ATTORNEY GENERAL OF LAGOS STATE v. MAMMAN KEITA
April 24, 2025BERNARD ANOGWIE & ORS v. EBERE ODOM & ORS
April 24, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2016) Legalpedia (CA) 11171
In the Court of Appeal
Thu Mar 24, 2016
Suit Number: CA/B/38/2011
CORAM
PARTIES
COLLEGE OF EDUCATION, EKIADOLORTHE PROVOST, COLLEGE OF EDUCATION, EKIADOLORTHE REGISTRAR, COLLEGE OF EDUCATION, EKIADOLOR APPELLANTS
J.A. OBAYAGBONA RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Plaintiff now Respondent whose appointment as a Principal Assistant Registrar in the service of the 1st Defendant was terminated vide a letter signed by the 3rd Defendant/Appellant, instituted an action against the Defendants/Appellants at the High Court of Justice, Benin Judicial Division, claiming jointly and severally a declaration that the termination is irregular, unconstitutional and constitutes a breach of the rules of natural justice, and therefore null and void and of no effect, a declaration that the Plaintiff/Respondent is still in the service of the 1st Defendant/Appellant and therefore entitled to all rights benefits and privileges attached to his post up to the date of the judgement and an order of reinstatement. Alternatively, the Plaintiff claims jointly and severally from the Defendants the sum of N1, 587,234.39 (One Million, Five Hundred and Eighty-Seven Thousand, Two Hundred and Thirty Four Naira, Thirty-Nine Kobo), being the accumulation of his salaries and other allowances he would be entitled to on voluntary retirement at the age of 60 years or such damages as the Court may deem appropriate taking into consideration the period it will take the Plaintiff to look for another employment. At the conclusion of the trial, the court entered judgement in favour of the Respondent 19 months after adoption of written addresses of counsel. Dissatisfied with the said judgement, the Appellants have appealed to this court.
HELD
Appeal Allowed
ISSUES
? Whether from the circumstances of the case the appointment of the Respondent was properly determined in view of the Public Officers (Special Provisions Act 1984)? Whether from the evidence on record, it can be said that the Respondent was denied a fair hearing? Whether the order of reinstatement granted by the Court was proper, taking cognisance of the peculiar facts of the case? Whether the learned trial Judge was in a position to properly recollect his impression of those who testified before him and the evidence adduced during the trial in view of lapse of 19 months from the adoption of written addresses to the delivery of Judgment.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
RIGHT TO FAIR TRIAL – ESSENCE OF THE RIGHT TO FAIR TRIAL AS PROVIDED BY SECTION 36(1) AND 4 OF THE 1999 CONSTITUTION OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA
“Section 36(1) and 4 of the 1999 Constitution guarantees right to fair trial within a reasonable time. This provision is entrenched in order to ensure speedily trial in our law Courts. Speedily trial is an aspect of public justice, which sets a standard fixed by law and society, which a judge must attain in the determination of cases before him.” PER M. N.ONIYANGI, J.C.A<foo< p=””></foo<>
DECISION OF COURT – CONDITION(S) THAT WOULD NULLIFY A DECISION OF COURT GIVEN IN EXCESS OF NINETY DAYS
“However, by Section 294(5) of the 1999 Constitution a decision given in excess of ninety days, does not ipso facto become a nullity unless a party has suffered a miscarriage of justice as a result of the delay. The said Section 294 (5) provides thus:
“The decision of a Court shall not be set aside or treated as a nullity solely on the ground of non-compliance with the provisions of Sub-section (1) of this Section unless the Court exercising jurisdiction by way of appeal or review of that decision is satisfied that the party complaining has suffered a miscarriage of justice by reason thereof.” PER U. A. OGAKWU,J.C.A<foo< p=””></foo<>
DISPENSATION OF JUSTICE – EFFECT OF DELAY IN THE DISPENSATION OF JUSTICE
“Delay is known to be one of the greatest impediments to the speedy dispensation of justice in our Courts hence the ancient philosophies stated
“Justice delayed is justice denied.”
This maxim is incorporated in the Great Magna Carta of 19th June, 1215 Chapter 40 where he said
“To no one will we deny or delay right of justice.”
– PER M. N.ONIYANGI, J.C.A<foo< p=””></foo<>
INTERPRETATION OF THE CONSTITUTION – INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 294(1) AND 294(5) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA
“Section 294(1) of the Constitution is not to be interpreted and applied in isolation, it should be read in conjunction with Section 294(5) which provides that the decision of the Court is not to be set aside or treated as a nullity solely on the ground of non-compliance with Sub-section (1) unless a miscarriage of justice is shown to have been occasioned by reason of the delay, in order to arrive at a proper understanding of the stipulations of the Section: PDP v. Taiwo (2004) 8 NWLR (Pt.876) 656 at 676 and Duro v. INEC (2010) LPELR (8587) 1 at 24. Therefore the regnant legal position will seem to be that the effect of non-delivery of a decision by a Court within ninety days is that such a decision would not longer be set aside for being a nullity unless the delay had occasioned a miscarriage of justice. See Atungwu v. Ochekwu (2004) 17 NWLR (Pt.901) 18, Igwe v. Kalu (2002) 5 NWLR (Pt.761) 678; ACB v. Ajugbo (2011) LPELR (3637) 1 at 34-35 and Molegbemi v. Ajayi (2011) LPELR (4501) 1 AT 30-32. PER U. A. OGAKWU, J.C.A<foo< p=””></foo<>
DELIVERY OF JUDGMENT – TIMEFRAME FOR DELIVERY OF JUDGMENT- SECTION 294 (1) AND (5) OF THE 1999 CONSTITUTION OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA (AS AMENDED)
“Section 294 (1) and (5) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) provides thus:-
“294 (1) Every Court established under this Constitution shall deliver its decision in writing not later than ninety (90) days after the conclusion of evidence and final addresses and furnish all parties to the cause or matter determined with duly authenticated copies of the decision within 7 days of the delivery thereof.
294 (5) The decision of a Court shall not be set aside or treated as a nullity solely on the ground of non-compliance with the provisions of Subsection (1) of this Section unless the Court exercising jurisdiction by way of appeal from or review of that decision is satisfied that the party complaining has suffered a miscarriage of justice by reason thereof”
In view of the foregoing provisions of the Constitution set out above, it must be noted that delay in the delivery of Judgment per se does not lead to a Judgment being vitiated. The delay must occasion a miscarriage of justice to result in such a conclusion. See – Akpan v. Umoh (1999) 7 SC Part II Page 13”. PER J. O. BADA, J.C.A.<foo< p=””></foo<>
DISPENSATION OF JUSTICE – EFFECT OF DELAY IN THE DISPENSATION OF JUSTICE
“Delay defeats equity, protracted delay is opposed to the realization of justice. It pollutes the stream of justice and prompts injustice of the highest order. It breeds frustration and despair inevitably culminating to resort to self help with attendant chaos and anarchy.” PER M. N.ONIYANGI, J.C.A<foo< p=””></foo<>
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)
