Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

NEPA V. Eze (2001) CLR 2(m) (CA)

Brief

  • Ground of appeal
  • Interlocutory decision
  • Fair hearing

Facts

The facts of the present case is that the respondent was employed by the appellant, the National Electric Power Authority (NEPA) as the Manager in charge of Distributions, Calabar Dis¬trict Office of the appellant. Sometime in March 1996, there was a report that some appellant's heavy equipment at the appellant's sub-station, opposite NNPC gate, Calabar, was stolen. The respondent investigated the matter but later, the appel¬lant appointed an Ad Hoc Disciplinary Committee, which inquired into the matter at the end of which, it recommended the termination of the respondent's appoint¬ment and as a result of this recommendation, the appellant terminated the re¬spondent's appointment.

It is as a result of this that the respondent filed an action at the Federal High Court, Calabar, seeking the following reliefs: -

Appellant appealed.

  • 1.
    An order of certiorari quashing the proceedings and findings of the Ad Hoc Disciplinary Committee set up by the respondent and headed by Engr J. I. Ahamiaje and the decision of the respondent terminating the appointment of the applicant based on the said findings and recommendations the same being unconstitutional, null and void and being in excess of the power and jurisdictions of the committee and the respondent and also a violation of the appli¬cant's right to a fair hearing.
  • 2.
    PERPETUAL INJUNCTION restraining the respondent by himself or through his agents, servants or any other person(s) otherwise howsoever described from enforcing or otherwise acting on the proceedings and findings of the Ad Hoc Disciplinary Committee and on the decision of the Management of the respondent termi¬nating applicant's appointment.
  • 3.
    AND any consequential order(s) that the Honourable court may deem fit to make in the circumstances".

There is 28-paragraph affidavit in support of the application and sworn to by the respondent. The appellant filed a counter-affidavit and both parties exhib¬ited some documents in support of their case.

When the application came up for hearing on 29/7/97, the respondent's counsel argued his application and at the instance of the appellant's counsel, the matter was adjourned to 7/8/97, the appellant's counsel sent a letter to the court praying for an adjournment on the ground of ill health. The learned trial judge refused the application and thereupon adjourned the matter to 30/9/99 for judgment.

It was at this stage that the appellant's counsel filed a motion on notice on 30/9/99, praying the court to suspend the delivery of the judgment and to permit the appellant's counsel to make his reply.

Dissatisfied with the ruling the appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal, Lagos.

Unhappy and dissatisfied with the said ruling, the appellant has appealed to this court.

Issues

  • Whether the grounds of appeal submitted for consideration in the notice of...
Read More