MOHAMMED JSC (Delivering the Lead judgment on February 17, 2012): The action that gave rise to the present appeal number SC.281/2010 was brought by originating summons filed on 6 May 2009 at the Federal High Court, Ilorin by Honourable Justice Raliat Elelu-Habeeb. as me plaintiff against the National Judicial Council, the Hon. Attorney-General of the Federation, the Honourable Attorney-General of Kwara State and the House of Assembly of Kwara State as defendants. The originating summons submitted two questions for determination followed by a request of 5 distinct reliefs from the trial court. The questions for determination are:

1. “Whether by the combined interpretation of section 153( 1 )(I) Paragraph 21 (a) of the 3rd Schedule and section 271 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1 999. The 3rd defendant had the power to initiate or carry out any exercise of disciplinary control and or proceedings on the plaintiff in the exercise of powers, duties and obligation as occupier of the office of the Chief Judge of Kwara State.

2. Whether the letter of 3rd defendant dated 4 May 2009 inviting the plaintiff to disciplinary proceeding in matters relating to, connected with, and arising from me exercise of her functions as the Chief Judge of Kwara State does not amount to exercising the powers of the 1st defendant under section 153, 3rd Schedule, part 1, Paragraph 21 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. 1999.

While the reliefs sought are as follows:
1. “Declaration that by a combined interpretation of sections 4, 1 53. 292 and paragraphs 20- 2 1 or the 3rd Schedule, part 1 of the Constitution, it is only the 1st defendant that has the exclusive  power and authority to query, command, order or inquire into any complaint against the plaintiff arising from or connected with the performance of her functions as a judicial officer and in her office as the Chief Judge of Kwara State or recommend to me Governor tier removal as Chief Judge of Kwara State.

2. A declaration that the letter of the Kwara State House of Assembly dated 4 May 2009 is in breach and violation of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, in so far as it relates to, connected with the plaintiff in exercise of her functions in the office of the Chief Judge of Kwara State and therefore null and void.

3. an order setting aside, nullifying and putting away the decision of the 3rd and 4th defendants (Kwara State House of Assembly contained in the 3rd defendant’s letter dated 4 May 2009 and any other steps taken thereon in so far as it relates to the office of the plaintiff, as the Chief Judge of Kwara State, the same being inconsistent with sections 153.197.271(2; of the 3rd Schedule of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.

4. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants particularly the 2nd defendant and the Government of Kwara State by themselves, through their officers, privies or any other persons deriving power, command, authority, instruction or directives from any of the defendants from acting or relying on. or continuing to rely on. etc. implement, give effect to or do anything to the prejudice of the plaintiff based on the decision contained in the letter dated 4 May 2009 in so far as the decision is related to the office of the plaintiff as the Chief Judge of Kwara State.

5. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from acting on the decision arising from and connected with the 3rd defendant’s letter dated 4 May 2009 and from taking any action, act, decision, conclusion, directive, command and such other deeds geared towards the office of the plaintiff or doing anything which may have the effect of enforcing, continuing to give effect to, implement, or finally putting into effect, the conclusions and decision of the Kwara State House of Assembly.”

Although there were preliminary objections raised by the 2nd and 3rd respondents to the competence of the plaintiff’s action on various grounds touching on the jurisdiction of the trial court to entertain and determine the action, the learned trial mage decided to hear the preliminary objections together with the substantive action.

It is observed that all the defendants/respondents to the plaintiffs originating summons except the 1st defendant/respondent raised objections to the competence of the trial Federal High Court to adjudicate on the matter having regard to the fact that the complaint Of the plaintiff was against the executive and legislative decisions of the Kwara State Government with no allegation against the Federal Government or any of its agencies.

After hearing the parties on the preliminary objections and the plaintiff’s claims on the merit on the various affidavits, further Affidavits, counter-affidavits filed by the parties in support of their respective stand on the issues raised in the preliminary objections and the originating Summons, the learned trial judge in the judgment of the that court delivered on 23 July 2009, overruled the preliminary objections by dismissing them in holding mat taking into consideration that the case of the plaintiff involves the interpretation of the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999,  that court was conferred with jurisdiction to hear and Determine the action.

To be continued