ENYI V. B.S.J.S.C. (2025)

Background

The appellant was appointed by the Benue State Judicial Service Commission and served as a magistrate, ultimately becoming Chief Magistrate I. In January 2017, he was notified that he was due for mandatory voluntary retirement at age 60 under the applicable conditions of service. He contended that, as a judicial officer, section 291 of the 1999 Constitution entitled him to remain in office until age 65. The High Court of Benue State dismissed his claim, and the Court of Appeal, Makurdi Division, affirmed that decision. He appealed further to the Supreme Court.

Issues

1. Whether a magistrate appointed to a magistrates’ court is a judicial officer within the meaning of section 318(1) of the Constitution.
2. Whether section 291 of the Constitution, including its tenure and retirement benefits, applies to a magistrate appointed to a magistrates’ court established under state law.
3. Whether the Supreme Court should interfere with the concurrent findings and conclusions of the two lower courts.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the appeal had become academic because the appellant had attained 65 years in 2022 and was 68 years old when judgment was delivered. Even if successful, the appeal could no longer provide the practical relief sought—continued service until age 65.

The Court further held, in any event, that section 291 of the Constitution applies to judicial officers appointed to superior courts of record specified in section 6(5). A magistrates’ court is subordinate to a superior court of record and is not one of the courts specified in section 6(5). Consequently, a magistrate appointed to such a court cannot claim the constitutional tenure prescribed by section 291 on that basis.

Court Findings

The Court treated the appeal as a theoretical or academic exercise and declined to adjudicate an issue that no longer had utilitarian value for the appellant. It held that courts should not expend judicial time determining spent or hypothetical disputes.

The Court also found that the appellant had served for 22 years under conditions of service that differed from those applicable to judicial officers of superior courts of record. His attempt to invoke section 291 to avoid the applicable retirement age of 60 and obtain a five-year extension was described as an abuse of court process.

The Supreme Court additionally held that it would not disturb concurrent findings unless they were perverse, unsupported by the evidence, or had occasioned a miscarriage of justice. The appellant failed to establish any such basis.

Conclusion

The appeal was unanimously dismissed for want of merit. The judgments of the lower courts were upheld, and no order was made as to costs.

Significance

The decision clarifies that section 291 of the 1999 Constitution does not extend to magistrates appointed to subordinate magistrates’ courts merely because they perform judicial functions. It also restates the principles governing academic appeals and the limited circumstances in which the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact and law.