THE GOVERNOR OF OYO STATE v. HON. JUSTICE IYABO YERIMA & ANOR

CORAM

PARTIES

THE GOVERNOR OF OYO STATE   APPELLANTS

1. HON. JUSTICE IYABO YERIMA

2. NATIONAL JUDICIAL COUNCIL

RESPONDENTS 

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

Two petitions were written against the 1st Respondent in her capacity as a judge of the Oyo State Judiciary.  Both petitions raised allegations bordering on corruption and incontinent behavior. Upon receipt of the petitions the 2nd Respondent notified the 1st Respondent and requested her to respond in writing which she complied with. Thereafter an investigation committee set up to investigate the allegations in the petition.  The committee in its report suspended the 1st Respondent, and recommended her compulsory retirement. Consequently, the 1st Respondent instituted this action in the Federal High Court, seeking a declaration that the recommendation of the 1st Defendant based on its investigation is illegal, unlawful and unconstitutional on account of violation of her right to fair hearing; a declaration that the Attorney-General of Oyo State, Adebayo Shittu, Esq., not being the writer of the petition to which the 1st Defendant panel adjudicated upon and allowing the said Attorney-General to be a substituted complainant is null and void, unconstitutional and of no effect; and an order setting aside the report/recommendation of the 1st Defendant to the 2nd Defendant for gross infringement of the Plaintiff’s Fundamental Human Right to fair hearing, among other reliefs. The Court granted all the reliefs sought. Dissatisfied with the decision of the lower court, the Appellant has appealed to this court.

HELD

Appeal Dismissed

ISSUES

1. Whether having regard to the circumstances of the purported withdrawal of the petition filed by Mr. Adebayo Shittu, the said petition could be said to have been validly withdrawn by Mr. Michael Lana?

2. Whether the trial Judge did not misconceive the case and misdirected himself when he held that the Committee for Defence of the Rule of Law is a faceless society?

3. Whether having regard to the fact and evidence as well as the entire proceedings of the investigation panel, the Plaintiff/Respondent could be said to have been denied fair hearing”?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

ERROR OR MISDIRECTION IN JUDGMENT – WHETHER EVERY ERROR OR MISDIRECTION WILL LEAD TO THE REVERSAL OF THE JUDGMENT

“It is not every error or misdirection that will lead to a reversal of the judgment of a court. It is only where the error or misdirection affected the judgment in a way that is crucial to the decision that the judgment will be reversed. See Egbunike V. African Continental Bank Ltd(1995) 2 NWLR (375) 34, 56. PER J.E. EKANEM, JCA

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF A STATE – STATUS OF THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF A STATE

“It follows therefore that the Attorney-General of a State is a corporation sole recognized by the Constitution and the law of the land as having a personality which is distinct from the separate personality of the individual holder for the time being of that office. See Carlen (Nig) Ltd V. University of Jos (1994) 1 NWLR (323) 631, 656 and Attorney-General of The Federation V. All Nigeria Peoples Party (2004) 114 LRCN 2671, 2687-2688. The office acts through the natural person who holds that office for the time being or a person delegated by him in respect of a particular function that can be delegated. See Attorney-General of Kaduna State V. Hassan (1985) 2 NWLR (8) 483”. PER J.E. EKANEM, JCA.

FAIR HEARING – WHAT DOES FAIR HEARING ENTAIL?

“Fair hearing, it must be stated, involves not only the twin pillars of justice – audi alterem partem and nemo judex in causa sua but also, in its broad sense, what is not only right and fair to all concerned but also seems to be so. See Etim V. Registered Trustees Of Presbyterian Church Of Nigeria (2004) 11 NWLR (883) 79, 92”. PER J.E. EKANEM, JCA.

FAIR HEARING -TEST OF FAIR HEARING

“The ultimate test of fair hearing is the impression of a reasonable person who was present at the trial whether from his observation, justice has been done in the case”. PER J.E. EKANEM, JCA

LEGAL REPRESENTATION – THE LAW PRESUMES LEGAL REPRESENTATION BY A COUNSEL WHERE THE COUNSEL APPEARS FOR A PARTY

“When a counsel appears for a party as did Mr. Adebayo Shittu, the law presumes that he was duly briefed by those he claims to represent. See Shona – Jackson Ltd V. Omega Air Ltd (2006) 1 NWLR (960) 1, 34. However, the presumption is rebuttable and this arises only when there is clear evidence from the client concerned that counsel was not instructed to appear for him or was debriefed. See Buhari v. Yabo (2006) 17 NWLR (1007) 162, 177”. PER J.E. EKANEM, JCA

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

1. Constitution of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)

2. Interpretation Act Cap 123 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT