Alleged Unconstitutional Resolution: Industrial Court Dismisses Suit Against Speaker, Edo State House Of Assembly And 3 Others For Being Statute Barred

• 1744 Monday 28th January 2019

 

Akure – His Lordship, Hon. Justice A. A. Adewemimo of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, sitting in Akure, on Thursday 24^th January 2019 in a judgment dismissed suit filed by BARR. GABRIEL-OSIMEN ENABOIFO and 3 ors against THE SPEAKER, EDO STATE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY and three others challenging alleged unconstitutional dissolving of Edo State House of Assembly Service Commission via resolution passed by Edo State House of Assembly on 7^th February, 2012, having been found to be statute barred contrary to the provisions of Public Officers’ Protection Law, Cap.137, Laws of the Defunct Bendel State as applicable in Edo State.

 

The Claimants claimed against the defendants among others: A Declaration that the Resolution of Edo State House of Assembly (the 2^nd Defendant) passed on 7^th February, 2012 dissolving the Edo State House of Assembly Service Commission (3^rd Defendant) is unconstitutional, invalid, null and void and of no effect whatsoever. A Declaration that the Claimants cannot be removed from office as Members respectively of the Edo State House of Assembly Service Commission (i.e. 3^rdDefendant) before the expiration of their five years tenure on 31^st March 2015 except for an established act of misconduct under the Law.

 

Likewise, An Order setting aside the aforesaid Resolution of the 2^nd Defendant dissolving the 3^rd Defendant and removing the Claimants from office as members respectively of the 3^rd Defendant.

 

It is the case of the claimants that they were appointed as members of EDO STATE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY SERVICE COMMISSION (3^rd Defendant) by the then Governor of Edo state on the 31^st of March, 2010, and THE SPEAKER, EDO STATE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY (1^st defendant) and EDO STATE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY (2^nd defendant) by a resolution dissolved the 3^rd Defendant and they were removed from office.

 

A.S Osin Esq counsel for the claimant submitted that the claimants’ appointment was statutorily protected, that they have a fixed tenure of 5 years and they cannot be unilaterally removed without due adherence to the statute guiding their appointment.

 

Claimants’ counsel submitted that, the remedy available to the claimants, if the court rules in their favour are the salaries and allowances for their unexpired tenure, as the consequence of the finding, is that in the eyes of the Law the claimants have not been removed and are therefore entitled to all the benefits attached to their office.

 

The learned counsel for the Defendants in his address in opposition to the originating summons, dated and filed 8th May 2018, submitted that the issues are relatively interwoven and that by virtue of the findings of this court contained in Suit No. NICN/AK/35/2013, of 25^th of September, 2017, delivered by Hon. Justice O. Oyewunmi, the appointments upon which this suit is premised were unlawful, illegal and unconstitutional, such that no legal rights can issue from them to entitle them to the reliefs being sought by them in the present suit.

 

Counsel further submitted that the implication of the cited Judgment is that the appointment of the claimants in the present suit was unlawful since at the time of their appointments, there were no vacancies as the tenure of the earlier occupants were yet to expire.

 

The 4^th defendant, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF EDO STATE in his written address raised the issue of jurisdiction and argued that this suit is incompetent that same was filed outside the Limitation period prescribed by Public Officers’ Protection Law, Cap 137 Laws of the Defunct Bendel State, 1976as applicable to Edo State. 

 

The Claimants in response argued that the defendants’ argument challenging the jurisdiction of this Court to hear and determine the Originating Summons filed by the claimants are frivolous, vexatious and devoid of merit.

 

After careful analysis of all the processes filed, and the submissions of the learned Counsel from both sides. The Court presided by Hon. Justice A. A. Adewemimo expressed thus;

 

“It is trite that jurisdiction is the threshold upon which a matter stands or collapses as it goes to the root of a case and it forms the basis upon which a court can entertain a suit.

 “The time lag between the 7^th day of February 2012 when the cause of action arose and 18^th day of December 2017 reveals a period of 5 years and 10 months. The Claimant instituted this action after 5 years and 10 months, clearly outside the 3months prescribed period under the limitation law. The Claimants’ case is, therefore, statute barred having been caught by the Public Officers’ Protection Law, Cap.137, Laws of the Defunct Bendel state as applicable in Edo State.

 

“The contention of the claimants that the Defendants acted in bad faith, and that this case is not affected by the Public Officers Protection Law is not supported by settled authorities.

 

“Having held that this case is statute barred, I find it unnecessary to delve into the 1^st-3^rd Defendants application to convert this suit to pleadings, as the foundation of this suit has been removed and the issue of jurisdiction takes precedence over any other application.

The court pronounced the suit dismissed for being statute barred.

 

Click Here to Read Full Judgment

 

Share Via WhatsApp