Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

IGP V. Aigbiremolen (1999) CLR 12(n) (CA)

Brief

  • Discontinuation of action (Proper order to make)
  • Exclusive jurisdiction of Fed. High Ct. over Fed Govt. & Its agencies
  • Striking out & Dismissal (Distinction between)
  • Issues of jurisdiction

Facts

Respondent was compulsory retired from the police with effect from 23rd September, 1993 and this was communicated to him in a dated 15th October, 1993. It was alleged that the respondent was queried for acts of misconduct on 23rd March, 1992 and he refused to defend himself against any of the allegations which were considered along with the query served in him. The respondent was found culpable and was therefore compulsory retired from the force under Decree No. 17 of 1984.

Appellant appealed that the decision to compulsorily retire him be reversed but his request was rejected. H then instituted an action at the High Court praying the court for a declaration that his compulsory retirement as Superintendent of Police from the Nigeria Police Force and the rejection of his appeals for reinstatement were irregular, unorthodox and of no effect; a declaration that the respondent is still a member of the police force. He also claimed special damages for unpaid salaries and other allowances.

Appellants did not enter any appearance nor file any pleadings in defence of the action.

Respondent filed a motion praying the court to enter judgment in default against the appellants for failure to enter appearance and or file pleadings. The motion was subsequently moved and granted as prayed.

The court held that the respondent's retirement from the police force was null and void and of no effect: that the respondent was still a member of the Nigeria Police Force and is entitled to his salaries, emoluments and allowance without deductions and he is promotions or in the alternative that he is to be paid the sum of N2.5 million being special damages by way of unpaid salaries, emoluments, allowances and general damages.

Appellants then filed a motion to strike out the action against them for lack of jurisdiction. The trial court on the request of the respondent's counsel dismissed the motion after the failure to turn up on repeated adjourned dates.

The appellants were aggrieved by the judgment and the order dismissing their motion, and appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Issues

  • 1.
    Whether the respondent's claim comes within the matters of which the...
    Read More