CORAM
PARTIES
MODIBBO ADAMA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY, YOLA
IJANDIR ISAAC SAMUEL YARAI
AREA(S) OF LAW
Not Available
SUMMARY OF FACTS
By a Writ of Summons, the Plaintiff/Respondent claimed against the Defendant/Appellant in the Federal High Court Gombe, sitting in Yola, a declaration of the Honourable Court that the purported expulsion of the Plaintiff by the Defendant is unlawful, illegal, wrongful and an abuse of the Plaintiff right of fair hearing; a declaration of the Honourable Court that withholding of the Plaintiff’s Statement of Result and non-mobilization of the Plaintiff for the NYSC Programme by the Defendant is unlawful and illegal; an order of the Honourable Court directing the Defendant to forthwith release the Plaintiff’s Statement of Result/Certificate for onward mobilization to NYSC Programme; the sum of Five Million Naira (N5,000,000) only as general damages. Issues were joined. The Respondent testified for himself and tendered several exhibits. The Appellant called one witness who tendered several exhibits as well. The lower Court delivered its Judgment resolving all the issues in favour of the Respondent. Dissatisfied with the trial court’s decision, the Appellant has filed this appeal contending that the Statute of Limitation Act caught up the Respondent’s suit.
HELD
Appeal Dismissed
ISSUES
Whether or not having regard to the surrounding circumstances and the evidence before this Court, the trial Court had jurisdiction under the Public Officers Protection Act, 2004. Whether or not having regards to the evidence before this Court and the surrounding circumstance of this case, the Respondent right to Fair Hearing has been breached? Whether or not the Respondent has proven his case to warrant the trial Court grant the reliefs sought?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
PUBLIC OFFICERS (PROTECTION) ACT, 2004- SCOPE OF THE STATUTORY PROTECTION ACCORDED PUBLIC OFFICERS UNDER SECTION 2(A) OF THE PUBLIC OFFICERS (PROTECTION) ACT, 2004
“For clarity purposes Section 2(a) of the Public Officers (Protection) Act 2004 provides thus:-
“Where any action, prosecution, or other proceeding is commenced against any person for any act done in pursuance or execution or intended execution of any Act of Law or of any public duty or authority, or in respect of any alleged neglect or default in the execution of any such Act, Law, duty or authority, the following provisions shall have effect- [Order 47 of 1951.]
Limitation of Action: The action, prosecution, or proceeding shall not lie or be instituted unless it is commenced within three months next after the act, neglect or default complained of, or in case of a continuance of damage or injury within three months next after the ceasing thereof: Provided that if the action, prosecution or proceeding be at the instance of any person for cause arising while such person was a convict prisoner, it may be commenced within three months after the discharge of such person from prison.”
PUBLIC OFFICERS – WHETHER THE PROTECTION ACCORDED PUBLIC OFFICERS WITHIN THE CONTEMPLATION OF SECTION 2 (A) ABOVE IS WITHOUT QUALIFICATION OR NOT
“The issue for determination is whether the protection accorded Public Officers within the contemplation of Section 2 (a) above is without qualification or not? In the case of Ibeto Cement Co. Ltd. v. A. G Federation (Supra) the Apex Court held thus:-
Where malice is established on the part of a Public Officer in the exercise of the administrative powers conferred upon him by law the protection afforded him by Section 2 (a) of the Public Officers Protection Act would cease to avail him.
Furthermore in the case of Hassan v. Akilu (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1223) 547 the Supreme Court held that:-
“An action brought outside the prescribed period offends against the provision of the Section and does not give rise to a cause of action. A cause of action means a factual situation stated by the plaintiff. If substantiated, entitles him to a remedy against the defendant. To the above general rule, there is an exception, which exception constitutes the contention of the Appellant in this case to wit, where the public officer concerned fails to act in good faith or acts in abuse of office, or maliciously or with semblance of legal justification.”
UNCONTRADICTED EVIDENCE – STATUS OF UNCONTRADICTED EVIDENCE
“Evidence was led in respect of the above averments as shown at paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26 of the written statement on oath of PW1 Isaac Samuel Yarai reflected at Pages 14-17 of the printed record. The evidence led was not contradicted during cross examination as shown at pages 207- 209 of the printed record. The law is trite that evidence not contradicted during cross examination is deemed admitted.”
PUBLIC OFFICERS (PROTECTION) ACT, 2004 – CONDITION PRECEDENT TO THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 2 OF THE PUBLIC OFFICERS (PROTECTION) ACT, 2004
“In the case of Akwa Ibom State University v. Ikpe (2016) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1504) 146 at 164 Paras. E-H this Court held that:- “For the Section of the Act to avail any person, two conditions must be cumulatively satisfied. These are:
(1)It must be established that the person against whom the action is commenced is a public officer or a person acting in execution of public duties within the meaning of that law.
(2)That the act done by the person in respect of which the action is commenced must be an act done in pursuance or execution of any law, public duties or authorities or in respect of alleged neglect or default in the execution of any such law, duty or authority. Where however there is continuing injury being suffered or the wrong is a continuing one, the position of the Law is that the Limitation period shall not apply”. See also the case of A/G Rivers State v. A/G Bayelsa State (2013) 3 NWLR (PT. 1340) 123 at 135 Ratio 14.”
BURDEN OF PROOF – BURDEN OF PROOF IN CIVIL PROCEEDINGS
“The law is settled that whoever in Civil Proceedings desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability which is dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts shall prove that those facts exist. This burden of proof is on the person who will fail if no evidence at all was given on either side. See Sections 131 & 132 of the Evidence Act.”
LAW OF EVIDENCE
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE – NATURE OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE “Documentary evidence is the best form of evidence where the existence of facts are sought to be proved. In the case of Jegede v. FRN (2013) AFWLR (Pt. 666) 594 at 603-4 Paras. H-A it was held thus:-
The best proof of facts in issue is the documentary evidence that tends to establish the fact alleged, unless and until same is established to have been forged or produced in aid of nonexistent facts.
The evidence adduced by the Respondent is consistent with his pleadings and has not in any way been impeached through cross examination. The lower Court was therefore right in acting on it. See Cameroun Airline v. Otutuzu (2011) AFWLR (PT. 570) 1286 Paras. A-B and Ogbe v. Sule Asade (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1172) 131 Para E.”
CASES CITED
Not Available
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended|Evidence Act 2011|Public Protection Act, Cap. P41 LFN 2004|