BUBA ENOCH WULANGS v. CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA (2019)

BUBA ENOCH WULANGS v. CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA

(2019)LCN/13426(CA)

In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

On Friday, the 7th day of June, 2019

CA/A/266/2018

RATIO

JURISDICTION: IMPORTANCE

The Law is trite that issue of jurisdiction is very fundamental to adjudication because if a Court possesses no jurisdiction to adjudicate on a matter the proceeding will be a nullity right from the commencement of the action. The Court must therefore as a matter of utmost urgency decides issue or matter touching and concerning its jurisdiction once it is raised either by the parties or the Court of its own motion before delving into the merit of the action. Jurisdiction is the very heart of any matter. Any proceeding conducted without jurisdiction is void and a nullity ab initio. I call in aid the imperishable words of that legal icon and a great jurist KAYODE ESO J5C (of blessed memory) in the case of the ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF LAGOS STATE VS HON. JUSTICE L. J. DOSUNMU (1989) 3 NWLR (PT.111) 552 at 608C where the eminent jurist said:

“It is futile to set down issues, deliberate on the evidence led resolve point of law raised, if the Court seised of the matter’ is devoid of jurisdiction. The substratum of a Court is no doubt jurisdiction; without it the “labourers” therein, that is both litigants and Counsel on the one hand and the Judge on the other hand, labour in vain.”PER PETER OLABISI IGE, J.C.A.

LIMITATION LAW: WHEN TIME BEGINS TO RUN

Time begins to run for the purposes of the limitation law from the date the cause of action accrues.”

In Amadi v. INEC (2012) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1345) p. 607 at page 631 paras. E-F this court held that:

“The conspicuous effect of a limitation law is that legal proceedings cannot be properly validly instituted after the expiration of the prescribed period. Also, the Court is divested of its jurisdiction in the matter as it is no longer a live Issue. It is dead in substance and in form.PER PETER OLABISI IGE, J.C.A.

WHEN A PUBLIC OFFICER WILL NOT BE PROTECTED BY SECTION 2(A) OF THE PUBLIC OFFICERS PROTECTION ACT

Further in Hassan v. Aliyu (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt.1223) 547 at page 589, paras. E-G, this Court held that:

“where a public officer fails to act in good faith, or acts in abuse of office or maliciously, or with no semblance of legal justification, he will not be protected by the provision of Section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act as to three months time limit for commencement of an action.”PER PETER OLABISI IGE, J.C.A.

STATUTE BAR: THE EFFECT OF A MATTER BEING STATUTE BARRED

Where any action is statute barred, a plaintiff who might otherwise have had a cause of action loses the right to enforce it by judicial process because the period of time laid down by the limitation for instituting such an action has elapsed. See Egbe v, Adefarasin & Anor, (1987) 1 NWLR (Pt. 47) 1 at 2; Oba J.A. Aremo II v.Adekanye & 2 Ors. (2004) 13 NWLR (Pt. 891) 572, Eboigbe v NNPC (1994) 5 NWLR (Pt. 347) 649, Odubeko v. Fowler (1993) 7 NWLR (Pt. 308) 637, Sanda v. Kukawa Local Government (1991) 2 NWLR (Pt. 174) 379. One may wonder why a person’s right or access to Court should be extinguished by law. The rationale for the existence of a statute of limitation is that long dormant claims have more of cruelty than justice in them and that a defendant may have lost the evidence to disprove a stale claim and that a person with a good cause of action should pursue it with reasonable diligence. See John Ekeogu v. Aliri (1990) 1 NWLR (Pt. 126) 345.”PER PETER OLABISI IGE, J.C.A.

JUSTICES

TINUADE AKOMOLAFE-WILSON Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

PETER OLABISI IGE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

Between

BUBA ENOCH WULANGS – Appellant(s)

AND

CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA – Respondent(s)

PETER OLABISI IGE, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This appeal is against the judgment of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria which the parties were ad idem was delivered on 29th September, 2017 by AGBAKOBA, J., but dated 25th September, 2017.

The Appellant as the Claimant had approached the Abuja Division vide his amended complaint which was issued out of the said Court on 7th November, 2016 against the Respondent as Defendant claiming the following reliefs and Orders:-

“(i) A DECLARATION that the Defendant’s refusal to reinstate the Claimant vide her letter with Ref: No. HRD/EPR/GEN/PTN/26/96 dated March 23rd, 2016 on the grounds that “fresh facts” were not adduced vide the Claimant’s letter of 19th day of January,2015, is an act of continuance of damage, injury, and a breach of the Claimant’s Constitutional Right to Fair Hearing, the Rules of Natural Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.

(ii) A DECLARATION that the purported Dismissal of the Claimant by the Defendant vide Ref. Nos.: HRD/EPR/D5A/SEC/06/180(a) was done outside the Colour of office, outside her statutory or

constitutional duty and in breach of the Claimant’s Constitutional Right of Fair Hearing, the Rules of Natural Justice, Equity and Good Conscience and it is therefore null and void, illegal, wrongful in law, unconstitutional, unwarranted, of no effect or consequence whatsoever and contrary to the terms, guidelines and condition of the Claimant’s contract of employment as contained in the Central Bank of Nigeria Human Resource Policies and Procedures Manual (HRPPM).

(iii) A DECLARATION that the purported letter of DISMISSAL FROM THE BANK’S SERVICE with Ref. Nos.: HRD/EPR/D5A/SEC/06/180(a) is a breach of the Claimant’s Constitutional Right of Fair Hearing, the Rules of Natural Justice, Equity and Good Conscience null and void, illegal, wrongful in law, unconstitutional, unwarranted, of no effect whatsoever and contrary to the terms and condition of the Claimant’s contract of employment as contained in the Central Bank of Nigeria Human Resource Policies and Procedures Manual (HRPPM).

(iv) A DECLARATION that the purported Query issued to the Claimant with I.D. NO. 1 821 1 by the Defendant’s letter with Ref . Nos.: HIWEPR/D5A/5EC/06/1 26 was done

outside the Colour of office, outside her statutory or constitutional duty, is null and void, illegal, wrongful in law, unconstitutional, unwarranted, of no effect whatsoever and contrary to the Claimant’s actual and true state of documentation at the time of his appointment with the Central Bank of Nigeria.

(v) A DECLARATION that the Claimant was not given a hearing as provided in the rules, guidelines and contract of engagement between the Claimant and the Defendant as contained in the Central Bank of Nigeria Human Resources and Procedures Manual (HRPPM).

(vi) A DECLARATION that the Claimant is still in the employment of the Central Bank of Nigeria with all his entitlements, remuneration, allowances, benefits, privileges attached and without loss of promotion from the date of the purported dismissal till date of Judgment and thereafter.

1. AN ORDER that the Claimant’s letter dated 19th day of January, 2015, forwarding his degree certificate with No. B931 1 3 from his university adduced “fresh facts” to the Defendant warranting the reversal of his dismissal to reinstatement, contrary to the Defendant’s letter

with Ref: No. HRD/EPR/GEN/PTN/26/96 dated March 23, 2016.

2. AN ORDER NULLIFYING AND/OR SETTING ASIDE the Defendant letters of QUERY and DISMISSAL. FROM THE BANK’S SERVICE with Ref Nos.: HRD/EPR/DSA/SEC/06/126 and HRD/EPR/DSA/SEC/06/180(a).

3. AN ORDER REINSTATING the Claimant back to the Central Bank of Nigeria with remuneration, without loss of the purported employment and services of the Central Bank all his entitlements, salary, rights, allowances, benefits, privileges attached and promotion with effect from the date of dismissal till date of Judgment and thereafter. (sic).

4. AN ORDER DIRECTING the Central Bank of Nigeria to pay the Claimant all his entitlements, salary, rights, remuneration, allowances, benefits and privileges with effect from the date of the purported dismissal till date of Judgment and thereafter.

5. AN ORDER OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION restraining the Defendant whether by themselves, agents, privies, servants whosoever and howsoever described from using or relying on the purported letters of Query & Dismissal from the Bank’s Service with Ref Nos.: HRD/EPR/DSA/SECI06/126 and HRD/EPR/D5A/SEC/06/180 against the

Claimant in any form whatsoever and howsoever.

6. The sum of N20,000,000.00 (Twenty Million Naira) only as expenses incurred for drugs and treatment in and Government hospitals my inability to access the accessing various private clinics for failing health as a result of Central Bank Medical facility.

7. The sum of N30,000,000.00 (Thirty Million Naira) only as damages for psychological pains, sufferings, physical humiliation, mental agony, inconveniences, dejection, continuous injury and damages indebtedness and professional expenses incurred in engaging Solicitors and Counsels in instituting this action.

8. The sum of N50,000,000.00 (Fifty Million Naira) only as Exemplary and Aggregated damages against the Defendants.

9. 20% Interest on judgment sum till the judgment is fully liquidated.

ALTERNATIVELY

10. The sum of N1,000,000,000.00 (One Billion Naira) only as damages for wrongful Dismissal of the Claimant’s employment with the Central Bank of Nigeria and violation of his right to fair hearing.

11. 50% Interest on Judgment sum from

the date of Judgment to the date of final liquidation.”

The complaint was accompanied with 47 paragraphs Amended Statement of Claim. The Respondent joined issues with the Appellant by filing an Amended Statement of Defence of 15 paragraphs. Both sides relied on oral and documentary evidence. At the end of hearing and adoption of Written Addresses of learned Counsel to the parties the learned trial Judge gave a considered judgment on 29th September, 2017 wherein he held against the Appellant as follows:-

“The claimant was asked in open Court whether Exhibit C16 provides for summary dismissal he responded yes, he also testified that he was issued a query by the defendant and he pled in his Reply to Query. By Simon Ansambe v. Bank of the North Ltd (2004) 8 NWLR (Pt. 928) 650, fair hearing does not necessarily mean an oral representation; it is enough if it is in writing. The converse of this proposition is true with equal force i.e. fair hearing does not necessarily mean a written response; it is enough if there is an oral representation. All that matters, is whether the employee was given the opportunity of fair

hearing. In Ziideeh v RSCSC (2007] LPELR- 3544 (SC); [2007] 3 NWLR (Pt. 1022) 554; [2007] 3 NWLR, (Pt. 1022) 554; (2007] 1 – 2 SC 1, it was emphatically held thus: –

It is now firmly settled that in statutory employment just as in private employment, an employer can summarily dismiss the servant in all cases of gross misconduct provided of course, the employee is given ample opportunity of fair hearing”. So once a Court makes a finding that the employee was given ample opportunity to defend himself/herself on the allegations in issue, then such an employee cannot complain of not being given fair hearing. See A. R. Momoh v CBN (2007) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1055) 508 ca at 527, Benedict Hirki Joseph v First Inland Bank Nig. Plc (2009) LPELR – 8854 (CA), Gukas v Jos International Breweries Ltd (1991) 6 NWLR (Pt. 199) 614, Imonikhe v Unity Bank Plc (2011) LPELR – 1503 (SC) [2011] 12 NWLR (Pt. 1262) 624 SC, Avre v. NIPOST [2014] LPELR-22629 (CA), Kayode Agbolade v. Ecobank Nig. Plc unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/34/2012 the judgment of which was delivered on 30th October 2013, Mr. Adewale Aina v. Wema Bank Plc & Anor unreported Suit No.

NICN/LA/162/2012 the Judgment of which was delivered on January 28, 2016, Mrs. Titilayo Akisanya v. Coca -Cola Nigeria Limited & 2 Ors unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/40/2012, the judgment of which was delivered on 7th April 2016, New Nigeria, Bank Ltd v. G. O. Oniovosa [1995] 9 NWLR (Pt. 419) 327 and Isong Udofia v. Industrial Training Governing Council [2001] 4 NWLR (Pt. 703) 281. By his own acknowledgment, the claimant told this Court that he was issued a query and he replied. That is opportunity sufficient to satisfy the fair hearing requirements of the law; and I so find and hold. In fact the position of the law as per the recent decision of the Supreme Court in REV. PROF. PAUL EMEKA V. REV DR. CHIDI OKOROAFOR & ORS [2017] 14 NWLR (PT. 1577) 410, where the Supreme Court, relying on BAKARE V. LSCSC [1992] 8 NWLR (PT. 266) 641 AT 699 -700 and EKUNOLA V. CBN [2013] 15 NWLR (PT.1377) 224 AT 262 – 263, held that breach of a fundamental right under Section 36(1) of the Constitution arises only where the denial of fair hearing has been charged against a Court or Tribunal established by law and not before a domestic or standing ad-hoc Tribunal raised

departmentally by parties. In other words, there would be no case of infringement o