Facts
This appeal arose from a judegment of the Court of Appeal sitting at Ilorin. The Respondent, who was the Plaintiff at the trial court, had his employment with the Appellant terminated after working for over 14 years. Accordingly, the Respondent was paid his severance benefits, but without pension. This informed the filing of the suit at the Federal High Court, Ilorin, via originating summons.
At the trial court, the Respondent claimed that having worked in the Appellant’s employment for more than fourteen years, he was entitled to pension. In his reliefs before the court, the Respondent sought inter alia, a declaration that the action of the Appellant in denying his entitlement to pension as stated in in the letter of termination, is unconstitutional, illegal, null and void. He also prayed the court for an order compelling the payment of his pension with effect from February 2002. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court held that the Respondent was not entitled to the reliefs and consequently dismissed his case. Dissatisfied with the judgement of the trial court, the Respondent successfully appealed the decision at Court of Appeal. The lower court found merit in the Respondent’s appeal, holding that he was unlawfully denied his pension, and ordering the full payment of his entitlements. The court equally regarded the termination of his employment as a retirement, having put in over fourteen years of permanent and pensionable service.
Now displeased with the decision of the Court of Appeal, the Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court on 12 grounds and distilled five issues for determination therefrom. In issue one of its brief of argument, the Appellant raised the issues of the jurisdiction of the trial court to determine the suit, and limitation of action.
Issue for Determination
Based on the issue of jurisdiction distilled by the parties, the Supreme Court identified one issue for determination, to wit:
Whether the West African Examinations Council (the Appellant) is an agency of the Federal Government pursuant to the provisions of Section 251 (1)(p), (q) and (r) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).
Arguments
On the issue of jurisdiction, the Appellant argued that the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the suit in the first instance, as it can only assume jurisdiction in matters where any of the parties is the Federal Government or any of its agencies, relying on Section 251(1)(p), (q), and (r) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended). The Appellant argued that in the instant case, it is neither the Federal Government nor an agency of the Federal Government.
In response, the Respondent contended that the Appellant is an agency of the Federal Government by virtue of the West African Examinations Council Act, Cap 648, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990. By this enactment, the Federal Government can effectively exercise control over the Appellant and its operations with regard to the conduct of public examinations in Nigeria, particularly in instances where there is a change in the Federal Government’s policy on such examinations. The Respondent drew the attention of the court to the fact that, by Sections 1, 2, 14, and 24 of the West African Examinations Council Act, the Federal Government exercises control over the operations of the Appellant in Nigeria. The Respondent emphasised that it is immaterial whether or not the Federal Government fully, partly, or jointly controls the Appellant with other West African countries. This, according to the Respondent, establishes that the Federal Government is a “co-owner” and active stakeholder in the Appellant, and indeed participates in the Council’s decision-making process.
The Respondent, however, further prayed in the alternative that if the Supreme Court finds that the Appellant is not a Federal Government agency, the Court should invoke the provisions of SECTION 22 OF THE SUPREME COURT ACT and accordingly transfer the case to the National Industrial Court, Akure, which is entertaining employment matters emanating from Ilorin, relying also on SECTION 22 OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT ACT. The latter provides that where the Federal High Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a matter before it, it should not strike it out, but rather transfer it to the appropriate court with jurisdiction.
