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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

or citizens, and having the duty to act judicially or fairly, acts in excess or contravention of their legal authority, an order of certiorari or prohibition would issue. See HART V. MILITARY GOVERNOR RIVERS <strong>STATE</strong> (supra) at 634 pagraphs 10 - 15. Thus, in the light of the above reasoning, my answer to issue No 1 is no doubt in the affirmative. And also hold. ISSUE NO 2: The above issue is said to have been distilled from ground 2 of the Grounds of Appeal. It raises the question of whether the lower court was right 1.o have suo motu extended the time to file the application which was brought out of time without any application for extension of time. Reference was made by learned counsel to Appellants to order 43 of Imo State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1988 which he said was not complied with by the Respondent. See ABDULAAI V. GAPA (1992) 2 LRCN 144 at 159; order 43 Rule 4 (2). MADUKLU V. NKEMDILIM (1962) ALL NLR 587. That, the application having been brought out of time, invalidates the whole proceedings. Ser RE. APPOLLOS UDO (1987) 4 NWLR (part 63) 120. Thus, the application is statute barred; EGBE v. ADEFARASIN (1985) 1 NWLR (part 3) 549. It was further contended that a court should-nor grant any prayer nor asked for by a party in a proceeding. See EKPENYONG V. NYONG (1975) 2 SC 71. The court is urged to thus allow the appeal and 27
dismiss the application for judicial review by way of certiorari inquestion. On his part, the Respondent's learned senior counsel, inter alia submitted that order 22 Rule of Imo State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules (supra) is of general application to all parts of the Rules where in times is fixed for the doing of any act in a proceeding. That, order 43 is not an exception; so also is order 2 which provides that failure to comply with any of the rules is to be treated as an irregularity which the trial court has competence to remedy. See UBA LTD V. NWORA (1978) 11-12 SC 1 at 9-10. That, the act of the trial judge was within his competence under the Rules: the Appellants complaint is thus lacking in merit. The Court urged to thus resolve issue 2 in the affirmative and dismiss the ground two. I have accorded an ample regard upon the submissions of the two learned counsel on issue No 2 and vis-a-vis t re authorities referred to therein. It's instructive that the learned trial judge had in the Ruling thereof dated 08/3/2001 contained in the Record especially from pages 45 - 47 thereof extensively alluded to the submission of learned counsel on the issue of the implication of filing the application on an order of certiorari out of time by the Respondent. References were made to various authorities including OBIORA V. OSELE (1989) 1 NWLR (part 97) 279 at 302 to the effect that - "The point is that the spirit of justice does not reside in Rules of court, in forms and formalities 28
Page 2 and 3: CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION IMO STATE
Page 4 and 5: 2 PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - MISTAKE
Page 6 and 7: 4 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - RIGHT TO FAI
Page 8 and 9: He later in l980 applied for and wa
Page 10 and 11: the form designated for fresh appoi
Page 12 and 13: See pages 2 -5 of the Record. It's
Page 14 and 15: hereby quashed: (b) Whether the cou
Page 16 and 17: counsel who prepared the Notice did
Page 18 and 19: than 2003 is, with due respect no d
Page 20 and 21: that the party was entitled to be h
Page 22 and 23: On the other hand, the submission o
Page 24 and 25: 1st Appellant to communicate the de
Page 26 and 27: prejudice to the powers vested in t
Page 30 and 31: nor in technicalities. These should
Page 32 and 33: This issue is said to have been dis
Page 34 and 35: shield. I think I can not agree mor
Page 36 and 37: And also hold. Hence, in the final
Page 38: E. C. AGUTA (MRS) For Appellants M.

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?