In the High Court of Benue State, O.P. Ulegede, Esq. and A.U. Abah, Esq. respectively the first and second Respondents in this appeal, who were legal practitioners employed at the material time, respectively, as Chief Legal Officer and Principal Legal Officer in the Ministry of Justice of the Benue State (the State) sued the 8 Appellants, the Military Administrator of the State and other agencies and functionaries of the State, claiming in the main, a declaration that their several purported retirement were premature malafide, improper, unconstitutional, null and void, a declaration that the purported retirement of the Respondents was not done or purported to be done under Decree No. 17 of 1984 or other law applicable to the contract of employment of the Respondents, some consequential relief’s, and certain sums of money which were alleged to have accrued and were due and payable to them.

Initially the case came before Idoko, (C.J, Benue State) Upon a point being taken in limine to the jurisdiction of the High Court to try the suit Idoko, C J struck out the declaratory relief’s sought on the ground that by virtue of the Public Officers (Special Provisions) Decree No. 17 of 1984 (cap. 381 LFN 1990) the High Court had no jurisdiction to grant those declarations. The Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeal which allowed the appeal, set aside the decision of Idoko, C J, and ordered that the case should proceed before another Judge upon a statement of defence to be filed by the present Appellants (then Respondents).

The rehearing came before Ikongbe, J (as he then was). At the rehearing the parties amended their pleadings. The Appellants filed a joint Statement of Defence. At the trial, Appellants as Defendants did not lead any evidence in support of their contention that parties were retired under the provisions of the Public Officers (Special Provisions) Decree. After the conclusion of evidence and addresses of counsel, and the parties asked to submit written addresses and the case had been adjourned for judgment the learned trial judge suo motu raised issue of his jurisdiction and requested counsel to address him on the issue.

Plaintiffs/Respondents in their written address contended that the issue of Jurisdiction could not be raised again, having been determined by the Court of Appeal in the Judgment dated 22/2/96 as there has been no appeal against that Judgment.

It was held that the Court had no jurisdiction to hear the action of Plaintiffs/Respondents and thereby dismissed the action and the claim for wrongful and unlawful retirement and libel.

Plaintiffs/Respondents appealed again to the Court of Appeal. The Appeal was allowed. Dissatisfied with the Court of Appeal’s Judgment the Defendants/Appellants appealed to the Supreme Court.