Media
- Home
- Details
Yola---His Lordship, Hon. Justice K. D. Damulak of the National Industrial Court sitting in Yola has dismissed the suit filed by former Secretary of the Adamawa State Judicial Service Commission Barrister Susana Elam against Adamawa State Judicial Service Commission and four others challenging her compulsory retirement from office for lack of evidence.
The court held that the questions submitted for determination cannot be determined without the Adamawa State Judicial Commission Regulations 1980 and the claimant’s appointment letter that the Barrister Susana Elam has failed to discharge the burden of prove placed on her and not entitled to any relief from the Court.
The claimant took out an originating summons on 7/1/2019 formulated questions for determination all bordering on the lawfulness of the letter of query, disciplinary procedure, compulsory retirement from service and fair hearing in view of Adamawa state judicial Service commission Regulation 1980, and the 3rd schedule of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), and sought for 15 corresponding reliefs.
From fact, the claimant was the Secretary of the Adamawa State Judicial Service Commission up till the 7th day of November 2018 when she was compulsorily retired from service by the 1st defendant, after issuing her a query on 3/10/2018 to which she replied on 5/10/2018 that the 1st defendant did not invite her to appear before it to defend herself of any allegation before she was compulsorily retired.
Counsel submitted that the compulsory retirement of the claimant is a nullity because the CHIEF JUDGE ADAMAWA STATE 4th defendant is not vested with the power to issue the Query letter and as such, the compulsory retirement of the claimant and all the steps taken in respect thereof and arising from the Query Letter are a nullity.
Counsel submitted further that the Claimant is not an officer under the office of Chief Registrar and that the Secretary of the Commission is an appointee of the Governor of the State.
That if for any reason the 4th Defendant or other members of the Commission have any issue with the Claimant, which require that she be compulsorily retired, the best they can do is to make representation to the Governor in respect thereof that the office of Secretary Judicial Service Commission is not a department in the High Court or of the Judiciary, but the administrative head of a state executive body.
In the counter affidavit, deposed to by the Acting Secretary Adamawa State Judicial Service Commission, 1st Defendant submitted that the claimant has failed to discharge the burden of proving that she was appointed by the Governor that the claimant was a staff of the 1st defendant.
Counsel further maintained that the claimant’s insistence that, the 1st Defendant ought to have given her another opportunity at its meeting of 5/11/2018 to make an oral representation is a misconception of the legal import of fair hearing.
Delivering the Judgment, the presiding Judge, Justice Damulak expressed thus;
“The claimant before this Court, seeking for a declaration that her compulsory retirement was unlawful, and her counsel arguing that she was an appointee of the Governor, without presenting her appointment letter, in view of defendants denial; is like a hunter with a bow and a quiver without arrows, his chances of returning home with a game is left to imagination and wishful thinking.
“The question of who can remove, discipline or retire the claimant becomes a question of law only after the fact of who appointed her is established. Without such facts in evidence, the Court cannot make any form of assumption or speculation on the appointment and removal or retirement of the claimant.
“The pleading and production of documents in litigation is not for the purpose of fulfilling all righteousness of the Rules of Court, but to aid the parties in establishing their case and to aid the Courts in deciding the case based on relevant evidence. Learned claimant counsel did not appear to appreciate this fact.”
In all, the court dismissed the suit for lack of prove.
