PBL Constitution

Hakim was an immigration officer in JB b4 he was dismissed from his job as a result of a case involving bribery brought against him in december last year. At the trial hakim pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In the trial he was convicted and he was sentences in session court.Hakim then appealed against his sentence to the High Court. The HC reversed the decision by acquiting hakim. He was a free man now. His employer could not accept him anymore as the case was given widely publicity by the media and it tarnished the department’s reputation and image. Despite his acquittal, hakim was issued a show cause letter by the departmet requiring him to justify he should not be dismissed. Hakim replied to the letter giving all his explanations hoping that would relinquish all the blames and prejudices that were hurled at him by the depatyment, but it was to no avail. Hakim was called by his immediate superior to come and explain to him personally a week later that, at his officce. Hakim did not response. On the very next day, hakim receive a letter of dismissal from director of immigration. Hakim filed an application in the high court claiming damage for wrongfull dismissal on the grounds tht
1. the department had failed to comply with the requirements of Article 135(1) n (2) of FC in that he had not been given sufficient opportunity of being heard
2. the dismissal was void and ineffective and as such he was entittled to his job.

The HC agreed with all the grounds of contention given by hakim and duly granted his applications.
The depatment appeals against the HC’s decision to then COA.

So, the case involve~~
The Department v Hakim.