulted Imo State House of Assembly Resolution dissolving State Local Government Services Commission for not done in tandem with the rule of law, and  ordered Governor of Imo State (Defendant) to pay each of the claimants (EJIKE CHARLES NWOKORO and 3 ORS) in full their due salaries, allowances and other emoluments for the outstanding period of the unexpired tenure with effect from February 2012 within 30 Days.

 

The claimant has sought against the defendants among others; A declaration that the respective appointive tenures of each of the claimants as members of the Imo State Local Government Services Commission are still valid and subsisting. A declaration that the 3rd – 6th defendants are not under the Imo State Local Government Services Commission Law, or any Law applicable in Imo State, members of the Imo State Local Government Services Commission.

 

A declaration that the purported appointment of the 3rd – 6th defendants by the 1st Defendant as members of the Imo State Local Government Services Commission is unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect whatsoever. Alternatively, an order of Court on the 1st Defendant to direct the 7th Defendant to pay each of the claimants in full their due salaries, allowances and other emoluments for the outstanding period of the unexpired tenure with effect from February 2012.

 

The claimants’ case is that the 1st claimant was the Chairman of the Imo State Local Government Service Commission and that the 2nd – 4th claimants were members, and that they were all duly appointed by the 1st defendant. They pleaded the facts that the Imo State House of Assembly on 27th July 2011, without any authority or probable cause, incited the 1st defendant by a resolution passed, to dissolve the Commission and appoint new members to replace the claimants and that, the claimants protested this by a letter dated 23rd January 2012 and that, there was no response to this letter but the 2nd defendant -THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF IMO STATE) proceeded on the 3rd February 2012 to inaugurate the 3rd-6th defendants and installed them in the offices of the claimants by forceful eviction with the aid of security agents and that, since then, the claimants had been prevented from accessing their offices. The claimants also stated that since the passage of the resolution of the House of Assembly, no letter was served the claimants indicating their removal from office and that, since the inauguration of the 3rd-6th defendants, they had been denied their rightful payments.

 

They claimed that their tenures as such were for five years certain and that they could only be removed in accordance with the provisions of the Imo State Local Government Service Commission Law and that, these provisions were not observed in their removal hence, the appointment of the 3rd-6th defendants in their stead was illegal and ultra vires the 1st and 2nd defendants.

 

In it, the defence of the defendants was that the suit was speculative, statute barred and not duly constituted and that; the claimants were duly terminated and therefore, had no unexpired tenures.

 

N.M. OBIOHA, SENIOR STATE COUNSEL, IMO STATE franked the final written address of the defendants and formulated for determination Whether this suit is competent. Whether this suit is maintainable in view of the provisions of section 2A public officers Protection edict Laws of Imo State. And Whether in the preponderance of the evidence, the claimants are entitled to judgment in this suit.

 

Counsel submitted that where a suit challenging the exercise of statutory power is not brought within 3 months, the Court lacked jurisdiction to inquire into the mode or circumstances of the exercise of the powers. Counsel argued that the cause of action arose in this suit upon the inauguration of the 3rd-6th defendants; and that, failure to file this suit three months next thereof was fatal.

 

Counsel submitted that the main complaint of the claimants before this Court was that their appointment was terminated prematurely but yet, there was nothing before the Court to show the termination. Counsel submitted that the testimony of the claimants were chased away by armed policemen from their offices was not proved before this Court and as such, amounted to mere conjecture and that, the Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain conjecture and urged the Court to dismiss this suit as it lacked merit.

 

E.N. ICHIE franked the final written address of the claimants. The learned counsel submitted that in view of the fact that the respective tenures of the claimants have elapsed, the claimants would, in respect of relief 9(ix), seek only the alternative relief. Thereafter, the learned counsel argued that the fact that the claimants were obstructed from carrying out their works before the expiration of their tenures, which fact was pleaded, was not in contention.

 

Counsel submitted that the High Court of Imo State is imbued with the inherent power to take any step that would prevent injustice, once such step is not specifically prohibited. Counsel argued that since there is no statute that specifically prohibited the High Court from transferring this matter to the NICN, the ultra vires rule was inapplicable to the situation at hand.

 

The learned counsel couched whether the removal of the Claimants from office as Chairman and members of Imo State Local Government Service Commission without due process of the law is proper and legal.

After carefully reading through all the relevant processes, depositions on oath and digested them, and also carefully listened to the testimonies and cross-examinations in Court, the presiding judge Hon. Justice O. O. Arowosegbe expressed thus

It is therefore clear that pleadings and evidence were copiously available on allegations of illegality against the defendants. Hence, the provisions of section 2(a) of the POPL cannot avail the defendants to inhibit the claimants from ventilating their grievances. In this wise, the objection on the ground of section 2(a) of the POPL is without merit and is accordingly dismissed.

 

“It is clear from section 64(4) of the LGAL that the House could not remove the claimants from office. It is the Governor who could. And in doing this, the Governor must comply strictly with the provisions of section 64(4) of the LGAL by formally requesting the approval of the House to remove the claimants and giving the reason(s) for the request and formally issuing an instrument of removal which clearly stated compliance with the procedure and that the removal was pursuant to one or all reasons outlined by law.

 

“It becomes clear from the foregoing that where the House suo motu passed a resolution for the removal of the claimants, such resolution is merely advisory and if the Governor finds merits in it, the Governor must initiate the procedure for their removal by presenting a formal request to the House to approve their removal, even if it meant citing the same resolution of the House as His ground for the request. It follows that in whatever way one looks at it, the law was NOT observed in the removal of the claimants from office.

 

On the assumption that claimants absconded from office, His Lordship described such insinuation as a complete figment of the imagination of counsel.

 

“When this is taken along with the evidence on record that the claimants were forcibly evicted from office, which evidence is unshaken under cross-examination, together with the undisputed fact that the 3rd-6th defendants were inaugurated when the tenures of offices of the claimants were still running, it becomes unassailable that the story of the claimants that they were forcibly evicted is cogent and proved.

 

“Common sense dictates that the claimants would not willingly vacate their offices during the currency of their tenures. And there is no evidence before the Court that they resigned their appointments.

 

“In view of the fact that the tenures of the claimants lapsed during the trial of this case and in line with the above ratio decidendi, I hereby grant the alternative relief and refuse all the main reliefs or other reliefs. The claimants are each to be paid the sums claimed therein to each of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th claimants respectively. I also grant cost of N50,000 [Fifty Thousand Naira] each to the four claimants. The judgment of the Court is to be complied with within one month of its delivery failing, which the judgment sum shall begin to attract 10% interest rate per annum.” His Lordship Ruled.

 

For Full Judgment, Click Here