LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICE COMMISSION, EKITI STATE & ANOR v. MR. M. O. AJAYI
(2014)LCN/6881(CA)
RATIO
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: APPROACH TO BE TAKEN IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE CONSTITUTION
“The fundamental principles is that such interpretation as would serve the interest of the Constitution and would best carry out its object and purpose should be preferred. To achieve this goal, its relevant provisions must be read together and not disjointly; where the words of any section are clear and unambiguous, they must be given their ordinary meaning unless this would lead to absurdity or be in conflict with other provisions of the Constitution and effect must be given to those provisions without any recourse to any other consideration; and where the Constitution has used an expression in the wider or in the narrower sense the court should always lean where the Juctice of the case so demands to the broader interpretation unless there is something in the content or rest of the Constitution to indicate that the narrower interpretation will best carry out its object and purpose. In other words, where the provisions of the Constitution are capable of two meanings the court must choose the meaning that would give force and effect to the Constitution and promote its purpose.” Per Bello, JSC (as he then was and now of blessed memory) in Att.-Gen., Ogun State v. Aberuagba & Ors. (1985) 1 NWLR (Pt. 3) 395/414 quoting himself in Ifezue v. Mbadugha (1984) 5 S.C. 79/101.
Constitutional or statutory provisions which tend to take away or restrict a person’s guaranteed right or access to court is usually construed in a cautious and strict manner. Hence, in construeing or interpreting such a provision, its language will not be extended beyond its least onerous meaning in the absence of clear words used to justify such extension or exclusion. This is more so, because it is the established practice of the courts to guard their jurisdiction jealously. See Agwuna v. Att.-Gen. Federation & Anor. (1995) 5 NWLR (Pt. 396) 418/437. Thus, constitutional right of appeal once granted cannot be taken away or denied, easily or readily. Also, right of access to court must not be hindered/impeded at will. I am thus of the mindset that a dispassionate reading of the relevant and applicable constitutional provisions will reveal that an applicant such as in the instant case has a right of appeal, albeit with leave of this Court. I am also satisfied that the proposed notice of appeal herein, which contained the proposed grounds of appeal, raised substantial and arguable points of law. Per MASSOUD ABDULRAHMAN OREDOLA, J.C.A
