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

This issue is said to have been distilled from ground
3 of the Appellants grounds of appeal. It raises the
question of whether the learned trial judge was
right in holding that the Respondent be restored to
his office and paid all his emoluments in spite of his
having been retired by the Appellant.
The argument of the Appellants on this issue is,
inter alia, to the effect that (i) the Respondent did
not challenge or protest his notice of retirement
vide Exhibit AG8; ii) that there is nothing in either
Exhibits AG6 or AG8 to imply that the Respondent's
retirement was as a result of any disciplinary
action; thus rendering chapter 4 of the Imo State
Civil Service Rules, 1979, in applicable to the
instant case; iii) that, rather the Respondent failed
to comply with chapter 11 of the Civil Service Rules
(supra); iv) that the term "public interest" is not
defined by the pensions Act, thus the definition of
similar term as contained in the Civil Service Rules
(supra) "can not be imported into the pensions
Act"; that its trite law that meanings can not be
read into a document when the wordings thereof
are clear and unambiguous. The Appellants learned
counsel thus urged on the court to answer issue No
3 in the negative, reverse the order of the court
below that the Respondent be restored to his office
and paid all emoluments due thereto.
On his own part, the Respondents learned senior
counsel submitted, inter alia, on issue No 3 that
ground 3 covered under this issue is with out any
merit.
Reference was made to the lower court's ruling
31