May 25, 2025
Legalpedia Citation: (2010) Legalpedia (CA) 13729 In the Court of Appeal HOLDEN AT OWERRI Fri Apr 30, 2010 Suit Number: CA/PH/56/2006 CORAM PARTIES MRS. ROSE EEFURIBE APPELLANTS DR.G.M. […]
CORAM
PARTIES
MRS. ROSE EEFURIBE APPELLANTS
DR.G.M. UGBAM & ORS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Appellant in this case was disciplined for an offence which was not directed by the Federal Public Service Commission or the Minister of Health, the 1st to 3rd respondent charged the appellant for non-existent/ imaginary offences and the appellant was not given a fair hearing. Dissatisfied with the judgment of the learned trial judge, the appellant has appealed to this court.
HELD
Appeal allowed.
ISSUES
1. Whether, having regard to the averments of the Applicant in her statement and affidavit in support of the application as to the terms and conditions of her employment, the admissions of the Respondents and findings of Court to these effect, the learned trial Judge was right in holding that the failure to tender/exhibit her letter of appointment in the circumstance was fatal to Applicant’s case.?
2. Whether the learned trial Judge was right in holding that the Applicant was afforded fair hearing in the circumstance of this case. Whether the learned trial Judge was right in refusing to grant the Applicant the Relief/Remedy quashing her purported compulsory premature retirement in Exhibit H after finding that the action of the 1st to 3rd Respondents as contained in Exhibit was ultra vires, their powers and without Jurisdiction.?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
RE-HEARING-MEANING OF -DUTY OF AN APPELLATE COURT THERETO
“The word re-hearing in this context means a re-hearing on the printed records by re-examining the whole evidence both oral and documentary tendered before the trial Court and forwarded to it. It means an examination of the case as a whole. The Court of Appeal is entitled to evaluate the evidence and may reject conclusions of the trial Judge from facts which do not follow from the evidence or may be regarded as perverse. In other words the appellate Court is entitled to exercise all the powers of a Court of first instance”. PER ABUBAKAR JEGA ABDUL-KADIR JCA
COMPETENCE OF A TRIBUNAL-CONSTITUTION OF -SECTION 36(1) OF THE 1999 CONSTITUTION
(i) The number and qualification of its members and no member is disqualified for one reason or another
(ii) The subject matter is within its jurisdiction and there is no feature in the case which prevents it from exercising its jurisdiction
(iii) That the case that comes before it is initiated by due process and upon fulfillment of any condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction. See Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) 1 All NLR 587
These three elements of jurisdiction stated above must co-exist and be present at all material times to the exercise of jurisdiction if any is lacking, the court or Tribunal or body is incompetent and has no jurisdiction”. PER ABUBAKAR JEGA ABDUL-KADIR JCA
CROSS APPEAL-WHEN ARISES-NATURE OF
“A cross-appeal on the other hand arises where two parties to a Judgment are dissatisfied with it and each accordingly appeals. The appeal of each is called a Cross-appeal in relation to that of the other. Each appeal is an independent and separate complaint by the parties even though both appeals are heard together. If the appellant withdraws or discontinues his appeal, a respondent/cross appellant may proceed with his cross-appeal just a counter-claimant in a civil suit may prove his counter-claim where the plaintiff discontinues his own action.” PER ABUBAKAR JEGA ABDUL-KADIR JCA
FACTS-ADMITTED FACTS-WHETHER NEEDS FURTHER PROOF
“The law is settled that what is admitted needs no further proof”. PER ABUBAKAR JEGA ABDUL-KADIR JCA
CERTIORARI-CONDITIONS FOR GRANT OF
“Some of the established grounds for which certiorari will lie to quash the decision of an inferior tribunal as the Respondent include any of the following:
(i) Want of excess of Jurisdiction
(ii) Breach of rules of natural Justice/fair hearing”. PER ABUBAKAR JEGA ABDUL-KADIR JCA
CASES CITED
Inajoko V. Adeleke [2007] 4NWLR {PT 1025} 423Jadesimi V. Okotie Eboh [1986] 1NWLR {PT 16} 264Morohunfola V. Kwara State College of Technology [1990] 4NWLR {PT 145]506, 519Okoebor V. Police Council [2003]12 NWLR [PT834] 444State V. Onagonowa {1992} 2NWLR [1992] 2NWLR [PT221] 33 AT 59Katto V. CBN [1991] 9NWLR [PT 214] 126 AT 149Ojukwu V. Onwudiwe [1984] 1SCNLR 247 AT 284Igwe V. Kalu (2002) 14 NWLR CPT. 787 435]Ezenwa v.Bestway Electronic Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (1999) 8 NWLR (Pt. 613) 61Exparte Kubeinje (1971) 11SC 79Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) 1 All NLR 587
STATUTES REFERRED TO
The 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria