Compulsory Retirement: Industrial Court Dismisses Suit Against DG-NYSC For Being Statute Barred

• 1695 Tuesday 20th November 2018

 

Abuja – Hon. Justice Sanusi kado of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, Abuja Division on Thursday 15th November 2018 in a ruling dismissed suit filed by Ruth Alabi against The Director General, National Youth Service Corps and 3 others challenging her compulsory retirement from service for being statute barred in accordance with Public Officer Protection Act.

 

The claimant took out complaint dated 2^ndday of December 2014, sought against defendant among others; A DECLARATION that the Defendants acts of allowing or permitting Claimant to continue with the Batch A NYSC Orientation Camp in Abia State after taking the decision to compulsorily retire her with effect from 3^rd day of March 2014 and subsequent payment of Claimant’s entitlement for the official/special duty in  Abia State camp and salary for the month of March , April, and May 2014 did nullify the purported letter of compulsory retirement from service dated 7^th March 2014.

 

Likewise, AN ORDER reinstating the Claimant immediately to her position and should also be paid immediate all her salaries and entitlement from the date her salary was stopped until judgment is given with 20% interest on such sum of money and 10% on such sum of money from when judgment is given until the Defendants comply with the judgment.

 

Upon being served with the originating Court processes commencing this suit, the defendants/applicants filed three motions on notice for preliminary objection.

 

The Director General, National Youth Service Corps prayed for an order dismissing the suit for want of jurisdiction and competence on the grounds that the suit is statute barred as same is not instituted within the time statutorily allowed to seek redress, that the suit is premature as the Claimant/Respondent did not comply with the provisions of section 20 of the National Youth Service Corps Act, Cap. N84, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.

 

Counsel argued that by section 2(a) of the Public Officers (Protection) Act, an action against a public officer must be instituted within three Months of the accrual of cause of action. He then submitted that this action having been instituted seven Months twenty-six days from the date of accrual of cause of action on 6/4/14, is statute barred urged the court to so hold and dismiss the suit.

 

Counsel further argued that the claimant/respondent being dissatisfied with the decision of defendant ought to appeal to presidency as stipulated in National Youth Service Corps Act, before instating this action has divested this court with jurisdiction to entertain this suit.

 

David Adeley, Esq counsel to the claimant argued in opposition that the claimant/respondent’s action falls within the recognized exception to the general provision of section 2(a) of the Public Officers (Protection) Act, in that there is continuance of damage or injury.

 

After careful analysis of all the processes filed, evidence led and the submissions of the learned Counsel from both sides. The Presiding Judge, Hon. Justice Sanusi Kado held that 2^nd defendant- The Governing Board, National Youth Service Corp is creature of the statute and the office of the 3^rd defendant - Head of Service of the Federation is creature of the constitution, the mere fact that the letterhead of 3^rd defendant/applicant bears presidency is not enough to make 3^rd defendant presidency.

 

“It is to be noted that the letter of retirement was handed over to the claimant/respondent on 6/4/14, from then to 2/12/14, when this suit was instituted was a period of more than 3 months this clearly established that this suit is statute barred.

 

“However, the alleged damage or injury as a result of the compulsory retirement did not continue as the Claimant want the Court to believe going by the definition of ‘’continuous damage or injury; as defined by the Supreme Court in the case cited above.

 

“The Claimant has contended that payment of salary up to May means nullification of retirement this is not correct, if there has been any nullification the Claimant would not have asked this Court to order his reinstatement back to his job.

 

“Having found that the suit is statute barred for this Court to embark on resolution of those issues will amount to academic exercise which a court of law should not embark upon as it is moot an exercise in futility.

 

“Consequently, this suit is hereby dismissed for being statute barred." --Justice Kado ruled.

 

For Full Ruling/Judgment, Click Here

 

Share Via WhatsApp