Honourable Minister of Labour and Productivity & Anor V. Mr. Kolawole Gbeleyi (2008)
LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report
CLARA BATA OGUNBIYI, J.C.A.
This is an appeal from the judgment of the Federal High Court Lagos presided over by Honourable Justice S. W. Egbo-Egbo on 22nd day of March, 2001, wherein the judge held that the non compliance with the constitution of the panel on quorum had rendered the whole proceedings of the respondent’s dismissal being null and void. The dismissal of the respondent from the services of the 1st appellant on November 9th, 1994 was therefore declared illegal, unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect whatsoever; the court consequently ordered his reinstatement into the Federal Civil Service with effect from the said date. All salaries, allowances and other entitlements due to the respondent were also ordered to be paid. The appellants were the defendants in the lower court while the respondent was the plaintiff, Pages 14 and 15 of the judgment at the undated pages of the record of appeal are instructive.
The facts of this case succinctly put are as follows: that
The respondent was until his dismissal by the 1st appellant a Principal Maintenance Officer (P.M.O.) Grade Level 10 with the Federal Ministry of Employment, Labour and Productivity.
Following series of allegations of misdemeanors/misconduct and spanning between 1991-1994 the respondent was variously reprimanded and/or queried – see Exhibits “K”, “M” and “N”, which he replied via his letters Exhibits “Q” and “R” respectively.
The respondent was subsequently issued with a preliminary letter (query) Exhibit “L” on 7/3/94 which reads:-
“PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT IKOYI, LAGOS,
12576 ML.AJ/284/11F
SECLAB 7TH MARCH,” 94
Mr. K, Gbeleyi,
Rank: Principal Maintenance Officer
u.f.s. Director (Finance & Supplies)
Federal Ministry of Labour and
Productivity,
Federal Secretariat,
Ikoyi, Lagos.
PRELIMINARY LETTER
I am directed to inform you that your conduct is unsatisfactory in the following respect.
(a) That you deceived the Director (F&S) that you wanted to buy the toilet mirror at cash and carry Nig. Limited for which you were given the sum of N6,750 subsequently you carried the Director (F&S) in his vehicle to a company CHF Heron Nig. Limited, instead of cash and carry Nig. Limited Apapa. Your claim that CHF Heron Nig. Limited is an’ agent to cash & carry Nig. Limited is false.
(b) That the receipt NO.3026 of 22nd December 1993 for the sum of N16, 760.00 out of which the toilet mirror cost N6, 750.00 purportedly issued by cash & carry Nig. Limited is fake.
(c) That you did not buy any of the items in question from either cash & carry Nig. Limited or CHF Heron Nig. Limited.
(d) That you refused on four occasions to state where and how much you bought the toilet mirror.
(e) That your accomplice (Mr. Kayode of CHF Heron Nig. Limited) confessed to the officials of the Ministry, all your fraudulent acts in this matter.
- Your actions as enumerated above are tantamount to gross misconduct and contravene the provision of civil service Rule No. 04201 (i). The offences are punishable by severe disciplinary action.
- If you have any representation to submit as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against you, you should do so through your boss within 24 hours of the receipt by you of this letter. Failure will be taken to mean that you have none to make.
- Please acknowledge receipt of this letter on the attached slip and forward same together with your representation to this office.
SGD.
S. O. AYANBADEJO,
For: Honourable Minister.”
There was no response to the query by the respondent and consequent to which he was dismissed by a letter dated 9/11/94 which also reads as follows:-
“Federal Ministry of Employment, Labour and Productivity” Personnel Management Department Ikoyi – Lagos
PMB NO.12576 Ref. No. ML.A9/13216/1/44
Telegrams MINLAB Date 9th November, 1994
Mr. K. Gbeleyi,
Rank: Principal Maintenance Officer,
Ufs: Director (F&S),
Federal Ministry of Labour & Productivity,
Ikoyi – Lagos.
DISMISSAL LETTER
I am directed to inform you that the Personnel Management Board – Senior Staff Committee met today 9th November, 1994 and deliberated exhaustively on your representation in connection with the querries you were issued.
- After careful consideration of the issues involved, the Committee found your conduct unsatisfactory in the following respects:
(a) That CHF Heron Nigeria Ltd. is not in any way an appointed agent to cash and carry Nigeria Ltd. at Lagos and Apapa.
That the receipt you presented was fake and the same was issued to you by Mr. Kayode on 22nd December, 1993 for the sum of N16, 760.00.
That the receipt was neither known to the Management of CHF Heron Nigeria Ltd. nor the items purchased from them; and
(d) That Mr. Kayode was very well known to you; and decided forth with to dismiss you from the service.
- Consequently you are hereby informed that you have been dismissed from the service with effect from 9th November, 1994.
- You should surrender all Government property in your possession, including your identity card to your immediate boss with immediate effect.
- Please acknowledge receipt by you of this letter and return same to the undersigned.
SGD.
P. U. ADAMU,
for: Hon. Minister.”
Following the dismissal, the respondent wrote an appeal letter against same and subsequently thereafter filed a writ of summons against the appellants wherein he claimed as follows:-
“(a) A declaration that the purported dismissal of the plaintiff by the 1st defendant from the Federal Civil Service on 9/11/94 is illegal unconstitutional null and void and of no effect whatsoever.
(b) An order for reinstatement of the plaintiff in the Federal Civil Service with effect from 9/11/94.
(c) An order for the payment to the plaintiff by the 1st defendant of all other entitlements due to the plaintiff from 9/11/94.
(d) Such further or other orders as this Honourable Court might deem fit to make in the circumstance.”
In the course of the proceedings the appellants brought an application before the trial court to dismiss the respondent’s action on the ground that it offended against the provisions of section 2(a) of the Public Officer Protection Act Cap. 378, LFN 1990 having been instituted, in the view of the appellants, more than three months after the cause of action arose. The learned trial judge in a considered ruling delivered on 20/6/2000 dismissed the appellants’ application.
Prior to the preliminary objection raised, the respondent filed an amended statement of claim while the appellants jointly filed an amended statement of defence, to which the respondent further filed a reply. Following the dismissal of the preliminary objection therefore, the matter proceeded to trial and a judgment was delivered on the 23rd March 2001 wherein the learned trial judge granted all the declarative orders sought by the respondent as per his claim before the court and reproduced supra.
The appellants were aggrieved by the decision of the lower court and hence the filing of the appeal at hand which same was vide notice of appeal dated April 18th and filed the same month on the 19th 2001. Only one initial ground of appeal was filed therein. Consequent to an application dated and filed October 30th, 2002 for leave to amend the said notice of appeal an order was made by this court on March 24th, 2003 for leave to file additional grounds and the proposed amended notice of appeal marked Exhibit HAGF 1, exhibited to the motion paper was deemed properly filed and served. The said amended notice of appeal incorporated the lone original ground and contains a total of seven grounds of appeal all with their particulars, The proposed amended notice of appeal exhibited to the motion paper and marked Exhibit HAGFI was deemed filed and served on the said same 24th March, 2003, Consequently, the initial appellant’s brief of argument dated and filed 30th January, 2003 was accordingly struck out
By another motion on notice again dated and filed January 30th, 2003, the appellants sought for enlargement of time within which to file their brief of argument following the amendment of their notice of appeal which was granted 24th March, 2003. A further relief was sought to deem the proposed said brief as properly filed and served.
This court on the 24th March, 2003 heard the said application and granted the appellants the extension of time within which to file the brief but ordered further that the said proposed brief of argument was to be filed within two days of the order made; the date which was to expire on the 26th March, 2003.
I would at this point also wish to restate that the appellant’s amended brief consequent to the amended notice of appeal prima facie does not appear to have been filed pursuant to any courts order. This I say because the order made March 24th, 2003 was only in respect of the amended notice of appeal and which did not also cover the amended brief of argument.
It is also relevant to point out that the two motions dated October 5th and 28th and filed the same days were seeking the order of court to regularize the appellants amended brief of arguments dated April 22nd, 2004 and seeking same to be deemed as properly filed and served. Both motions were withdrawn and struck out on October 18th, 2004 and June 6th, 2006 respectively. The subsisting amended brief in the contention of the learned appellants counsel therefore is the one dated and filed April 22nd, 2004, which both motions to regularize were accordingly struck out as stated supra. From all indications, it does not appear that any further subsequent motion was filed for the purpose of regularizing the said amended appellants’ brief. This regrettably, is unfortunate that the learned counsel had failed to avert his mind to such a grievous error.
On May 8th 2008 when this appeal was called up for hearing, while Mr. A. Gbeleyi was in court, neither the appellants nor their counsel came to court. There was however a letter of absence by the appellants’ learned counsel to the effect that he had traveled to represent Nigeria at the 43rd Session of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ right in Ezuluni Kingdom of Swaziland. The learned counsel sought that the appeal be deemed argued on his brief.
Mr. Gbeleyi of counsel on behalf of the respondent adopted and relied on the respondent’s brief of arguments dated June 9th, and filed June 10th, 2003. He further intimated that the respondent’s initial brief was not amended following the amended brief by the appellants. On the appellants’ reply brief, learned counsel submitted the contention as misconceived because the respondent’s issue arose from ground 2 of the ground of appeal. Learned counsel therefore urged for the dismissal of the appeal.
It is trite law to restate that appeals are heard on briefs of arguments filed by parties. Any notice and grounds of appeal not supported by brief of arguments is not entitled to be heard.
From the appeal before us, it is clear that the earlier brief of argument dated January, 30th 2003 was struck out and is therefore dead and gone. It cannot be resurrected and would not therefore have any relevance to this appeal. In the same connotation, the amended brief filed on April 22nd, 2004 was also without this court’s mandate or order. Same also cannot serve for the purpose of determining this appeal as it lacks the legal foundation and effect.
This appeal in the absence of any brief is unsupported and it therefore lacks the requisite components for effective prosecution.
In other words, issues have not been distilled and argued upon for purpose of prosecuting the appeal. In the absence of any brief therefore the appeal is unsupported and is accordingly dismissed for want of prosecution. The judgment of the lower court is therefore unabated. There shall be costs of N30, 000 to the respondent.
Other Citations: (2008)LCN/2869(CA)
