n Compulaw - 1st Indigenous Digital Law Library
Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

Lafia Local Govt. Vs. Gov. Nasarawa State (2012) CLR 7(b) (SC)

Judgement delivered on July 6th 2012

Brief

  • Cross appeal
  • Evaluation of evidence
  • Limitation law
  • Preliminary objection

Facts

The respondents were employed by the Nasarawa State Local Government Service Commission and deployed to Lafia Local government council.

In 1999, the Governor of Nasarawa State issued a policy statement wherein he directed all unified Local Government staff serving in the various Local Government Councils other than their councils of origin to relocate to their Local Government Councils on their existing ranks and status. Staff of various councils who were not of Nasarawa State origin were directed to remain in the councils where they were working.

In compliance with the policy statement, Lafia Local Government Council set up a screening committee to screen its staff, (i.e. the respondents and some others). The screening committee identified the respondents as indigenes of Nasarawa Eggon Local Government Council. Acting on the screening Committee's Report, the respondents were deployed from Lafia Local Government Council to Nasarawa Eggon Local Government Council. Nasarawa Eggon Local Government Council refused to accept the respondents.

The respondents were of the view that the policy statement of the Governor was a breach of their fundamental rights entrenched in the Constitution. They applied to the High Court for the enforcement of their fundamental rights and as applicants asked for the following reliefs:

  • 1
    A declaration that the Nasarawa State Government policy that all theunified staff of Local Government councils in Nasarawa State should be deployed to their Local Government Councils of origin is unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect whatsoever.
  • 2
    An order quashing or nullifying the Nasarawa State Government policy that all the unified staff of Local government Councils in Nasarawa State should be deployed to their Local Government Councils of origins for being unconstitutional, as same is contrary to the provisions of Section 42 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
  • 3
    An Order that the decision of the 3rd respondent disqualifying the applicants as indigenes of Lafia Local Government Council on the grounds that the applicants or their parents have not been living in Lafia Local Government Area before 1925 is unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect whatsoever.
  • 4
    A declaration of the court that the applicants are indigenes of Lafia Local Government Area and are entitled to be re-absorbed in their places of work with full payment of their arrears of salaries and/or emoluments or other benefits.
  • 5
    A perpetual injunction restraining the respondents, their agents or servants from implementing the deployment policy of Nasarawa State Government that all unified staff of Local Government Councils in the State be re-deployed to their Local Government Councils of origin.

Maina. J, of the Lafia High Court, Nasarawa State presided. Trial was on affidavits and documentary evidence. Dismissing the respondents'/applicants application, the learned trial Judge had this to say:

  • "... The applicants having failed to satisfy the court by evidence that they are indeed indigenes of Lafia Local Government Area, I have no cause to declare them to be so and this being the crux of this application, other accessory claims or relief cannot be considered by the court………with the failure to establish even a single applicant's indigenous claim of Lafia Local Government Area, the applicants' claims fail and are accordingly dismissed."

Dissatisfied with the Ruling, the respondents lodged an appeal. The appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal, Jos Division: that court resolved all the issues in favour of the respondents. Allowed the appeal, and set aside the judgment of Maina, J, delivered on the 19th day of June, 2001. This appeal is against that judgment.

Issues

  • 1
    Whether the Court of Appeal was right when it dismissed the preliminary...
    • Read More