CORAM

---

ANDREW O. OBASEKI, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

COKER,JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

SOWEMIMO,JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

---

PARTIES

---

THE HEAD OF THE FEDERAL MILITARY GOVERNMENT, COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF. COMPLAINANT OF THE ARMED FORCES APPELLANTS

---

APPLICANT/RESPONDENT

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The applicant is a chief Magistrate in the Mid -Western State. He applied for an order of certiorari to quash the proceedings before the Public Civil Service Commission because they indicted him on a matter without giving him an opportunity to defend himself and his dismissal from the Public Service Commission was not justifiable.

---

HELD

---

The Supreme Court held that the learned trial Judge found, and are in agreement with him, that whatever powers the Public Service Commission exercised in the discharge of their duties, in respect of the category of the officer concerned are bound to comply with the rules of natural justice. The appeal failed and was dismissed. The order of the High Court was affirmed.

---

ISSUES

---

The order made by the learned trial Judge on the motion is inconsistent with the relief sought by the applicant;

Assuming that the letter (Exhibit MOK. 20 dated the 14th April, 1971) constituted the proceedings sought to be quashed by the applicant, then on the findings of the High Court certiorari will not lie; and

The judgment of the High Court does not reflect any consideration of Regulations Nos. 56 and 60 of the Public Service Regulations and the effect on the facts of the case of the provisions of the Advisory Judicial Committee (Consolidation) Edict 1970 and some other statutory provisions

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

WHEN CERTIORARI WILL BE GRANTED

---

“It is clear therefore that, apart from setting out the document which initiates the proceedings and the adjudication it was not necessary to set out the reasons or the evidence for the adjudication, and where the inferior tribunal or statutory body of its own motion supplied the reasons and those reasons were found to be wrong, certiorari will lie all the same”- Per G.B.A COKER, JSC.

---

APPLYING FOR THE ORDER OF CERTIORARI

---

“person applying for the Order of Certiorari must show that the body concerned has in one way or the other failed to act judiciously where it should do so.”- Per G.B.A COKER, JSC

---

PROOF OF CERTIORARI

---

“where it is established before the High Court that a statutory body (or maybe an inferior court) with limited powers has abused that power and that such abuse does and continues to affect prejudicially the rights of a citizen, certiorari will issue at the instance of that citizen. Such abuse may take the form of non-compliance with the rule or rules of procedure prescribed for that body; it may be exemplified in the denial of the right to be heard in ones defence; it may consist of irregularities which are tantamount to a denial or breach of the rules of natural justice; indeed, it may take the form of an assumption of jurisdiction to perform an act unauthorised by law or a refusal of jurisdiction where it should be exercised.”- Per G.B.A COKER, JSC

---

CASES CITED

---

In the case of Inter the Inhabitants of the Parishes of South Cadbury and Braddon, Somerset (Inhabitants) (1710) 91 ER 515

R. v. Boycott ex parte Keasley (1939) 2 KB 651

Kanda v. Government of Federation of Malaya (1962) AC 322

Privy Council in University of Ceylon v. Fernando (1960) 1 WLR 233 at p.226

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Public Service Regulation

Order 53 Rule 6 of the English Rules of the Supreme Court (1973 Annual Practice page 779

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT