The Presiding Judge, Portharcourt Judicial Division of the National Industrial Court, Hon. Justice Faustina Kola-Olalere has declared the Abia State Civil Service Commission Circular dated August 25, 2011; which purportedly transferred the services of Mrs. Anikwendu from the Abia State Civil Service on ground that she is not an indigene of Abia state as discriminatory, unconstitutional, null and void.
The Court ruled that the purported Abia State Civil Service circular issued to Mrs. Anikwendu’s transfer of service contravened Section 42 of the Constitution of the FRN, 1999.
Justice Kola-Olalere held that Mrs. Anikwendu was not properly disengaged from the service of the Abia State Civil Service Commission and that the purported disengagement was not in compliance with the Abia State Government Public Service Rules.
From facts, the claimant, Mrs. Anikwendu, had contended that his employment was unlawfully determined and that the Abia State Universal Basic Education Board (ASUBEB), which issued the letter of disengagement, lacked the authority to do so.
The learned counsel to the claimant, Wisdom Chude Esq averred that the Governor of Abia State, the Abia State Civil Service Commission, and 2 others’ action of disengaging his client from employment on the basis that she is a non-indigene is unconstitutional.
Wisdom Chude Esq urged the Court to protect the Constitutional right of Mrs. Anikwendu and to declare the action of the State unconstitutional and to order her reinstatement, including the payment of her arrears of salaries with her other emoluments.
In defense, the Defendants’- Executive Governor of Abia State, Abia State Civil Service Commission, Abia State Universal Basic Education Board (ASUBEB) and Attorney General of Abia State counsel submitted that Mrs. Anikwendu case is barred by the provisions of Abia State Public Officers’ Protection Law, Limitation Law of Abia State and Limitation law of Rivers State 1999, and urged the Court to dismiss the Suit for being stale and incompetent.
In addition, Counsel to the Abia State Government submitted that Mrs Anikwendu cannot anchor her case on any tenuous case of continuing injury because the permanent “damage” of disengagement was done in 2011, and the case was filed in the year 2024.
In opposition, Mrs. Anikwendu’s counsel argued that the statute of limitations will not avail any Defendant who had acted outside the confines and constitutional dictates of his duties, and urged the Court to dismiss the objection for lacking merit.
In a well-considered judgment, the Presiding Judge, Justice Faustina Kola-Olalere dismissed the objection and held that the action of the Executive Governor of Abia State, Abia State Civil Service Commission, Abia State Universal Basic Education Board (ASUBEB) and Attorney General of Abia State are not protected by Limitation Laws cited because they acted outside the colour of their office.
The Court stated that the action of the defendants is prima facie offensive to and contradicts the provisions of section 42 of the Constitution of the FRN, 1999 (As Amended), and did not act in pursuance of the execution of any lawful State policy, duty or authority in issuing the said circular.
Justice Kola-Olalere further held that Mrs. Anikwendu’s employment was laced with statutory flavour; hence, the disengagement of her employment must strictly comply with the provisions of the Abia State Government Public Service Rules.
The Court ruled that the disengagement of Mrs. Anikwendu by the defendants did not comply with the provisions of the Abia State Government Public Service Rules and was accordingly set aside.
Justice Kola-Olalere ruled that Mrs Anikwendu is entitled to be reinstated to her employment with effect from when she was disengaged, with the payment of all her salaries and allowances from the time of her illegal disengagement.
“I hereby order that the defendants shall pay the total judgment sum, including the cost of this action to the claimant within three months from today. If, after three months, the defendants still fail to totally pay the judgment sum, the judgment sum or the balance thereon shall attract annual interest of 15% until the judgment sum or its balance is fully liquidated.” The Court ruled
