CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION IMO STATE & ANOR. V. GODWIN ...

hereby quashed:
(b) Whether the court was right to suo motu extend
the life of an application which was brought out of
time with out any application for extension of time?
(c) Whether the trial court was right in holding that
the Respondent, who had been retired on grounds
of public interest under the pension Act, be
restored to his office and for all his emolument to
be paid.
On his own part, the Respondent has in the Brief
thereof (dated l4/7/06) filed on 18/7/06, inter alia,
raised a preliminary objection challenging the
competence of the appeal on the ground that it
"was not brought within time and is an abuse of the
process of this Honourable court".
The Respondent has also identified 3 issues therein
to wit:
"(a) whether the trial court was not right in holding
that the certiorari was applicable in his case.
(b) Whether the trial court was not right in
regularizing the application before it.
(c) Whether the order to pay Respondent's unpaid
emoluments was not proper.
In response to the Respondent's brief, the Applicant
filed a Reply Brief (dated 28/7/06) on 10/8/06. I
have deemed it expedient to first deal with the
issue of preliminary objection raised by the
Respondent in the Brief thereof and replied thereto
in the Appellant Reply Brief in question.
As it were, the argument of the learned senior
counsel on the preliminary objection is predicated
on the grounds that:
13