LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CIVIL PROCEDURE — Jurisdiction — Ouster of Jurisdiction under Public Officers (Special Provisions) Decree No. 17 of 1984 — Reference to Decree in Letter Not Conclusive
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
The reference or non-reference to Decree No. 17 of 1984 in the instrument terminating the appointment of a public officer is not conclusive. What is decisive is evidence that the decision was taken by the appropriate authority.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Iguh, JSC, in NEPA v. Ososanya & Ors (2004) NLC-172002(SC) at p. 10; Paras B–C.
"The reference or non-reference to Decree No. 17 of 1984 in the instrument terminating the appointment of a public officer or removing him from office is not conclusive on the question of whether the act of termination or dismissal had indeed been carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Decree. What is decisive is that there must be evidence to satisfy the court that the decision to terminate or dismiss the public officer was taken by the appropriate authority."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Mention or omission of the Decree in the dismissal letter is not conclusive proof of compliance or non-compliance. The decisive factor is evidence that the appropriate authority made the decision. The principle applies to public officers’ employment under Decree No. 17 of 1984. The court must examine substance, not form. The letter’s wording does not determine jurisdiction; actual authority does.
