This is an appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Owerri Division delivered on the 23rd day of April, 2010. The Appellants were elected by the people of Abia State to serve as Chairmen, Vice-Chairmen and Councilors in the State’s Local Government Councils. The tenure was for a fixed term of three years (3 years). The Appellants assumed office and commenced the work for which they were elected. On the 16th day of June, 2000 the Governor (1st Respondent) dissolved all the Local Government Councils and appointed Caretaker Committees. As at the date of dissolution of the Local Government Councils in Abia State by the 1st Respondent, the Appellants had a residue of 23 (twenty-three) months of tenure as the Appellants were running a 3 (three) years tenure. The Appellants as Plaintiffs aggrieved, on the 12th day of September, 2000 sued the Respondents as Defendants on an Originating Summons claiming amongst others an order compelling, the 1st Defendant/Respondent to reinstate the Plaintiffs as Councilors of Aba South Local Government Council to complete the residues of their respectively tenures. After considering written addresses filed by both sides, the learned trial judge delivered a considered judgment on the 10th of October, 2002 wherein he refused to reinstate the Appellants because their tenure had lapsed by effluxion of time but however, ordered that the Plaintiffs be paid salaries and allowances as Councilors for the unexpired tenure of their office as Councilors. Dissatisfied with the judgment the Plaintiffs/Appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal.
The Court of Appeal found that the Governor of Abia State (the 1st Respondent) was wrong to remove democratically elected Local Government Chairmen and Councilors and replace them with unelected Chairmen and Councilors, and the Chairmen and Councilors removed by the 1st Respondent still had 23 months left to complete their tenure at the time they were removed from office. The Court of Appeal granted all the reliefs of the Appellants except for the relief asking the Court for an order compelling the 1st Defendant/Respondent to reinstate the Plaintiffs/Appellants as Councilors of Aba South Local Government Council to complete the residues of their respectively tenures. The Court of Appeal refused to grant the relief on the ground that it was now impossible to grant as the Appellants said tenure had lapsed by effluxion of time. The Appellants still aggrieved with the decision appealed to the Supreme Court. The sole issue for consideration formulated by the Appellants is:
Whether the lower court was not in error when it failed to make a consequential order, directing, the payment of salaries and allowances to the Appellants, after granting all the Appellants reliefs except relief No. 8, which sought to reinstate them to their offices.
Learned counsel for the Respondents’ adopted the sole issue formulated by the Appellants.
Arguing the appeal, learned counsel for the Appellants observed that it is futile to grant all the declarations in favour of the Appellants without granting any consequential order that would be of benefit to them, since they won the case. He argued that the Court can grant a relief that is incidental necessary to the relief claimed even if such incidental relief had not been expressly claimed. Reliance was placed on Nneji v. Chukwu (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt. 81) 184, (1988) LPELR-2058(SC). Concluding learned counsel urged the Court to make a mandatory order directing the 1st Defendant/Respondent to pay the Appellants 10,451,989.00 (Ten Million, Four Hundred and Fifty-One Thousand, Nine Hundred and Eighty-Nine Naira per year to each of the Appellants in lieu of their reinstatement into office to complete the residue of 23 months of tenure, being their salaries and allowances for the period.
Learned counsel for the Respondent contended that it is misconceived for the Court to order payment and allowances to the Appellants since there is no power in the Courts to grant unclaimed reliefs. He observed that the Court and the court below are not Father Christmas that dole out unclaimed reliefs. Relying Awoniyi v. Amorc (2000) 6 SC (Pt. 1) 103, (2000) LPELR-655(SC); and Akinbobola v. Plisson Fisko (1991) 1 NWLR (Pt. 167) 270, (1991) LPELR-343(SC). Learned counsel observed that since the Court held that the claim of the Appellants had elapsed by effluxion of time the only remedy is to strike out the appeal as monetary compensation cannot possibly follow consequentially from a suit that is academic and spent. He urged the Court to discountenance the Appellants’ arguments in this issue.
First the Court noted that the findings of the Court of Appeal which remain inviolate in the absence of a cross-appeal by the Respondents is that the Governor of Abia State (the 1st respondent) was wrong to remove democratically elected Local Government Chairmen and Councilors and replace them with unelected Chairmen and Councilors, and the Chairmen and Councilors removed by the 1st Respondent still had 23 months left to complete their tenure at the time they were removed from office.
In determining the appeal, the Court held that on a careful reading of Section 7(1) of the Constitution of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria it becomes clear that it is the duty of the Governor to ensure that the system of Local Government continues unhindered. The Court further held that dissolving Local Government Councils and replacing them with Caretaker Committee amounts to the Governor acting on his whim and fancies, unknown to our laws, clearly illegal. The Court stated that it is the duty of the Governor to ensure their existence rather than being responsible for destroying them. The Court held that it amounts to Executive recklessness for the 1st Respondent to remove from office democratically elected Chairmen, and Councilors and replace them with unelected Chairmen and Councilors under whatever guise. The Court found the findings of the Court of Appeal to be correct and that such an act by the 1st Respondent should on no account be ever contemplated. That it is illegal, and wrong.
The Court went further to consider whether the Appellants are entitled to be paid their salaries and allowance etc. On this the Court noted that all Courts in the land are courts of Law and Equity. The Court stated further that elected persons for a fixed term of years can only be removed from office if found to be in breach of the rules governing the office or for infamous conduct and if such a person is removed from office in a manner the Court finds to be wrong he shall be entitled to all his entitlement, to wit: salaries, allowances etc. The Court stated that the Court of equity will not allow the executive to get away with wrongful acts rather it would call the executive to order and ensure that justice is not only done but seen to be done.
The Court finally considered the question whether the Court can give a consequential order that the Appellant’s entitlements be paid?
In deciding this question, the Court stated that consequential means following as a result of inference, following or resulting indirectly. A consequential order the Court stated is an order that gives effect to a judgment. It gives meaning to the judgment. It is traceable or following from the judgment prayed for and made consequent upon the reliefs claimed by the plaintiff. The Court stated further that a consequential order must be incidental and flow directly and naturally from reliefs claimed. That it is an offshoot of the main claim and it owes its existence to the main claim. It gives effect to the judgment already given. See Obayabona v. Obazee (1972) 5 SC p. 247, (1972) LPELR-2159(SC).
In this case the Court stated that the Appellants’ salaries flows naturally from the relief which sought reinstatement as a result of wrongful termination and that a consequential order can in the circumstances of this case be made to order the payment of the Appellants’ salaries for the residue of 23 months. The Court cited Section 22 of the Supreme Court Act which reveals unlimited power available to the Court to do substantial justice in deserving cases. The Court held that a consequential relief can be granted by the Court in the interest of justice even where such has not been specifically claimed. The Court stated that equity regards as done that which ought to have been done and since they were illegally removed as elected officials of the Local Government Councils, their entitlements should be paid to them.
On the whole, the Court held that in the absence of a cross-appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal that the appellants were wrongly removed from office, the Appellants are entitled to be paid all their outstanding salaries, allowances etc for 23 months. For the avoidance of doubt it was ordered that the 1st Respondent pays immediately to all the Appellants’ their Salaries, allowances for 23 months. The appeal was allowed.
•Edited by LawPavilion
LawPavilion Citation: (2014) LPELR-23276(SC)
