Rufus Femi Amokeodo V. Inspector General Of Police & Ors (1999)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

O. EJIWUNMI, J.S.C.

By an originating summons issued in the Lagos High Court at the instance of the appellant seeking a determination as to whether having retired from the Nigeria Police Force, he could still be dismissed under the provisions of Decree 17 of 1984. The matter came up before the Lagos High Court presided over by Ilorin,(as he then was) who upon the affidavit evidence of the parties, and the addresses or their learned counsel, struck out the claims of the appellant. The claims were struck out on the ground that the jurisdiction of the court has been ousted by section 3(3) of Decree 17, Public Officers (Special Provisions) Act of 1984.

However, before reaching that conclusion, the learned trial Judge had also held that the appellant had not validly retired from the Nigeria Police Force at the time he was dismissed.

It must be noted that during the hearing in that court several exhibits were tendered. Reference would therefore be made to some or all of them as deemed pertinent to the issues raised for determination in this appeal.

Being dissatisfied with the judgment and orders of that court, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal (Lagos Division) by filing a notice of appeal wherein he challenged the judgment of the court upon seven grounds of appeal.

At the hearing of the appeal before the court below, briefs were filed and exchanged. The appellant in that court raised three issues for determination and which read thus:-

(1) Whether the trial court mis-applied the relevant principles and came to a wrong conclusion on the effect of non-compliance with section 21(1) of the Pensions Act.

(2) Whether the appellant was still in the public service at the time of his dismissal under Decree No. 17 of 1984.

(3) Whether the trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appellant’s action on the grounds:

(a) That Decree No. 17 of 1984 applied to public officers like the appellant (who) was no longer in service.

(b) That Decree No. 17 of 1984 as involved (sic) applied to the appellant.

In a well considered judgment, the court below resolved all the issues raised before it against the appellant. Consequently that court dismissed the appeal, and affirmed the judgment of the trial court.

Still not satisfied, the appellant has appealed to this court upon seven grounds of appeal. In accordance with the rules of this court, briefs were filed and exchanged. The appellant upon the receipt of the respondents’ brief also filed a reply brief. At the hearing before us, learned counsel for the respondents sought the leave of court to withdraw the preliminary objection he had raised in the respondents’ brief. Leave was duly granted and the preliminary objection was accordingly struck out. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, I. Ajomo Esq., adopted and placed reliance on the two briefs filed by the appellant. He also made further submissions to explain further some of the arguments that had been argued in the briefs. At the end of this submission, he urged that the appeal be allowed. The learned counsel to the respondents also adopted the brief filed for the respondents. He also addressed the court further in respect of some aspects of the arguments that he had setout in the respondents’ brief. Learned counsel concluded his submission by asking that the appeal be dismissed.

In the appellant’s brief the following are the issues identified for the determination of this appeal from the seven grounds of appeal filed against the judgment of the court below.