Background
This case arose from a civil action initiated against Bola Tinubu, then the Governor of Lagos State, by I.M.B. Securities Plc. The action was based on a loan guarantee by Tinubu before he assumed the governorship.
Initially, the plaintiff claimed N2.5 million from Tinubu, and following several procedural motions regarding the writ of summons, the Court of Appeal adjourned the case sine die, pending Tinubu's vacating of his office, in reliance on Section 308 of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria, which grants immunity during the term of a Governor.
Issues
The central issue addressed in this appeal was whether the Court of Appeal's decision to adjourn the case until after Tinubu vacated his office was appropriate under Section 308(1)(a) of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi
The Supreme Court held that Section 308(1)(a) of the 1999 Constitution clearly prohibits the continuation of civil and criminal proceedings against any person holding certain public offices, including that of Governor. The Court emphasized that the prohibition encompasses proceedings initiated prior to taking office and clarifies that such immunity cannot be waived.
Court Findings
1. The Court held that the appeal constituted a continuation of the civil action, thus falling under the scope of Section 308(1)(a). Therefore, no appeal could proceed while Tinubu remained in office.
2. The Court found that since the claims against Tinubu were based on personal guarantees made before his election, they could not be continued once he assumed office.
3. The decision of the Court of Appeal to adjourn the case sine die was adequate under the circumstances; however, the Supreme Court modified it by substituting a striking out of the appeal instead.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court ruled that the immunity provided under Section 308(1)(a) applied, and thus the action against Tinubu could not continue during his tenure as Governor. The appeal was dismissed, and the previous order of the Court of Appeal was set aside in favor of striking out the interlocutory appeal.
Significance
This ruling underscored the constitutional principle that public officers, while in office, should be insulated from civil actions that might disrupt their duties. It clarified that parties cannot continue actions against such officials during their period in office, maintaining the integrity of governance and allowing public officials to perform their functions without legal encumbrances.