ADEGOKE v. CHAIRMAN, LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICE COMMISSION, OYO STATE & ORS (2020)

ADEGOKE v. CHAIRMAN, LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICE COMMISSION, OYO STATE & ORS

(2020)LCN/14702(CA)

In The Court Of Appeal

(IBADAN JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Friday, October 09, 2020

CA/IB/311/2014

RATIO

SETTLEMENT OF ISSUES: ROLE OF COURT WHERE PARTIES AGREE TO SETTLE OUT OF COURT

The law is trite that parties are entitled to settle all or any of the questions or dispute between them on their own terms. It follows therefore that where parties have agreed on how to settle their dispute and go on to file terms of settlement in Court, the role of the Court is to encourage amicable settlement and endorse same See CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA VS. INTERSTELLA COMMUNIUCATIONS LIMITED (2018) 7 NWLR (PT. 1618) 294; ABEY VS ALEX (1999) 14 NWLR (PT. 637) 148; STAR PAPER MILL LTD VS ADETUNJI (2009) 13 NWLR (PT. 1159) 647. PER FOLASADE AYODEJI OJO, J.C.A.

Before Our Lordships:

Jimi Olukayode Bada Justice of the Court of Appeal

Haruna Simon Tsammani Justice of the Court of Appeal

Folasade Ayodeji Ojo Justice of the Court of Appeal

Between

ALHAJI MURITALA BABATUNDE ADEGOKE APPELANT(S)

And

THE CHAIRMAN LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICE COMMISSION, OYO STATE 2. LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICE COMMISSION, OYO STATE 3. THE PERMANENT SECRETARY, LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICE COMMISSION, OYO STATE 4. THE GOVERNOR, OYO STATE 5. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND COMMISSIONER FOR JUSTICE, OYO STATE RESPONDENT(S)

HARUNA SIMON TSAMMANI, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against Judgment of the National Industrial Court sitting in Ibadan delivered by E.N. Agbakoba, J on the 1st day of April, 2014 in Suit No: NICN/IB/102/2013.

The Appellant herein instituted the action subject of this appeal by an Originating Summons wherein he presented the following questions for determination:
1. Whether or not in the interest of justice, rule of law, public policy, expectations and standards expected of a civilized society, the Legal opinion of the Chief Law Officer (the Attorney General) of the State (or Federation) on matters of public interest and rights ought to be respected.
2. Whether this Honourable Court has inherent right to make judicial review of any administrative act(s), action(s) or omissions and make necessary declarations and/or orders.

It was then prayed that if the following questions are answered in favour of the Claimant/Appellant, the following reliefs be granted:
1. A DECLARATION that the office of Attorney-General of Oyo State is created by the Constitution of Nigeria (1999) and as the Chief Law Officer of

the State, his legal opinions on legal matters affecting the State are sacrosanct and must be respected by the State and all is parastatals, ministries and commissions in the interest of public policy and Rule of Law.
2. A DECLARATION that the opinion of the Attorney-General of Oyo State as expressed in the letter dated 12th February, 2013 and endorsed to the Applicant on 18th October, 2013 represents the legal and correct position of the Respondents in respect of the erroneous retirement of the Applicant from the Local Government Service Commission of Oyo State.
3. AN ORDER that in line with the legal opinion of the Chief Law Officer and Honourable Attorney-General of Oyo State, the purported compulsory retirement issued on the Applicant is irregular, illegal, null and void and of no effect whatsoever.
4. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court mandating the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents, their privies, allies, agents and servants to re-instate the Applicant into the service of the 2nd Defendant.
5. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court mandating the Respondents to pay all accumulated monthly net salary of N143,000.00 (each month) to the Applicant

from December, 2012 to the date the order of this Court is complied with.
6. The sum of N1,500,000.00 (One Million and Five Hundred Thousand Naira) being the cost of this litigation.
7. The sum of N15,000,000.00 (Fifteen Million Naira) being exemplary and aggravated damages.
AND FOR SUCH OTHER OR FURTHER ORDER(S) as the Court may deem fit to make in this circumstance.

The Originating Summons was accompanied by a Statement in Support of the Application which contain the reliefs sought and the grounds upon which the reliefs are sought. The Claimant/Applicant also deposed to a verifying Affidavit as required by the Rules of the Court below and an Affidavit of 30 paragraphs to which were annexed 17 exhibits marked as Exhibits “A” – “Q” respectively. The Originating Summons was also accompanied by a Written Address in Support of the Application.

Now, in the course of the proceedings before the Court below, the learned trial Judge urged counsel to address him on the propriety of the action before him. Learned Counsel for the Claimant/Appellant complied by filing a Written Address. None of the

Defendants/Respondents’ counsel complied with the directive of the trial Court. The Claimant/Appellant’s Written Address was adopted before the trial Court on 20/12/2013 and in well considered Ruling delivered on the 01/04/2014, the learned trial Judge dismissed the Originating Summons on several grounds. Being piqued by the decision, the Claimant/Appellant has initiated this appeal.

The Notice of Appeal consisting of six (6) Grounds of Appeal was dated the 19/5/14 but filed on the 20/05/14. In compliance with the Rules of the Court, the Appellant filed an Appellant’s Brief of Arguments. It was filed on the 29/8/2014 but deemed filed on the 23/05/2018. Therein, six (6) issues were formulated for determination as follows:
1. WHETHER the learned trial Judge was right at interlocutory stage to have delved into the substantive suit that was never argued before him and determined same without hearing the Appellant Counsel and thereby denied the Appellant right to fair hearing. [Ground One].
2. WHETHER the learned trial Judge was right when he held that the lower Court has no jurisdiction to make an order of judicial review in

respect of a legal directive, legal opinion or legal advice of the Attorney-General of Oyo State centered on employer/employee administrative issue concerning an Oyo State agency and the Appellant who is an employee in the service of the State. [Ground Two].
3. WHETHER the learned trial Judge was right when he held that “the Claimant/Applicant case is not suitable for Originating Summons and relying on OSUNBADE V. OYEWUMI (2007) 18 All FWLR (pt. 368) 1004 at 1015 the proper order to make in the circumstance would be for the Claimant to file pleadings” and failed to order the filing of pleadings before dismissing the Appellant’s suit in limine. [Ground Three].
4. WHETHER the learned Judge of the lower Court was not in error when he looked beyond the pleadings before him and held that the case of the Appellant is statute barred despite the admission and administrative decision/directive of the Attorney-General of Oyo State that the erroneous compulsory retirement of the Appellant be revised, made within 3 months of the irregular compulsory retirement. [Ground Four].
5. WHETHER it will not amount to breach of fairing (sic) and

justice when the Appellant was not heard while his case which was brought for the judicial review of the administrative acts of the Respondents was determined purely on the merit without considering the essence and purport of judicial review and the intendment of the makers of the statute creating the lower Court. [Ground Five].
6. WHETHER the circumstances of this case, based on its peculiarities and nature, this Honourable Court can invoke the provision of Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act and determine the subject of this suit on merit.

None of the Respondents filed any Brief of Arguments. Consequently, on the 08/7/2020, this Court set down this appeal for hearing on the appellant’s Brief of Arguments alone. This appeal was therefore heard on the Appellant’s Brief alone on the 10/9/2020.

Now, I wish to point out that in the course of the proceedings and before this appeal was heard, the parties informed the Court that they were exploring the possibility of settlement out of Court. Consequent upon that, the parties filed TERMS OF SETTLEMENT on the 03/2/2015 duly signed by the Appellant and his counsel on one part and the

Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Oyo State on the other part (for the Respondents). Having carefully considered and soberly reflected on the entire circumstances of this case, I am of the view that the said “TERMS OF SETTLEMENT” be adopted as the judgment of this Court but with slight modification as follows:
1. That the judgment of the lower Court delivered by Hon. Justice E. N. Agbakoba on the 1st day of April, 2014 be set aside.
2. That the purported compulsory retirement of the Appellant as contained in the Letter dated the 28th of November, 2012 be set aside as being a nullity.
3. That the Appellant be reinstated into the service of the Local Government Service Commission as the Head of Local Government Administration in the Ibadan North-West Local Government of Oyo State until his retirement as required by law and the terms of his employment.
4. That the Appellant is entitled to his arrears of salaries beginning from the month of November, 2012 at the rate of One Hundred and Forty-Three Thousand Naira (N143,000.00) per month to the date of his lawful retirement from service.
5. The parties are to bear their respective costs.

JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA, J.C.A.: I read before now the draft of the lead Judgment of my learned brother HARUNA SIMON TSAMMANI, JCA just delivered.
I am also of the view that the terms of settlement in this case be adopted as the Judgment of this Court as stated in the lead Judgment of my learned brother.
There shall be no order as to costs.

FOLASADE AYODEJI OJO, J.C.A.: I had the privilege to read in advance, the judgment just delivered by my learned brother, HARUNA SIMON TSAMMANI, JCA.

Counsel. I therefore agree with my learned brother that the “TERMS OF SETTLEMENT” filed at the registry of this Court by parties to this appeal be adopted as the Judgment of this Court with the modifications entered in the lead Judgment.

I also set aside the Judgment of the National Industrial Court in Suit No. NICN/IB/102/2013 between Alhaji Muritala Babatunde Adegoke Vs. The Chairman, Local Government Service Commission, Oyo State delivered on 1st of April, 2014.

Appearances:

Richarmond O. Natha-Alade, Esq., with him, S. A. Oladele, Esq. and I. O. Badejo; Esq. For Appellant(s)

Respondents are absent and unrepresented For Respondent(s)