Effect of Dismissal of an Employee under a Non-Existing Law/Decree

CASE TITLE:  Adah v. Gberkon & Anor (2022) LPELR-56810(CA)

JUDGMENT DATE: 3RD FEBRUARY, 2022

PRACTICE AREA: LABOUR LAW.

LEAD JUDGMENT: IGNATIUS IGWE AGUBE, J.C.A.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION:

This appeal borders on wrongful dismissal.

FACTS:

This appeal is against the ruling of the High Court of Benue State sitting in Makurdi and delivered on the 17TH day of April, 2002.

The summary of the Appellant’s case is that in 1978, he was employed as an Executive Officer (Accounts) under the Benue State Government and his appointment was thereafter confirmed in 1980 where he later rose to the rank of a Chief Executive Officer (Accounts) on Grade Level 13. He was then transferred to the Bureau of Lands and Survey as an Accountant where he later became the Head of Department of Finance in the Bureau.

According to the Appellant, in 1998, the Military Administrator of Benue State set up a Judicial Commission of Inquiry to investigate the activities of the Bureau and in the cause of the investigation, the Commission found him to be involved in an alleged malpractice and recommended him to be dismissed therefor. It was his case that he challenged the purported dismissal at the Benue State High Court and sought for the following reliefs:

1. An order of Court quashing the report of the Bureau of Lands and Survey Judicial Commission of Inquiry and the Government decisions on it as it affected the Applicant.

2. An order of Court quashing the letter referenced no. 269/S/Vol.1/19 purporting to dismiss the Applicant from service and to declare the purported dismissal as null and void.

3. An order of Court that the Applicant has been a Chief Finance Officer in Civil Service of Benue State and still remains so; a fortiori, an order of Court that he is entitled to all the rights, privileges and benefits attaching to that office including his total emoluments.

4. An order of Perpetual Injunction restraining the Respondents, the Benue State Government or any of her agents, servants or privies acting through her in whatsoever capacity from interfering with the contract of his employment.

After considering the case for both parties, the trial Court dismissed the case of the appellant on the ground that the dismissal was in accordance with the provision of Decree No.17 of 1983.

Dissatisfied with the decision, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:

 The appeal was determined on the following issues:

1. Whether the dismissal of the Appellant by the Respondents can be sustained under Decree No.17 of 1983 and or Decree No.17 of 1984 (Cap. 381 LFN 1990) in the circumstances of this case?

2. Whether the principle of law that he who does an act through another is deemed in law to do it himself is applicable to Decree No.17 of 1983 (Cap. 381 LFN 1990) which is a special legislation giving specific powers to specific person(s) exercisable in strict and specific manner, which was not complied with by the Respondents in dismissing the Appellant?

DECISION/HELD:

The Court of Appeal held that the appeal was meritorious and it was thereby allowed. The judgment of the trial Court was set aside. Consequently, all the reliefs sought by the Appellant in the trial Court were granted.

RATIOS:

• ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – DELEGATION OF POWER: Doctrine of delegation of power; whether same is applicable to Decree No. 17 of 1983
• LABOUR LAW – DISMISSAL OF AN EMPLOYEE: Effect of dismissal under a non-existing law/decree
• LABOUR LAW – DISMISSAL OF A PUBLIC OFFICER: Appropriate authority to terminate appointment of public officer under the Public Officers (Special Provision) Act, 1990; need for evidence of authorization to any other person