Media
- Home
- Details
Kogi --His Lordship, Hon. Justice Z. M. Bashir of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, Sitting in Lokoja on Friday 9th November 2018 in a judgment dismissed suit filed by MRS. IBRAHIM EDE MERCY (claimant) against KOGI STATE GOVERNMENT (defendant) for lack of jurisdiction. The court stated that it would be a monumental waste of precious judicial time to pry into the matter in view of the fact that the filing of the originating summons was at the time of filing, statute barred.
This suit was commenced by an originating summons filed on the 24th of May 2018, the Claimant also sought against the defendant among others; A DECLARATION that the abrupt termination of the employment of the Claimant from the service of the Defendant when she had not attained the mandatory retirement age or length of service was premature, wrongful, unlawful, malicious, irregular and flagrant violation of the terms and conditions of Claimant’s employment. AN ORDER reinstating the Claimant as a Director in the Kogi State Civil Service.
Likewise, AN ORDER directing the defendant to pay all the Claimant’s benefits and emoluments.
The Claimant was employed into the service of the Benue State Government on the 22nd January, and upon the creation of Kogi state, her employment was transferred from the Benue State Government to the Kogi State Government.
The Claimant added that until the abrupt termination of her employment in respect of which she seeks redress, she was the substantive Director of Administration and Finance (D.A.F) for the Kogi State Ministry of Health. She stated that before the termination of employment, there was a directive from the state governor for a 30 days compulsory leave which was extended beyond the 30 days and lasted for over one year. Claimant further deposed that she resumed work about the 23rd November 2017.
She added that sometime in February 2016, the Kogi State Government embarked on compulsory screening and staff verification and the Committee recommended her for compulsory retirement on grounds that she had been stagnated at the same level for over eight years.
She then wrote to the Governor a letter dated the 20th of December, 2017 urging the Governor to rescind the decision of the Committee on her retirement, on 9th of January, 2018 she was informed that her services were no longer required and was directed to proceed on retirement.
Meanwhile, upon the filing of a counter affidavit, the Defendant also filed a notice of preliminary objection on the ground that the Claimant’s claims are caught up by the provisions of Section 2(a) of the Public Officers (Protection) Law, Laws of Northern Nigeria, 1963 and the action is therefore statute barred.
Counsel further contended that the retirement of the Claimant was in pursuance of law, public duty or authority and by the provisions of Section 2(a) of the Public Officers (Protection) Law, the Claimant ought to have commenced the action within 3 months of the 9th January, 2018 i.e. not later than 9th day of April 2018.
In arguing the lone issue, Counsel argued that the wrong done to the Claimant is a continuing one, as her entitlements have not been paid to date.
After reviewing the arguments and submissions of both Counsel in their respective written addresses and reply on point of law, the Court Presided by Hon. Justice Z. M. Bashir expressed thus;
“…it is clear to all and sundry that there is nowhere in the entire paragraphs of the affidavit where the Claimant complained of being owed salaries prior to the compulsory retirement and as can be seen, it is the compulsory retirement of the Claimant which took effect via the letter dated the 9th of January 2018 that impelled the Claimant to approach this court for redress and that, without any iota of doubt, is the cause of action and I so hold.
“In other words, the limitation period in this case would begin to run from the 9th of January, 2018, the date upon which the letter of compulsory retirement was issued to the Claimant. The computation of that, along with the date this suit was instituted reveals that this suit was commenced 4 months and 15 days after the cause of action accrued.
“Having said that, it is the position of this court that compliance with the statutory provision as to time of instituting an action within three months is a fundamental pre-condition, a breach of which is incurable and failure to comply with the statutory provision is fatal. In such a case, the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the matter.
“In the final analysis, I find the preliminary objection as raised by the Defendant to be competent and same is hereby upheld. Consequently, this suit is hereby struck out for lack of jurisdiction.” Justice Zaynab Ruled.
Credit: Punch
