CaseLaw
Osazuwa V. Edo State CSC (1999) CLR 3(a) (CA)
Brief
Facts
The plaintiff was, at the all times material to the suit, employed as a Higher Executive officer (Accounts) in the civil service of Edo State of Nigeria. On 6th May, 1988 he was dismissed from the services of Edo State and took out a writ of summons through an attorney, Solomon Igbinosun, against the defendants claiming declaration that plaintiff’s dismissal was unlawful and unconstitutional and therefore wants a return to status quo ante and an injunction restraining the defendants from enforcing the said letter of dismissal.
Pleadings were ordered filed and exchanged. The issue raised in the pleadings were duly tried. The plaintiff, through his attorney, testified and tendered a number of documents in support of his case. On the other hand, a witness was called in support of the defence. The learned trial judge, Edokpayi, J. In a considered and reserved judgment, concluded thus: - “... I come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has established his claims in paragraph 16(c) of his amended statement of claim...fully and proved his paragraph 16 (d) partially. Consequently, it is herein declared (1) that the dismissal of the plaintiff, Mr. R. U. Osazuwa, by the 1st defendant contained in the letter dated 6th May, 1988 (Exhibit E) after he had been served with the letter dated 5th January, 1987 (Exhibit B) on the grounds of fraud following reports of the committee set up to investigate the allegation of fraud against him is null and void; (2) that the purported trial of the plaintiff, namely, Mr. R. U. Osazuwa, by the 1st defendant on allegation of fraud is unconstitutional in that it violates the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria,1979 which vested judicial powers of the Federation in courts; (3) that the 1st defendant was not competent to act as it did in removing the said plaintiff, Mr. Osazuwa, on the allegation founded on crime without complying with the civil service rules on the matter and without subjecting these allegations of fraud to the rest of court of law, and so, the 1st defendant acted without jurisdiction. In addition, the defendants, their agents, or/or privies are restrained from carrying out the order of the dismissal served on the plaintiff, Mr. R. U. Osazuwa in the letter dated 6th May, 1988.”
In a volte-face, the learned trial judge threw away all the plaintiff’s gains already set out in the judgment when he went further to say: - “In view of the evidence of the plaintiff’s Attorney and only witness that the plaintiff is now unemployable because of his state of health. I am unable to reason that an order of reinstatement in a situation in which the plaintiff is unemployable because of his bad state of health would be an order knowingly made in vain since the plaintiff will not be available or in a position or able to take advantage of that order. Reinstatement can only be ordered when the plaintiff has the capacity and capability and health to discharge the duties of the office to which he is seeking to be reinstated. Making an order of reinstatement of the plaintiff who is, on his own showing, unemployable will be an exercise in futility and make such impotent court a mockery.”
The plaintiff was thoroughly dissatisfied with judgment of the learned trial judge who suddenly abandoned his role of the tender of the rope and jumped into the arena. The plaintiff appealed against it.