LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CIVIL PROCEDURE — Jurisdiction — Ouster of Jurisdiction under Public Officers (Special Provisions) Decree No. 17 of 1984 — Consequence of Establishing Compliance
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Once it is established that the appropriate authority or its delegate acted under Decree No. 17 of 1984 or that the procedure conforms strictly with the Decree, that ipso facto puts an end to the matter. The court is precluded from going into the validity of the action.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Iguh, JSC, in NEPA v. Ososanya & Ors (2004) NLC-172002(SC) at p. 10; Paras A–B.
"Once it is established that the appropriate authority or its delegate acted under Decree No. 17 of 1984 in a particular case or that the procedure adopted in putting an end to the services of a public officer conforms strictly with the provisions of the Decree, that ipso facto puts an end to the matter as no other thing should be enquired into. In such circumstance, the court is precluded from going into the question of the validity of the action."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Proof of compliance with Decree No. 17 of 1984 ends the matter before the court. The court cannot inquire into the validity of the dismissal or termination. The principle applies to public officers’ employment under the Decree. The rule ousts court jurisdiction once compliance is established. The court’s role ends at determining compliance.
