KATTO V. CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA

• Pages: 736-756

736



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES [1991] 2 N.S.C.C.

KATTO V. CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA

FRANCIS ADESEGUN KATTO

V.

CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

UWAIS,



J.S.C.

KAWU,



J.S.C.

A KPATA ,



J.S.C.

OMO,



J.S.C.

BABALAKIN,



J.S.C.

13th December, 1991.

APPELLANT

RESPONDENT

APPEAL No. SC.159/1989.

11

21

Administration of justice -

Court failing to act on admissible and credible evidence

produced before it - Propriety of

Appeals

.

- The Court of Appeal raising issue suo motu and basingdecision on it - Conditions

precedent thereto - Effect of failure to so fulfil - Issues for determination - Need to be

given fair hearing and consideration when properly raised - Notice of appeal -

Irregularity in - Failure by the appellant to state specifically the nature of relief sought

- Whether can be waived by the respondent taking steps in the action, e.g. by filing the

respondent's brief or argument - Effect of such waiver.

Evidence - Need for court to act on admissible and credible evidence before it - Decisions

not to be based on evidence not made available before the court.

Interpretation and Construction -

Public Officers (Special Provisions) Act, cap. 381, Laws

of the Federation, 1990, section 4(2) - Appropriate authority' thereunder - How

construed - Order 3 Rule 2(1), Court of Appeal Rules, 1981 - Construction of

Judgment -

Order by the Court of Appeal - Not limited by reliefs specifically sought by

parties - Order depends on merits of complaints - Failure to specify the exact nature of

the relief sought - Whether will preclude the court from granting the party the relief

sought.

Legislation

Public Officers (Special Provisions) Act, S.4(2) - Appropriate authority'

thereunder defined - Order 3 Rule 2(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 1981 -

Construction of

Practice and Procedure -

Pleadings - Essence of - Effect of evidence not pleaded - Court

raising an issue silo mote and basing decision on it without calling for address on it -

Propriety of - Whether vitiates the decision thereby arrived at.

Words and Phrases - 'Shall' - Meanings

of in statutes.

31

3:

41

4

KATTO V. CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA



737

ISSUES:

1.

Who is the "appropriate authority" to terminate or authorise the termination of

an appointment under the Public Officers' (Special Provisions) Decree No.17

5



of 1984?

2.

How may the word "Shall" be construed in a statute?

3.

Whether an appeal would be dismissed because of the failure of an appellant

to insert in the Notice of Appeal the nature of the relief sought?

10

FACTS:

The plaintiff/appellant was employed as a clerk on the 8th of April, 1968 by the

defendant bank, Central Bank of Nigeria. By 1st January, 1982, he had risen to

the position of a Senior Manager on Grade Level 13 on a salary of N13,600.00 per

annum at the time. On completion of fifteen years of service, he was awarded a

15 certificate of meritorious service dated 28th December, 1983. About a year and

half later, that is, on 1st June, 1984, he was served with a letter of termination of

appointment for no apparent reason. When all representations to appropriate

quarters to get him reinstated yielded no favourable result, he instituted this action

at the High Court of Niger State claiming, inter alia, a declaration that the defen-

20 dant's Bank purported termination of his appointment was wrong in law, null and

void and of no effect; and an order on the defendant to reinstate him to his former

position before the wrongful termination with all necessary entitlements that would

have accrued to him had he not been so wrongly terminated.

It was the main defence of the Central Bank of Nigeria at the High Court, by way

25 of oral submission by its counsel, that the court had no jurisdiction to entertain the

action because, according to it, the Public Officers (Special Provisions) Decree,

No.17 of 1984 empowered it to dismiss or remove its officers or employees, and

that the Federal Military Government (Supremacy and Enforcement of Powers),

Decree 1984 and the Public Officers (Special Provisions) Decree No.17 of 1984

30 ousted the jurisdiction of the court.

The trial court, after hearing evidence, and counsel on behalf of the parties,

found for the plaintiff/appellant by declaring the termination of his appointment null

and void, reinstated him, and awarded damages for defamation held to have arisen

by the alleged publication of the letter of termination to other bank officials,

35 including the Bank of the North. On appeal to the Court of Appeal, the Court of

Appeal set aside the judgment of the High Court solely on the ground, which it

raised suo motu that the jurisdiction of the trial court was ousted by the provisions

of Decree No.17 of 1984 - the Public Officers (Special Provisions) Decree. The

Court of Appeal failed to consider all the seven grounds of appeal filed by the

4

0 defendant/respondent and the fourteen issues for determination distilled there-

from.

Dissatisfied with the Court of Appeal's decision both parties appealed against

it. The plaintiff/appellant mainly attacked the decision on the issue of jurisdiction,

and contended that the Court of Appeal was wrong to come to its decision that

45 the High Court lacked jurisdiction when it did not ascertain whether his removal

and termination from office was by the appropriate authority. The defendant/re-

spondent whilst not supporting the decision on that issue, because parties were

not heard on it by the Court of Appeal before the decision was taken, prayed that

the appeal be allowed and a re-hearing ordered also because the several grounds

50 of appeal filed and argued by its counsel were not considered by the Court of

Appeal.