Download PDF
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">REPRESENTATION:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Eze Nwakaeze Esq. appeared with Okoli Joy (Mrs) for the Claimant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">V.O. Ene Esq. appeared with Chioma Egbuniwe (Miss) for the Respondents.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center"><b><u><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The Claimant approached this Honourable Court on 23<sup>rd</sup> day of December, 2013 pursuant to the provisions of Order 22 Rules 1(a), (2), 3(1),(2), 5(2),(3) of the National Industrial Court Rules, 2007, praying the court for the following reliefs:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l11 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">(a)<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">AN ORDER FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW in the following terms, namely:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom: .0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l13 level1 lfo3"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">1.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">DECLARTION</span></b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> that the sanction of suspension from office meted out on the Applicant by the 5<sup>th</sup> Respondent in collusion with the 1<sup>st</sup> – 4<sup>th</sup> Respondents, without appraising the Applicant of any wrong doing and/or afforded chance to confront his accuser and/or hearing from the Applicant prior to the decision finding the Applicant culpable and meting out the disciplinary sanction infringes on Applicant’s right to fair hearing guaranteed under <b>section 36(1) of Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).</b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom: .0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l13 level1 lfo3"><!--[if !supportLists]--><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">2.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></b><!--[endif]--><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">DECLARATION </span></b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">that neither the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> Respondents nor the 3<sup>rd</sup> and 4<sup>th</sup> Respondents is clothed with legal powers to mete out disciplinary sanction on the Applicant under the <b>Institute of Management & Technology Law, Cap 97, Laws of Enugu State, 2004.<o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l13 level1 lfo3"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">3.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">DECLARATION</span></b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">that the Applicant cannot be subjected to disciplinary measure of suspension from office, nay removed from office by the 1<sup>st</sup> – 5<sup>th</sup> Respondents other than by the Council of the 5<sup>th</sup> Respondent in the wise of the combined provisions of <b>sections 29 & 30(1), (3), (5) of Institute of Management & Technology Law, Cap 97, Laws of Enugu State, 2004.</b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height: 107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l13 level1 lfo3"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">4.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">DECLARATION</span></b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> that 1<sup>st</sup>& 2<sup>nd</sup> Respondents’ management trial or inquisition and 3<sup>rd</sup> and 4<sup>th</sup> Respondents’ committee trial or inquisition of the Applicant without appraising him of any charge or wrong-doing, and/or affording him opportunity to defend himself or affording him opportunity to confront his accusers is an travesty of Applicant’s right to fair hearing guaranteed under <b>Section 36(1) of Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended and Article 7 of African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights.</b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height: 107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l13 level1 lfo3"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">5.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">AN ORDER </span></b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">setting aside or expunging from the records all recommendations/indictments/findings/judgments of 1<sup>st</sup>&2<sup>nd</sup>Respondents’ management proceedings of 26<sup>th</sup> November, 2013 and 3<sup>rd</sup> and 4<sup>th</sup> Respondents committee proceedings on the Applicant, including Applicant’s suspension from office contained in the letter dated 26/11/2013.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height: 107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l13 level1 lfo3"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">6.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">AN ORDER OF CERTIORARI</span></b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> compelling the 1<sup>st</sup>& 2<sup>nd</sup> Respondents to bring up for the purpose of being quashed, the proceedings, including the decision of the management meeting of 26<sup>th</sup> November, 2013.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height: 107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l13 level1 lfo3"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">7.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">AN ORDER OF CERTIORARI </span></b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">compelling the 3<sup>rd</sup> and 4<sup>th</sup> Respondents to bring up for the purpose of being quashed, the proceedings of its committee meeting contained in its undated report and forwarded by the 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondent on 22/11/2013.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height: 107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l13 level1 lfo3"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">8.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">PERPETUAL INJUNCTION</span></b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> restraining the 1<sup>st</sup> – 5<sup>th</sup> Respondents from dismissing, terminating or howsoever meting out any disciplinary sanction against the Applicant on the basis of 1<sup>st</sup>& 2<sup>nd</sup> Respondents’ and/or 3<sup>rd</sup>& 4<sup>th</sup> Respondents inquisitions.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height: 107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l13 level1 lfo3"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">9.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">N100,000,000.00</span></b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> (hundred million naira only) payable by the Respondents, jointly and severally being exemplary and general damages for breach of Applicant’s right to fair hearing.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height: 107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l13 level1 lfo3"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">10.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">AN ORDER</span></b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> re-instating full payment of salaries and allowances due to the Applicant and refund of all shortfall of salaries and allowances deducted from Applicant on account of the suspension from office.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height: 107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l11 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">(b)<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">AND </span></b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">for such further order(s) as the court may deem fit to make in the circumstance.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The grounds upon which the reliefs are sought have stated as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom: 0in;margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify; text-indent:-.5in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo4"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">i.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Applicant is a Nigeria citizen, an academic staff, an employee of the 5<sup>th</sup> Respondent, and of the rank of Principal lecturer in the department of language studies of the Institute of Management & Technology, Enugu.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo4"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">ii.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">1<sup>st</sup>& 2<sup>nd</sup> Respondents are the Rector and Registrar respectively of the 5<sup>th</sup> Respondent, who acted as Chairman and Secretary respectively of the Institute’s Management. Whilst the 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondent is the Deputy Rector, and 4<sup>th</sup> Respondent is a staff of the Institute, who acted as Chairman and Secretary respectively of a 5-man Inquisition Panel, christened “Committee to investigate illegal use of proxy by Basil Offoh of Language Studies department to invigilate the institute’s examinations”.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height: 107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo4"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">iii.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On 26<sup>th</sup> November, 2013, 5<sup>th</sup> Respondent, through the instrumentality of the 1<sup>st</sup>& 2<sup>nd</sup> Respondents, suspended the Applicant from office over what it adjudged to be “examination malpractice” sequel to the recommendations and findings of the 3<sup>rd</sup>& 4<sup>th</sup> Respondents upon a petition of an unidentified Petitioner. Copies of the letter of suspension of Applicant from office and the recommendation of the 3<sup>rd</sup> and 4<sup>th</sup> Respondents are attached and marked exhibits “A & B” respectively.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height: 107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo4"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">iv.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Applicant contends that the Respondents meting out of disciplinary sanction of suspension was actuated by ill-will and mala fide as borne out by their antecedents and subsequent actions.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height: 107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo4"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">v.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Hitherto, Applicant has served the previous administration of the Institute as the Administrative Secretary to the Rector, and earned the respect and adulation of all and sundry, prompting the nascent envy and outrage of 1<sup>st</sup> – 4<sup>th</sup> Respondents.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height: 107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo4"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">vi.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Ironically, at the threshold of the current administration, Applicant’s erstwhile services to the Institute was celebrated with a letter of commendation of 31/10/2012 and written under the hand of 2<sup>nd</sup> Respondent. Copy of the said letter of commendation is attached and marked exhibit “C”. In time, Applicant’s adulation turned into envy and outrage, with 1<sup>st</sup> – 4<sup>th</sup> Respondents setting out on campaign to impugn and discredit Applicant’s career and reputation.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">First, was a plot to use the instrumentality of an internal inquisition panel to indict the Applicant at a time a Judicial panel was set up by the Visitor of the Institute, and turnover the indictment to the judicial panel. This plot was scuttled with Applicant obtaining judgment in restraint of 2<sup>nd</sup>& 5<sup>th</sup> Respondents in that regard in Suit No.E/70m/2012: Basil Offoh Vs IMT & anor.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Second, was the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> Respondents’ claim that Applicant proceeded on sabbatical leave without their consent when they had given their approval, and slammed disciplinary “Warning” on the Applicant, which led to the initiation of Suit No. NICN/EN/207/2013: Basil Offoh Vs IMT & anor.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Third, was the concerted efforts made by 1<sup>st</sup> – 4<sup>th</sup> Respondents to dramatize the findings of 1<sup>st</sup>& 2<sup>nd</sup> Respondents. 3<sup>rd</sup>& 4<sup>th</sup> Respondents had set out to inquire on “illegal use of proxy by Basil Offoh in invigilation of examination”. Curiously, the outcome went beyond the scope of the mandate and turned out a finding of “examination malpractice”- an otherwise a criminal offence under our criminal jurisprudence.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Fourth, the outcome of their finding was deliberately skewed to wear a garb of criminality and taken to public domain in order to demonize the Applicant in the eyes of the world and ruin his meteoric rise in public service. On 6<sup>th</sup> December, 2013, 2<sup>nd</sup>& 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondents were guests in the network of Federal Radio Corporation of Nigeria wherein it was aired that Applicant was found guilty of “examination malpractice”.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom: 0in;margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify; text-indent:-.5in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo4"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">vii.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Applicant had caused his solicitor, Chief Tagbo Ike to apply for certified true copy of management proceedings of 1<sup>st</sup>& 2<sup>nd</sup> Respondents and committee proceedings of 3<sup>rd</sup>& 4<sup>th</sup> Respondents in two separate letters of 27/11/2013 and herein attached and marked exhibits “D” & “E”, respectively.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo4"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">viii.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">3<sup>rd</sup> Respondent acknowledged receipt of the application and claimed he had forwarded the request to the 1<sup>st</sup>& 2<sup>nd</sup> respondents in a letter of 2/12/2013 and herein attached and marked exhibit “F”. True to 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondent’s claim, Respondent’s counsel Vin Ene Esq in a letter of 12/12/2013 and herein attached and marked exhibit “G”, invited Applicant’s counsel to come forward and collect the certified records upon payment of appropriate fees. Applicant’s counsel did follow-up the letter but was only granted the 3<sup>rd</sup>& 4<sup>th</sup> Respondents’ proceedings, contained in the undated reported and forwarded under the hand of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondent in a letter of 22/11/2013 (sic). The 1<sup>st</sup>& 2<sup>nd</sup> Respondents refused and neglected to vail the Applicant of its management proceedings of 26<sup>th</sup> November, 2013.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height: 107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo4"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">ix.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">It is noteworthy and apparent on exhibit “B” that the petition written against the Applicant was not availed to him; the petitioner did not testify in proof of his petition; Applicant was not afforded chance to confront his accuser and cross examine him; Applicant was not heard at all in defence. Yet it produced findings and recommendations it submitted to 1<sup>st</sup>& 2<sup>nd</sup> Respondents for consideration.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height: 107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo4"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">x.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">1<sup>st</sup>& 2<sup>nd</sup> Respondents, in turn reviewed the findings and recommendations turned over to them, and still without hearing from the Applicant, reached a decision wherein it meted out disciplinary sanction against the Applicant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height: 107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo4"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">xi.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">By the decision of the 1<sup>st</sup>& 2<sup>nd</sup> Respondents suspending the Applicant from office, Applicant was said to have been placed on half salary in ostensible compliance with the statute of the Institute. In reality, the directive went beyond the stipulation of statute, leaving the Applicant worse off. Applicant earns monthly salary of N377,279.70 and half of which is computed at N188,639.85. Strangely, 5<sup>th</sup> Respondent in paying Applicant’s December, 2013 salary doled out N150,979.56 – a shortfall of N37,660.29.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height: 107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo4"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">xii.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Applicant contends that his constitutional right to fair hearing was breached by both the Institute’s management personified in 1<sup>st</sup>& 2<sup>nd</sup> Respondents and inquisition panel of 3<sup>rd</sup>& 4<sup>th</sup> Respondents in their determination of his civil right, and which breach renders the proceedings and decision thereon by either of the 1<sup>st</sup>& 2<sup>nd</sup> Respondents and 3<sup>rd</sup>& 4<sup>th</sup> Respondents nullities.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height: 107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo4"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">xiii.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Applicant also contends that on account of his status as senior academic staff, his engagement or disengagement from the service of the 5<sup>th</sup> Respondent resides with the Council of the Institute, and not on 1<sup>st</sup>& 2<sup>nd</sup> respondents by combined provisions of <b>Section 29 & 30 of the Institute of Management & Technology Law, Cap 97, Laws of Enugu State, 2004</b>. Thus, the purported suspension of the Applicant from office by 1<sup>st</sup>& 2<sup>nd</sup> Respondents are brazen usurpation of powers and at best a comic theatricals.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height: 107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo4"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">xiv.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">With these bizarre inquisitions, Applicant’s right to fair hearing is under assault; his career denigrated; his reputation battered and his earnings reduced and will so remain unless a reversal order is made by the Court.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height: 107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo4"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">xv.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The actions of the Respondents are out rightly collusive, wicked, abhorrent, abusive and utterly unconstitutional and payment of exemplary and general damages of N100,000,000.00 (one hundred million naira only) is the only fitting and commensurate recompense to the Applicant, which will assuage the infringed right of the Applicant to fair hearing.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height: 107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo4"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">xvi.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">It is in the interest of justice to grant this application.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The application is accompanied by Exhibits A, B, C, D, E, F and G. There is also an affidavit verifying facts in support of the application deposed to by Basil Offoh, the Claimant, and is of three (3) paragraphs. Furthermore, there is a written address in support of the application. After the said written address in support of the application the originating processes have an affidavit of five (5) paragraphs deposed to by the Claimant on the 23<sup>rd</sup> day of December, 2013.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Upon being served with the processes of the Claimant, the Respondents filed a Memorandum of Appearance on 4<sup>th</sup> March, 2014. This was followed with a Respondents’ Counter-Affidavit in opposition to the application for Judicial Review which is of 29 paragraphs and deposed to by Sylvanus Asogwa, the Registrar to the Institute of Management and Technology, the 5<sup>th</sup> Respondent in this suit. It is also followed by another Counter Affidavit of 6 paragraphs deposed to by Mr Fidelis Okafor, the Deputy Rector of the 5<sup>th</sup> Respondent. There is also a Counter Affidavit of 8 paragraphs deposed to by Mrs Mgbuchi Christiana, a staff of the 5<sup>th</sup> Respondent and a member of the same department with the Claimant. At the end of all these counter-affidavits, there were annexed Exhibits A, B, C, D, E and A1. There is also a written address in support of counter affidavit in opposition to application for judicial review, dated 27<sup>th</sup> day of February, 2014. All these processeswere deemed properly filed and served by the Hon. Court on 6<sup>th</sup> day of March, 2014.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Thereafter, the Claimant on 7/4/2014, with leave of the Hon. Court filed three (3) different Further Affidavits as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l12 level1 lfo5"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">1.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Further affidavit in opposition to the 2<sup>nd</sup> Respondent’s Counter-Affidavit of 29 paragraphs deposed to by Basil Offoh, the claimant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l12 level1 lfo5"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">2.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Further affidavit in opposition to the 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondent’s counter affidavit of 7 paragraphs deposed to Basil Offoh, the Claimant in this suit.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l12 level1 lfo5"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">3.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Further affidavit in opposition to Mrs Mgbuchi Christiana’s counter affidavit of 7 paragraphs, deposed to by Basil Offoh, the Claimant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">There is also accompanying these further affidavits, a written address titled “THE APPLICANT’S WRITTEN REPLY IN ANSWER TO RESPONDENTS’ WRITTEN ADDRESS”, dated 7<sup>th</sup> April, 2014.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Subsequently, the 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondent, Mr Fidelis Okafor filed a further counter affidavit of 7 paragraphs on the 11<sup>th</sup> of June, 2014. The said further counter affidavit is accompanied with Exhibit AA1. Thereafter, on 17<sup>th</sup> June, 2014 learned Claimant’s counsel filed a process titled “REPLY ON POINTS OF LAW TO FIDELIS OKAFOR’S FURTHER COUNTER AFFIDAVIT”.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Then on 27<sup>th</sup> May, 2014, the Respondents filed a motion on notice dated 26/5/2014 praying the Court for the following reliefs:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">AN ORDER striking out the suit on ground of incompetence and want of jurisdiction for non-service of pre-action notice.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom: 0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">And for such further and other Orders as the Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstance.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The Notice of Preliminary Objection is supported by an affidavit of 8 paragraphs deposed to by Miss NkechiEgbebuike, a litigation secretary in the law firm of the Respondents’ counsel. It is equally accompanied with a written address in support. Following the receipt of the said preliminary objection, the Claimant filed a written address on 2/6/2014 in opposition to the said preliminary objection. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Thereafter, the respondents’ counsel filed a reply on points of law dated 11<sup>th</sup> June 2014 on the same day.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Finally on the filing of processes, the Respondents on the 15/1/2016 filed a process titled “RESPONDENTS’ FURTHER COUNTER AFFIDAVIT IN OPPOSITION TO THE APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW”. The said further counter affidavit is of 8 paragraphs and was deposed to by Mr Sylvanus Asogwa, the Registrar of the 5<sup>th</sup> Respondent.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The parties adopted their respective processes.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">In dealing with thesubstantive application in this suit, I shall start by considering the preliminary objection raised by the respondents on the competence of the suit. The preliminary objection is grounded in incompetence and absence of pre-action notice. In his written address in support of the objection, learned counsel for the respondents formulated and argued two issues for the court’s determination. These are:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l3 level1 lfo7"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">1.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Whether the Respondents/Applicants are Public Officers entitled to pre-action notice?<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l3 level1 lfo7"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">2.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Whether in the circumstances of this case, the jurisdiction of the Honourable Court to entertain this suit has been effectively invoked?<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Arguing the first issue, learned counsel stated that Public officers have been defined by the Supreme Court in the case of <b><i>Dr Mathias Oko Offoboche vs Ogoja Local Government & Anor (2001) 7 SCNJ 468, </i></b>to include: artificial persons such as institutions. In that regard, the Institute of Management and Technology, IMT Enugu, the 5<sup>th</sup> Respondent/Applicant is a public officer.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On the 2<sup>nd</sup> issue, counsel stated that it is now well settled that jurisdiction clothes the Honourable Court to delve into any suit. Whenever the issue of jurisdiction is raised, the court is bound to pause and clear the air before getting into or continuing with the main suit. The non-service of pre-action notice touches on jurisdiction and as such the court is enjoined not to entertain the main suit or where hearing has begun before it is raised, to place same on hold and strike out the action for want of jurisdiction.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">That it is well settled that in bringing an action against a public officer, such as the Respondents/Applicants, steps must be taken to issue pre-action notice as provided in section 11(2)(b) of the State Proceedings Law Revised (Laws of Enugu State) 2004 which provides thus:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> <i>No action shall be instituted:<o:p></o:p></i></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom: 0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify; text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l9 level1 lfo8"><!--[if !supportLists]--><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">(b)<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></i><!--[endif]--><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">Against a public officer in respect of any act done in pursuance of execution or intended execution of any written law, or of any public duty or authority…, until the expiration of a period of three months after notice in writing has been …., in the case of a public officer, delivered to him stating the cause of action, the name, description and place of residence of the proposed plaintiff and the relief which he claims and the plaint when eventually prepared shall contain a statement that such notice has been so delivered and the date on which it was delivered.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Learned counsel then submitted that it is now elementary law that where a statute requires the fulfilment of a pre-condition before a particular act or substantive or main act or action is to be done; non fulfilment of the pre-condition will be pre-judicial to the party in default. The case of <b><i>Dominic E. Ntiero vs Nigeria Ports Authority (2008) 5 SCNJ 181,</i></b> is clearly illustrative on this principle. According to learned counsel, in that case the Supreme Court held that non-service of a pre-action notice puts the jurisdiction of a court on hold pending compliance with the pre-conditions. In other words failure to serve pre-action notice where it is statutorily provided renders the suit incompetent and as such the court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain same. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">That it is very instructive to note at this point that there is nothing before this Honourable Court showing that the plaintiff complied with the provision of section 11(2)(b) of the State Proceedings law. He referred to paragraph 5 of the affidavit in support of the application. That the Applicant/Respondent (the Claimant) failed in this regard. Counsel then submitted that this action is most incompetent and ought to be struck out, urging the Honourable Court to so hold.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">He submitted further that the phase, “no suit shall” as provided for in section 11(2)(b) of the State Proceedings Law signifies and emphatically pre-supposes without exception, that all suits against public officers must be subject to section 11(2)(b) of the State Proceedings Law by giving prior written notice to the public officers before commencement of an action against them. He continued that it is no longer open to debate that the word “shall” as used in this context connotes that the provisions of section 11(2)(b) of the State Proceedings Law are mandatory and not directory. Consequently, the provision of that section must be complied with for any action against public officers to be competent. According to counsel this proposition is fortified by the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court in <b><i>Nnonye vs Anyichie (2005)1 SCNJ 306,</i></b>where the issue of non-service of pre-action notice is raised by a defendant, the court is bound to hold that the plaintiff has not fulfilled a pre-condition for instituting his action. He then urged the court to so hold in this instant case.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Continuing, counsel stated that the provision of Section 11(2)(b) of the State Proceedings Law is clear and beyond equivocation. As such, the law is trite that where the provision of a law is clear and unambiguous; such provision(s) shall be given its ordinary meaning. He urged the court to give section 11(2)(b) of the State Proceedings Law its ordinary meaning. In sum, the plaintiff having failed to issue the defendants with pre-action notice before instituting this action, an act required under Section 11(2)(b) of the State Proceedings Law, it is learned counsel’s submission that this action is most premature and incompetent and as such this Honourable Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain same. He again referred this court to its decision in the case of <b><i>Basil Offor vs IMT & Anor; Suit No. NICN/EN/207/2013 </i></b>in which the court had delivered a considered ruling on the same issue on the 6<sup>th</sup> day of March, 2014.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Finally counsel urged the court to decline jurisdiction and strike out the suit for want of jurisdiction.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On his own part, the learned claimant’s counsel in his reply address in opposition to the preliminary objection filed on 2/6/2014, formulated and argued two issues as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom: 0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify; text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l10 level1 lfo9"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">1.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Whether the failure of the Applicant/Respondent to (sic) a statutory pre-action notice to the Respondents/Applicants as prescribed by section 11(2) of the State Proceedings Law (Revised Laws of Enugu State) 2004, renders the action of Applicant/Respondent incompetent to the extent that the court is robbed of its jurisdiction to hear the matter and determine same on the merit?<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l10 level1 lfo9"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">2.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Whether Section 11(2) of the State Proceedings Law (Revised Laws of Enugu State) 2004 is not inconsistent with the provisions of Section 22 R 3(1) of the National Industrial Court Rules 2007?<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height: 107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Arguing the first issue, learned claimant’s counsel urged the court to resolve it in the negative. He then stated that whereas the law generally is that pre-action notice shall be served on public officer(s) as the present Respondents/Applicants before instituting actions against such officer(s), it is his firm view that an action for judicial review arising from or resulting in or precipitated by an alleged infraction of the Applicant/Respondent’s fundamental human rights as in the instant case does not fall within the ambit or operation of the requirement or procedural rule of pre-action notice as condition precedent to garb the court with jurisdiction.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">He continued that it is unarguable that Fundamental Right (Enforcement Procedure) Rules being sui generis, has a special, peculiar and constitutional procedure which supersedes all other procedures, enactment, or statute including the provisions of section 11(2) of the State Proceedings Law (revised Laws of Enugu State) 2004. According to counsel, virtually every division of the Court of Appeal has applied this principle of law s could be evidenced from the cases of <b><i>Agbakoba vs Director of SS (1994) 6 NWLR (Pt. 351) 475 att 488-489; 500-501 H-A; D-E; Abia State University vs Anyaibe (1996) 3 NWLR (Pt. 439) 646 at 660-661 H-F; E.</i></b> That in the case of <b><i>Babarinde vs Ogun State University (2001) 1 CHR 156 at 165, G, A Bakre J. </i></b>ruling on the applicant’s preliminary objection on grounds of incompetency resulting in non-service of pre-action notice as in the instant case held while dismissing the Applicant’s preliminary objection with cost thus:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">I have glanced through the 1979 Constitution and I do not see the provision for the need of an advanced notification of a legal action to any Defendant be he a statutory body or normal human being. It is strange that an individual can be brought to court at any time without prior notice but this could not be applicable to statutorily created bodies such as local government or the university. As I said earlier, all the decisions have been around chieftaincy matters or contractual relationship between the Plaintiff and this other governmental agencies. Happily for me there has been no decision of an infraction of the fundamental human right of the citizen and pre-action notice. This issue concerns the government and the citizenry on fundamental human rights; a procedure is provided for it and where this is followed, the issue of pre-action notice would appear to be a cog in the wheel of the exercise of the fundamental human right of the individual. The situation in hand would therefore appear different from all the authorities cited either from the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeal accommodating issues of pre-action notice to government agencies. In Agbakoba v. Director of S.S.S. (1994) 6 NWLR (Pt. 351) 475 at 500, Ayoola JCA (as he then was) said: “The end purpose of the Rules Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules is to ensure, where infringement of fundamental rights has been complained of or threatened, a speedy enforcement of such rights and simplifications of procedure for dealing with such complaints”. In the circumstance, I regret I do not agree that before a person can enforce his fundamental right he would be bound to give 3 months’ notice during which his right could have been trampled upon that it is possible for his life to have expired before the indulged government agency could make up its mind. If the matters were otherwise and not fundamental human rights one could have had no choice but to follow and agree with the majority decision in <b>Atolagbe v. Awumi (1997) 7 supra; Obada . Mil. Govt. of Kwara State (supra) </b>and a host of other decisions including<b>Shomolu Local Government Council v. Agbede (supra.”<o:p></o:p></b></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Learned counsel then submitted that the case of <b><i>Babarinde vs Ogun State University (supra) </i></b>is on all fours with the case before this Honourable Court and thus relying heavily on the decision reached in that case. He submitted further that all the authorities cited by the counsel for the Respondents/Applicants, including <b><i>Mr Basil Offor vs Rector Institute of Management and Technology Enugu and 4 Ors, Suit No. NICN/EN/207/2013 </i></b>are otiose, distinguishable and could be distinguished from the present case on the following grounds to wit:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom: 0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify; text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l6 level1 lfo10"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">1.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">None of them is (sic) brought pursuant under (sic) <b>Order 22 R 1(a), (2), 3(1), (2), 5(2), (3) of the National Industrial Court Rules 2007, </b>for an order for judicial review bordering on the infraction or infringement of the Applicant/Respondent’s fundamental rights as guaranteed under section 36(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), and Article 7 of African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom: 0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify; text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l6 level1 lfo10"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">2.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">None of them concerns Fundamental Human Rights (see <b><i>Labiyi vs Anretiola (1992) 8 NWLR (Pt. 258) 139 at 160-162; 170-171.</i></b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Learned counsel then submitted that on the foregoing score, he was urging the Honourable Court to dismiss the Respondents/Applicants’ preliminary objection for lacking in merit.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On the second issue, which is whether the provisions of section 11(2) of the State Proceedings Law (Revised Laws of Enugu State) 2004 is not inconsistent with the provisions of Section (Order) 22 R 3(1) of the National Industrial Court Rules 2007, learned counsel urged the Court to resolve same in the affirmative. He stated that <i>ex facie </i>the notice of preliminary objection, the pillar or stake upon which the argument of the learned counsel to the Respondents/Applicants rests is Section 11(2) of the State Proceedings Law (Revised Laws of Enugu State) 2004 which provides, inter alia, <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> <i>No action shall be instituted<o:p></o:p></i></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom: 0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify; text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l11 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">(c)<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></i><!--[endif]--><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">Against a public officer in respect of any act done in pursuance of ….<u>until the expiration of a period of three months after notice in writing has been...<o:p></o:p></u></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">(Underlining is learned counsel’s).<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Learned counsel continued that while that is the law governing proceedings against public officers in Enugu State, the National Industrial Court Rules 2007, regulating matters of judicial review arising from industrial dispute or labour related matters as in the instant case, by its provision in <b>Order 22 R 3(1) </b>provides:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">An application for judicial review shall be brought within three months of the date of occurrence of the subject of the application and no leave shall be required for that purpose.</span></i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">That by juxtaposition, there is an apparent conflict between the two provisions. While by the provisions of the State Proceedings Law (supra) an intending applicant has to wait for the expiration of the three (months) after service of pre-action notice, the National Industrial Court Rules (supra) maintains that action for judicial review must be brought within three months upon the occurrence of the subject of the review without leave giving rise to another gravamen of the Applicant/Respondent’s contention that for the question or impasse or conflict or inconsistency arising from the two statutes to judiciously and judicially resolved one cannot but invoke the decision of the Supreme Court in <b><i>A-G of Ogun State & Ors vs A-G Federation & Ors (1982) 1 NCLR 13-135; Alhaji Aberuagba & Ors vs A-G of Ogun State & Ors 3(1985) 1 NWLR (Pt. 3) 395,</i></b> where the elementary principle of law was further laid bare to the effect that where a state enacted law is inconsistent with a prevailing federal legislation that law or legislation is to the extent of the inconsistency null and void. Flowing from the above is the fact that the National Industrial Court Rules being a federal legislation would in this instant case prevail over the Stat Proceedings Law (supra).<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Counsel continued that if this is conceded to his submission is that both the State Proceedings Law (Revised Law of Enugu State) 2004 cited and relied upon by the Respondents/Applicants in bringing the preliminary objection is most otiose and inapplicable to the present case being inferior to the National Industrial Court Rules 2007, upon which this application for judicial review is predicated and pursued.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">In all, learned counsel submitted that this court has jurisdiction to hear, entertain and determine the Applicant’s suit as presently constituted and further and eh urged the court to discountenance the preliminary objection of the Respondents and strike out or dismiss same with substantial costs.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Replying on point of law, learned Respondents’ counsel stated that the Claimant had raised two issues for determination and he reproduced them. According to the Respondents’ counsel, in arguing issue one the Claimant’s counsel cited some laws bordering on fundamental rights enforcement. That, in addition, the applicant/respondent argued away from the matter before the court which is application for judicial review. In reaction to this argument, the learned respondents’ counsel submitted that there is a whole world of difference between application for judicial review and application for enforcement of fundamental rights. That judicial review is why the Respondents have been rushed to court by the Claimant under Section 272(2) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (which) is the inherent supervisory jurisdictionof High Courts over proceedings and decision of inferior courts, tribunals and also acts of governmental bodies. Application for same is provided by rules of court. Under the Constitution and extant rules of court the High Courts are empowered to act as watchdogs over judicial activities of inferior courts or tribunals. He referred to <b><i>State vs Lawal (2013) 2 SCNJ p. 586.</i></b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Fundamental rights enforcement is one made for the purpose of enforcing or securing the enforcement within a state any rights to which an applicant may be entitled to under Chapter IV of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Being of its own kind, procedure for its enforcement is governed by its own rules (Fundamental Rights Enforcement Rules, 2009) and not rules of High Court. That it is clear from the originating process in this suit that the reason the respondents are in court at the instance of the Claimant/Respondent is application for judicial review pursuant to Order 22 of the Rules of this Honourable Court and not for enforcement of any fundamental right as the Claimant/respondent in an attempt to mislead the court has wrongly argued.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Learned counsel continued that while they agree that fundamental right enforcement is sui generis and has its own procedural rules, it cannot be applied to application for judicial review as in the instant case. Therefore the argument of claimant/respondent on fundamental right enforcement laws replete with case laws are burnt to ashes since they cannot in any way hold sway in the light of the reason why this action was taken out in the first instance-judicial review. The argument that the case of Mr Basil Offor Vs Rector IMT & Ors in Suit No. NICN/EN/207/2013 are otiose, distinguishable and could be distinguished from the present case on the grounds that none of themwas brought pursuant to Order 22 Rule 1 (a)(2), 3(1),(2), 5(2),(3) of the rules of this court is a clear case of the Claimant/respondent attempting to muddle the issue before the court and invariably speak from both sides of the mouth. It is either there is an application for judicial review or enforcement of fundamental right. Both matters are of their own right and cannot be resorted to simultaneously. There is nothing like judicial review bordering on infraction or infringement of fundamental right. It is trite that only High Courts (State and Federal) that have jurisdiction to enforce fundamental rights. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Learned counsel continued that the issue at hand has no nexus with fundamental right. Even if it were so, the National Industrial Court is not empowered to hear applications for fundamental right enforcement. He then urged the court to discountenance the Claimant/Respondent’s argument on this issue.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">While arguing issue two, counsel stated that we shall not lose sight of the provisions of Order 25 Rule (4) rules of this court that empowers the court to extend time within which to do an act. The makers of the rules being aware that there may arise circumstances wherein it may not be practicableto bring an application within the time prescribed, made adequate provisions for extensions of time. That is where Order 25 rule 4 of the rules of the court comes in. Application for judicial review in this instance, being a proceedings against public officers, is within the purview of the provision of section 11(2) State Proceedings Law (Revised laws of Enugu State)2004 and he urged the court not to jettison the condition precedent of the said provisions of the State Proceedings Law.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:12.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom: 0in;margin-left:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">That the phrase “No suit shall be instituted” as contained in section 11(2) State Proceedings Law prohibits the commencement of all suits whatsoever. He referred to the case of <b><i>Nigercare vs Adamawa (2008) 3 SCNJ p. 28 Ratio 3.</i></b> The provisions of Section 11(2), supra, is not inconsistent with the provisions of Order 22 Rule 3(1) of the Rules of the Court and does not restrict access to court. That what Order 22(3) contemplates is where the action is brought within three months from the date of the occurrence then no leave is required. The provision of Order 25 Rule 3 comes in to help where it is not possible to commence action within three months. Therefore the Claimant can still fulfill the condition in Section 11(2), supra, and then apply to court for leave on the authority of Order 25 (4) to apply for judicial review.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:12.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom: 0in;margin-left:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Learned counsel urged the court to discountenanceClaimant/respondent’sargument on this issue.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:12.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom: 0in;margin-left:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Finally counsel urged the Court to discountenance the argument of the Claimant/respondent and decline jurisdiction and strike out this action.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:12.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom: 0in;margin-left:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">I have carefully considered the arguments and submissions of counsel on the preliminary objection raised by the Respondents to the competence of this suit. The sole issue for determination of the Honourable Court is whether or not the Respondents/Applicants were entitled to pre-action notice in this suit pursuant to the provisions of Section 11(2) of the State Proceedings Law, Cap 97, Revised Laws of Enugu State, 2004, (hereinafter referred to as Section 11(2) of State Proceedings Law of Enugu State). In making his case on the said application, the learned counsel for the Respondents submitted that the Respondents being public officers, were entitled to a three months pre-action notice as required by the provisions of Section 11(2)(b) of the State Proceedings Law of Enugu State. He submitted further that pre-action notice is a pre-condition which the Claimant was under obligation to fulfil before his case becomes competent before the court. He cited and relied on a number of judicial decisions such as <b><i>Dominic E. Ntiero vs Nigeria Ports Authority (2008), supra, Nnonye vs Anyichie (2005), supra, </i></b>and <b><i>Basil Offoh vs IMT & Anor, Ruling in Suit No. NICN/EN/207/2013 delivered on 6<sup>th</sup> March, 2014.</i></b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:12.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom: 0in;margin-left:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Reacting to this submission of the Respondents’ counsel, the learned Claimant’s counsel argued that the said provisions of Section 11(2) of the State Proceedings Law of Enugu State which require the giving of three months pre-action notice is not applicable to this case. This is because the Claimant’s suit is primarily rooted in the enforcement of his fundamental human right to fair hearing and that matters of fundamental right enforcement are not subject to pre-action notice. He cited and relied on the authorities of <b><i>Agbakoka vs Director S.S.S. (1994), supra, Abia State University vs Anyaibe (1996), supra, Babarinde vs Ogun State University (2001), supra, </i></b>amongst others. He also sought to distinguish the case of <b><i>Basil Offoh vs Rector IMT & Ors, (2013), supra, </i></b>and others, cited and relied upon by the Respondents, by arguing that they were not all brought pursuant to the provisions of Order 22 Rule 3 of the National Industrial Court Rules, 2007 or even the enforcement of fundamental human rights as in the instant case. He referred to the case of <b><i>Labiyi vs Anretiola (1992), supra.</i></b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:12.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom: 0in;margin-left:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Learned Claimant’s counsel submitted further that the provisions of section 11(2) of the State Proceedings Law of Enugu State are in conflict with the provisions of Order 22 Rule 3(1) of the Rules of this Honourable Court in that an application for judicial review must be filed within three months of the alleged act complained of. This means that there is no time within which to observe the pre-action notice of three months before a suit for judicial review is filed by a claimant in accordance with the provisions of Order 22 Rue 3(1) of the National Industrial Court Rules, 2007. Therefore the provisions of Section 11(2) of the State Proceedings Law of Enugu State are in clear conflict with the Rules of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria. To the learned counsel the way out is for the court to invoke the supremacy of Federal Law or State law on the point, by which the Rules of the National Industrial Court must prevail over the provisions of the State laws. He cited and relied on the cases of <b><i>A-G Ogun State & Ors vs A-G Federation & Ors (1982), supra, </i></b>and <b><i>Alhaji Aberuagba & Ors vs A-G of Ogun State & Ors (1985), supra.</i></b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The learned counsel for the Respondents in his reply on points of law argued that the Claimant’s case is not one of enforcement of fundamental human right but rather that of judicial review brought pursuant to Order 22 of the National Industrial Court Rules, 2007. Therefore, the Claimant cannot say that his action is not subject to pre-action notice as required by the provisions of Section 11(2) of the State Proceedings Law of Enugu State.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Having considered all the arguments and submissions of the parties on the preliminary objection, as well as having gone through the authorities cited and relied upon by them, it is clear to me that the key point really is whether or not the Respondents are entitled to the pre-action notice as stipulated in Section 11(2) of the State Proceedings Law of Enugu State. It is necessary to point out that the issue of pre-action notice to be given to the Respondents pursuant to the provisions of section 11(2) of the State Proceedings Law of Enugu State in a proceeding brought pursuant to Order 22 of the National Industrial Court Rules (Application for Judicial Review) was recently addressed by this Honourable Court. This was in the case of <b><i>Mr Daniel Ofodile vs IMT & Ors (Unreported) Suit No. NICN/EN/3M/2014, Judgment of which was delivered on 15<sup>th</sup> December, 2015.</i></b>This Honourable Court held that:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">Having considered the submissions of all the parties on this issue, particularly the authorities cited and relied upon by them, it is quite clear to me that the statute creating the 1<sup>st</sup> Respondent has not provided for any mandatory requirement of pre-action notice before the 1<sup>st</sup> respondent or any of its staff or officers is sued. The attempt to rely on the provisions of the State Proceedings Law of Enugu State 2004 in order to place an obligation (on) the Claimant to give pre-action notice therefore does not seem to be well rooted in law. In a similar matter before this court, which has been cited and relied upon by the Claimant, i.e., <b>Joy vs Enugu State College of Education & Ors (2015), supra, </b>this court held as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">I also have to state that I do not agree with the learned defendants’ counsel that the provisions of the State Proceedings Law in relation to pre-action notice should be imported to fill what he regarded as a lacuna in the law of the 1<sup>st</sup> defendant, the Enugu State College of Education (Technical) Enugu Law, which is a specific legislation governing the defendants. The non-mention of any pre-action notice means that the legislature wanted to exclude the issue from the law of the institution. And in construing the provisions of the law regard must be had to the principle that the mentioning of a thing in a statute means the exclusion of that not mentioned. See <b>Oshoffa& Ors vs Kosoko& Ors (2014), supra. </b>See also the persuasive views of my learned brother of Enugu High Court in the case of <b>Ugwu George & Ors vs IMT & Ors (Unreported) decision in Suit No. E/483/09 Ruling of which was delivered on 24<sup>th</sup> day of November, 2010 </b>where His Lordship held that the provisions of Section 11(2) of the State Proceedings Law, Cap 147, Revised Laws of Enugu State were not applicable to the Institute of Management and Technology, an Institution with its own law governing its own activities.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The submission of the Respondents has not added much difference to the view which was held by the court in the decision just referred to above. In the circumstance, it is my view and I so find and hold that the Claimant was not under an obligation to give pre-action notice to the Respondents in this matter. Let me also add that the authority of <b>Ugwuanyi vs NICON Insurance Plc, (2013), supra, </b>cited and relied upon by the Respondents’ was concerned with the interpretation and application of pre-action notice as provided in the statute creating the NICON Insurance Plc itself, which was the respondent in the matter. This is very much unlike what obtains in the present case where the 1<sup>st</sup> Respondent does not have similar provision in its law. In the circumstance therefore, the first issue is hereby resolved against the Respondents.</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">In the instant case, 1<sup>st</sup> to 4<sup>th</sup> Respondents are all officers of the 5<sup>th</sup> Respondent, the Institute of Management and Technology, Enugu, the same 1<sup>st</sup> respondent in the <b><i>Ofodile’s case </i></b>just referred to. The Respondents have not shown that there is any provision in the IMT Law which requires pre-action notice to be given before a suit is initiated against the Institute or its officers. I appreciate the fact that the Respondents’ position is predicated on the fact that the 1<sup>st</sup> to 4<sup>th</sup> Respondents are public officers of Enugu State and that Section 11(2)of the State Proceedings Law of Enugu State refers to the phrase “no suit shall be instituted” against public officers <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Of the state. However, as the ratio in my decision given in <b><i>Ofodile’s case, supra, </i></b>shows, the point is that since the IMT is a creation of statute with its own provisions on how it or its officers may be sued, and the law makers have not provided for the pre-action notice to be given, it is difficult to hold otherwise. I therefore hold that the failure of the Claimant to give pre-action notice to the Respondents in this suit does not make the suit incompetent. The suit is competent and the preliminary objection is dismissed for lacking in merit.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">I now move to the substantive suit itself. The Claimant has filed the suit asking for the reliefs I earlier on reproduced in this judgment.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">According to the learned Claimant’s counsel, the terse gist grounding this application is that the Applicant is an academic staff, and employee of 5<sup>th</sup> Respondent, and of the rank of principal lecturer. On 26<sup>th</sup> November, 2013, as per Exhibit “A”, Applicant was suspended from office following the finding and report of a 5-man committee of 3<sup>rd</sup>& 4<sup>th</sup> Respondents, and whose finding/report was subsequently affirmed by management meeting of 1<sup>st</sup>& 2<sup>nd</sup> Respondents. Both decisions were reached without availing the Applicant the charges levelled against him; and/or affording him the chance to confront his accuser; and/or giving him the opportunity to defend himself and/or hearing him at all. He then contends that the decisions determinative of his civil rights having been reached in violation of his right to fair hearing are void, and nullity and is entitled to recompense by way of the reliefs sought in this suit.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">He then formulated and argued a sole issue for the court’s determination as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Whether the Applicant has made out a case to be entitled to the reliefs sought in this application?<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Arguing the said issue, learned counsel urged the court to resolve it in the affirmative, and submitted that the Claimant has made out a case entitling him to the reliefs sought in this application. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">He stated further that the instant application is founded under the Judicial Review provisions of <b>Order 22 of National Industrial Court Rules, 2007</b>, and is a mechanism whereby this court, and indeed other courts of records, exercise supervisory control and jurisdiction over inferior courts or domestic tribunals or administrative institutions when they carry out judicial or quasi-judicial functions and trample on the right of another or act in excess or want of jurisdiction. In its popular tradition, it is found in prerogative orders or writs.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">That in this suit, the Claimant seeks a total of ten (10) reliefs. Reliefs nos. 6 & 7 are at the heart of this application. Both reliefs seek to bring up for purpose of inspection and quashing, the proceedings had before 1<sup>st</sup>&2<sup>nd</sup> Respondents, and 3<sup>rd</sup>& 4<sup>th</sup> Respondents, having been conducted in breach of Applicant's right to fair hearing guaranteed under <b>Section 36(1) of Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).</b>He referred to the case of <b><i>Nwaoboshi Vs Military Administration, Delta State (2003)11NWLR( pt.831) p.305 <o:p></o:p></i></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">That the main grouse of the applicant is that the Respondents in conducting inquisitions over him, and meting out the disciplinary sanction ofsuspension from office have acted quasi-judicially, and were in breach of not only one of the twin pillars of natural law (<i>jus naturale</i>), which is <b>audialterem partem</b> (i.e. hear the other side) but also failed to meet the minimum standard of fair hearing. The apex court had in the case of <b><i>Garba Vs University of Maiduguri (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt 18) p. 550</i></b>set out the minimum desiderata or bench mark which all hearing must conform to.<b>That it held fair hearing must include: (a) a person knows what the allegations against him are; (b) what evidence has been given in support of such allegations; (c) what statements have been made concerning those allegations; (d) such person has a fair opportunity to correct and contradict such evidence; (e) the body investigating the charge against such person must not receive evidence behind his back. </b>Counsel then asks the question:What are the infractions? And he answered that they abound <b>ex facie</b> upon examination of exhibit "B" (proceedings of 3<sup>rd</sup>& 4<sup>th</sup>Respondents) and the course of event between the parties as follows.<b><o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom: 0in;margin-left:1.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align: justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l5 level1 lfo12"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">1.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Applicant was not given the petition or charge leveled against him; albeitbeing heard in defence. No query was issued to the Applicant at all.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:1.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l5 level1 lfo12"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">2.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">There was no invitation to attend any inquisition either before the 1<sup>st</sup>& 2<sup>nd</sup>respondents or 3<sup>rd</sup>& 4<sup>th</sup>Respondents. Applicant was not afforded the chance to defend himself. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:1.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l5 level1 lfo12"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">3.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">All through the proceedings, the petitioner never appeared to testify in proof of his complaint against the Applicant. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom: 0in;margin-left:1.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align: justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l5 level1 lfo12"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">4.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">All through the proceedings, Applicant had no opportunity to confront his accuser(s) or cross-examine his accuser(s). <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The foregoing irregularities attended the proceedings of 3<sup>rd</sup>& 4<sup>th</sup>Respondents, and on the basis it reached its decision, and which was subsequently affirmed by the 1<sup>st</sup>& 2<sup>nd</sup>Respondents. It is a settled law that a person whose conduct is subject of enquiry should have an opportunity of not only being invited but also knowing evidence against him and have opportunity to challenge his accuser. He referred to <b><i>Bamgboye Vs University of Ilorin (1999) 10 NWLR (Pt 622) p. 290: Saleh vs Monguno(2003) INWLR (Pt 801) p. 221.</i></b>That in<b><i>Adeniyi vs Yaba College 1993 7SCNJ pa 304</i></b> the Supreme Court held that the principles of natural justice are applicable to both judicial and administrative determinations and the person whose civil right and obligation are directly affected is entitled to be notified and given the opportunity of answering the case made against him. In the instant suit, in the 3 & 4 Respondents' proceedings, nowhere was it shown that Claimant was summoned to appear before them. Though they had indicated that Claimant had appeared and was more interested in abusing them and pouring invectives at them. It was also not shown that the committee brought to the notice of the Claimant the charges leveled against him and had directed him to cross-examine his accuser. Claimant was not even given the chance to cross-examine Mr. Jerome Amu, who testified. Claimant had roundly denied this aspect of his being present at the proceedings in his affidavit in rebuttal. Beyond that, it was not shown at all that the petitioner ever appeared before the committee, and having not appeared, Claimant had no opportunity to confront him. On the proceedings of the 1<sup>st</sup>& 2<sup>nd</sup>Respondents, there was nothing to show it existed at all other than handing out the disciplinary sanction of suspension from office. They failed to produce any proceeding upon the Claimant's application in exhibit "D', res ipsa loquitur. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Counsel continued that beyond the fact that the proceedings of these inferior panels derogated from the minimum standard of rules of natural justice, the 1<sup>st</sup>& 2<sup>nd</sup>Respondents exuded powers it never had, and had acted in want of jurisdiction. 1<sup>st</sup>& 2<sup>nd</sup>Respondents, who issued the directive suspending the Applicant from office have no cloak of power, authority, vires or jurisdiction to discipline him. The power of discipline resides in the Council of the Institute by combined provisions of Sections 29(1)& 30 of IMT Law, Cap 97, Laws of Enugu State, 2004. He then reproduced the said provisions as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:2.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-1.5in; line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Section 29(1) The Council shall have power to remove from office on grounds of indiscipline, misconduct or inefficiency or for reason of reorganizations, any member of the academic or non-academic senior staff.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:2.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-1.5in; line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:2.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-1.5in; line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Section 30(1) Where the Council has sufficient grounds to believe that the services of any member of the academic staff or non-academic senior staff of the Institute are no longer required for reasons either of misconduct or inability on the part of such member of staff to perform the functions of his office or employment, the Council may serve on the person concerned a notice in writing of its intention to remove him, stating the misconduct or inability complained of and requiring the person to submit his defense against the accusation in writing to the appropriate investigating committee.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:2.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-1.5in; line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:2.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-1.5in; line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Section 30(2) Where the misconduct or inefficiency relates to-<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:2.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo13"><!--[if !supportLists]--><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">(a)<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></i><!--[endif]--><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">the Deputy Rector;<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:2.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo13"><!--[if !supportLists]--><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">(b)<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></i><!--[endif]--><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">the Registrar;<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:2.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo13"><!--[if !supportLists]--><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">(c)<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></i><!--[endif]--><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">a head of department; or<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:2.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo13"><!--[if !supportLists]--><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">(d)<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></i><!--[endif]--><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">a Director of School;<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:2.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">the Council will set up a committee which shall consist of such members of the Council and of the Academic Board, as the Council may decide, to investigate the alleged misconduct or inefficiency and report its findings to the Council.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:2.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-1.5in; line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Section 30(3) Where the misconduct or inefficiency relates to any other member of the academic or non-academic senior staff or any other senior employee of the Institute the Council shall direct the Rector to set up a committee which may be presided over by him. To investigate the alleged misconduct or inefficiency and report its findings to the Council.</span></i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Learned counsel continued that flowing from the foregoing is that the power to fire officers of 5<sup>th</sup> Respondent resides in the Council of the Institute. If the officer affected belongs to any of the categories listed in Section 30(2) (a)-(d) supra, the Council sets up the Inquisition panel, comprising of its members and of Academic Board as it deems fit. In any other instance, as in this case, Section 30 paragraph 3 supra applies, which insists that the Council shall direct the setting up of the inquisition panel. That, interestingly, in the instant suit, Respondents claimed that its sanction on the Claimant was on the direction of the Council when there is no constituted Council in place as at date, and cannot derive power from non-existent body <i>ex nihilo nihil fit.</i> That it is patently evident from the foregoing provisions that the disciplinary sanction meted out to the Claimant was done in error of law and breach of law, the proceedings and decisions thereof are liable to be set aside and quashed by order of certiorari. He then urged the court to so hold, citing in support the case of <b><i>Unitex Ltd vs Yakubu (1998) 13 NWLR (Pt. 581) p.334; Ezenwa vs Bestway Manufacturing Co. Ltd (1999) 8 NWLR (Pt. 613) p. 61.</i></b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Furthermore, counsel continued, the sanction the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> Respondents eventually meted out to the Claimant stood the law on its head when it declared that Claimant was suspended for “examination malpractice”, which is an offence under our criminal law. He then asks: can the Respondents take up trial and inquisition over criminal offence? He then answered that it certainly cannot, s that position has been settled by the Supreme Court in <b><i>Garba vs University of Maiduguri (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 18) p. 550</i></b> where Uwais JSC (as he then was) stated thus:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">It has since been the view of this Court that where a person is accused of committing a criminal offence, he must be taken before a Court of law for trial and not merely be dealt with by tribunal.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Therefore, the Respondents recklessly went on a voyage outside its domain, and acted in excess of jurisdiction. Upon the grant of order of certiorari, the relief nos. 5 & 10 become consequential. Counsel urged the Court to set aside or expunge from the records the recommendations and findings of the 3<sup>rd</sup>& 4<sup>th</sup>Respondents and as well as the decision of the 1<sup>st</sup>& 2<sup>nd</sup>Respondents; and reinstate full payment of salaries and allowances due to the Claimant and refund all shortfall made on account of the suspension from office. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Reliefs nos. 6 & 7 are the main claim and reliefs in this suit. With its grant, other reliefs go with its success. He cited the case of <b><i>Savannah Bank Nig. Plc Vs CBN &ors 2009 NWLR pt.1139 p. 237 ratio 23</i></b> wherein it was held that once a claim succeeds, the granting of other reliefs goes along with the success of the matter before the court. In more specific terms, Counsel urged the Court as follows: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom: 0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify; text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l7 level1 lfo14"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">(a)<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Affirm and declare as in reliefs nos. 1 and 4 that Applicant's suspension from office infringed his right to fair hearing guaranteed under section 36 (1) of the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended). <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l7 level1 lfo14"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">(b)<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Affirm and declare that neither the 1st & 2 Respondents nor the 3 & 4th Respondents is clothed with legal powers to sanction the Applicant under sections 29 & 30 of IMT law as sought in relief no. 2. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height: 107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l7 level1 lfo14"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">(c)<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Further declare that it is only the Council of the Institute that has power to <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">suspend the Applicant as in relief no. 3.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On the relief of injunction as sought in relief no. 8, it lies in aid and protection of Claimant’s adjudged legal right, reliance placed on the case of <b><i>Akapo Vs Hakeem Habeeb 1992 6 NWLR pt 247 p. 266. </i></b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Lastly, the Claimant’s relief no. 9, is a claim of N100,000,000.00 (one hundred million naira only) as exemplary and general damages for breach of Claimant’s constitutional right to fair hearing. In the instant suit, damages sought is in the nature of exemplary and general damages. Whilst general damages are at large, exemplary damages is of special genre, which authorities are ad idem that it is awarded where the Respondents' conduct, as in the instant, is arbitrary, wicked and abhorrent and is designed to "teach a lesson" on the Respondents. He referred to <b><i>Rooks Vs Bernard 1964 AC p. 1129; Odida&ors Vs Muemue&ors 1999 SC p. 157 at 170-1.</i></b>Counsel urged the Court to come down heavily on the Respondents, who as it were, had abandoned the onerous task of running an institution in a society that needs to catch up with the rest of humanity in technological and management advancement but chose to squander precious time and resources and wallow in pettiness and witch-hunting over the Claimant, a co-staff it had acknowledged as gifted in exhibit "C". <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">In all, he urged the court to grant the reliefs sought as per the statement. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">In response, the learned respondents’ counsel in his written reply address dated 27<sup>th</sup> day of February, 2014 formulated and argued a lone issue for the court’s determination to wit: Whether the Claimant is entitled to relief sought in the light of the facts joined by parties in their affidavits?<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Arguing the said issue learned counsel stated that the applicant had contended that his grouse for which he brought this application is that the Respondent recklessly suspended him from duties. According to learned counsel it is glaring that the Respondents strictly adhered to the principles of fair hearing when they invited the Claimant to appear before the panel as well as reading the petition against him on his appearance before the committee. The Claimant swiftly refused to defend himself and did not ask for a copy of the said petition against him rather the Claimant poured insults on the members of the committee/panel. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Learned counsel referred the court to look at the counter affidavit of Mrs Mgbuchi Christiana and the 3<sup>rd</sup>Respondent which are prima facie evidence of invitation being extended to the Claimant to appear before the panel/committee which the Claimant honoured. That the futile effort/ attempt being made by the Claimant to suggest that he was not invited and that he did not appear before the committee should be discountenanced. Furthermore, that it is glaring from Exhibit D attached to the Respondent's affidavit that the Claimant had hired the services of someone without express permission of neither the Examination Coordinator nor the Institute. The Claimant's signature on the staff monthly certification by which the Claimant earns <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">his salary is quite different from that on the attendance registers for the exams pointing clearly that it wasn't the Claimant that invigilated the examination on those days complained of (of which he was investigated on) by the 5<sup>th</sup>Respondent hence the reprimand. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">That it is trite that the Claimant flouted the policy of the 5<sup>th</sup>Respondent. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Learned continued that it is most unconceivable for the Respondent not to reprimand any of her erring staff because of no subsisting Council. If such should happen there must be an absolute break down of law and Order in the 5th Respondent's Institution. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The Claimant’s contention that being a principal lecturer that the management should not discipline him in absence of a subsisting council cannot hold. Assuming other member of staff of same carder in the Institute behaves in the same manner in which the Claimant behaves that brought about this suit, the Institute will be in chaos. It is pertinent to point out that the Claimant has enjoyed promotions and migration of salary statutes from the management even when there was no subsisting Council. The said promotion/migration was done on behalf of the council just as the Claimant was suspended on behalf of the Council. If one should go by the contention of the Claimant, does it mean that those promotions and migration should be withdrawn? The answer is no, therefore the Claimant should not complain against an act he has benefited from in the past. Besides and most importantly the practice is that when the council is not in place, the management acted on behalf of council and will have their actions ratified when 'the council is constituted. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Learned counsel further argued that it is not debatable that what gave rise to the suspension of the Claimant is that the he flagrantly flouted a standing policy. From the gamut of the whole facts, the action of the Claimant does not constitute a crime rather misconduct. The defendant made a syntax error to have written that the Claimant had committed Examination malpractice. It is a known fact that Exams-malpractice can be described all forms of cheating which directly or indirectly falsify the ability of the students. Outside an examination hall and any involvement in all illegal examination related offences. Based on the above description of Examination malpractice, it is trite to state that the act of the Claimant is not within the purview of the act that resulted in the Claimant being suspended. Counsel submitted that the case of <b><i>GARBA VS. UNIVERSITY OF MAIDUGURI</i></b>, supra, which the applicant is heavily relying on cannot apply. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">In conclusion learned counsel urged the court, being a court of Justice, to look at this matter with a view to determine that the act of the claimant does not have criminal element that can give rise to the law established in <b><i>GARBA'S CASE</i></b>, supra, and decline granting of this application. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Furthermore, on as pointed out earlier, the Claimant o 7/4/2014, filed three different further affidavits of 29, 7 and 7 paragraphs each in opposition respectively to the counter affidavits of the 2<sup>nd</sup>and 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondents as well as that of Mrs Mgbuchi Christiana. This was accompanied by a written address said by the learned Claimant’s counsel to be his reply on points of law to the main application before the court. In the said written address on points of law counsel formulated and argued an issue for determination as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Whether from the circumstances of the case the Claimant has made not made out a case to be entitled to the reliefs sought in this application?<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Learned Claimant’s counsel then submitted that in the overall circumstances of this case the Claimant has religiously made out a case to be entitled to all the reliefs sought and he urged the court to so hold.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">That before delving into the entire gamut of the argument of the respondents, counsel submitted that from the totality of the evidence led by the respondents, the closest they could go in their bid to establish that the Claimant had knowledge of the committee investigating the alleged misconduct against him and was invited to appear before same is the evidence led by Mrs Mgbuchi Christiana of the Department of Language Studies to the effect that a purported letter of invitation meant for the Claimant was served on him by slipping same into the Claimant’s office the door to his office.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">That taking it all up from this, counsel submitted that that proper service of originating process or a process of court that requires personal service is a condition precedent to the court’s competence and assumption of jurisdiction in the case. Any service of originating process or a process of court that requires personal service by any other means except personal service must be authorized, on application to and by the court. He referred to the provisions of Order 7 rules 4 and 5 of the National Industrial Court Rules, 2007. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">He added that it was not the contention or case of the respondents that they have not acted judicially from inception having gone beyond the determination of the civil obligations of the claimant to finding him liable of a fault and would not be bound by rules outlined above. Given this clear provisions of the law, counsel submitted that the alleged practice of slipping the purported letter of invitation into the claimant’s office through his door is a practice, or mode of service unknown to law and he urged the court to so hold.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">That all through the length and breadth of the argument of the learned counsel to the respondents spanning the whole of 3 pages to the written address, what can be gleaned is the strained effort made therein to interpret the exhibits attached to the affidavits of the respondents in an effort to show that the Claimant flouted the institution’s “standing policy” with no single legal authority to justify their actions against him.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">That the Claimant condescended to how he was denied a copy of the management proceeding. However, it is the contention of the respondents that the Claimant got a copy of the document he followed. Whatever that might mean, counsel submitted that the neglect, failure and or refusal to avail the claimant of the said copy of the Management proceedings duly applied for raises the presumption that if the purported report truly exists, if produced would be unfavourable to the respondents. That s. 167(d) of the Evidence Act provides:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">Evidence which could be produced and not produced; if produced, would be unfavourable to the person who withholds it.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">He added that the court succinctly interpreted S. 149(d) of the Evidence Act, 1990, in pari materia with section 167(d) of the Evidence Act, the court in the case of <b><i>Unilorin vs Adesina (2009) All FWLR (Pt. 487) 56 at pp. 126-127 paras H-A.</i></b> He also referred to <b><i>Adeniran vs Alao (2001) FWLR (Pt. 90) 1285 at pp. 1319-20-para D-A.</i></b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">That the contention of the respondent that the Claimant flouted the policy of the 5<sup>th</sup> respondent is at best an academic exercise. The Exhibit A attached to the 2<sup>nd</sup> respondent’s affidavit and to which the respondents’ counsel relied heavily in his strenuous effort to establish that the claimant’s signature on the attendance exam register and that on monthly certification, has no bearing whatsoever with the the issue and case of the Claimant in this application.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">That the question before this court is squarely on fair hearing, a fundamental requirement upon which any finding of court, tribunal or such other administrative or quasi judicial bodies or panel of inquiry arrived at would stand. But if for the sake of argument, counsel submitted that there is no law that provides that a person should have only one signature. The difference whatsoever that existed between the signature on the monthly certification by which the claimant earns his monthly salary and that that appeared on the attendance register for exams cannot be a pointer to any fact that it was not the claimant as the counsel to the respondents would wish the court to believe, invigilated the examination under his schedule. What is more, the Chief examination coordinator whom the respondent claimed was interviewed denied knowing who invigilated or who did not. Therefore upon the forgoing the claimant holds the view that the said exhibit A is inadmissible in evidence in proof of any fact at all, as the said exhibit is irrelevant to the fact in issue before this court. He urged the court too so hold.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Counsel continued that it is the contention of the claimant that the Management acted ultra vires its power to have constituted the alleged committee which purportedly investigated. That curiously predicating their argument in the bid to justifying the management’s act in contention on the ground that the promotion or migration of claimant’s salary emanated from the same management and when the Council was still not in place is trying again to stand the egg on its head. In this application the claimant is challenging the injury and pain inflicted on him by a body that has no power to subject him to that condition and without the due process of law founded on the principles of fair hearing. The promotion and migration of salary the respondents wish to make an issue is not before this court and that act cannot cloak the respondents with authority it otherwise does not have. Moreover, nobody has ever challenged that or complained of that before anybody or authority and even as now, claimant submitted. In addition that the said promotion and migration of salary as is natural came and was saddled with additional responsibilities, duties, tasks and functions which the institution has immensely benefitted from and is benefitting from. Counsel submitted that the source of power and authority of the management cannot be and could not have been derived from favour, if it is a favour to anybody.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Furthermore, that law it is said does not operate in vacuum. Nowhere throughout the length and breadth of the respondents counter affidavit was reference made to any existing or enabling law or legislation or to case law from where the respondents derived their power to do the act leading to this application other than whipping sentiment to justify an otherwise ultra-vires act or exercise of power. The respondents failure to do this is a deliberate attempt to subject the Honourable court to speculation on the source of the Management’s power. That our superior courts in plethora of cases and decision have firmly and consistently held that a court cannot embark on speculation in the course of proceedings in court.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">That it is not the contention of the respondents that the Institute’s law cited by Claimant’s counsel, namely, Ss. 30(1),(3),(5) of the Institute of Management and Technology Law Cap 97 Laws of Enugu State, 2004, to have been flagrantly abused and flawed was not abused or flawed neither was it their contention that those were not the law nor was it inapplicable to the issue before this Honourable Court. Of course our courts have held that where a statute directs that certain procedure be followed before a person can be deprived of his right, whether in respect of his person, property or office, such procedure must strictly be followed. The non observance of the procedure would render any decision that the body reaches or adopts a nullity. He referred to <b><i>Ogieva vs Igbinedion (2004) 14 NWLR (Pt. 894) 467 CA.</i></b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">That the other gravamen of the Claimant is that the respondent lacks the criminal jurisdiction to have taken up trial and inquisition culminating in the suspension of the claimant for examination malpractice which is a criminal offence. In his argument, the learned counsel in a bid to get round this, said thus: “<i>the 5<sup>th</sup> defendant made a syntax error to have written that applicant had committed Examination malpractice.”</i> That it beats the wildest imagination how one ascribes error of syntax <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">to the phrase 'examination malpractice'. Syntax in grammar according to Microsoft is the ordering of and relationship between the words and other structural elements in phrases and sentences or the arrangement of any group of elements in a systematic or rule-based manner. In other words it (is) the organization of words in sentences or rule-based arrangement. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">That, aside that the letter was made by one Grace N. Egwuonwu (Mrs.,) HOD (Personnel) under the hand of Registrar/Secretary to Council. But whichCouncil? Learned counsel asks.Counsel added that theabsence of an affidavit deposed not either by the maker of the document, namely, the Registrar or the said Grace N. Egwuonwu (Mrs), establishing any factual error shows that, the said error being foisted on the Honourable court is at best the argument of counsel which stands the law on its head as law is applied to fact. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Furthermore, that the law has been and still remains that document speaks for itself. As at now that letter has not been called up nor the said error, if an error, retracted. Learned counsel still holds and tenaciously too that the principles of law set out in <b><i>Garba vs. Unversity of Maiduguri </i></b>being in all its fours ex-facie the letter which borders on examination malpractice — a criminal offence with the case before the court is applicable or undistinguishable respectively to and from the facts before this court, as the learned counsel to the respondents would wish this court to believe. He urged the court to so hold. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Counsel continued that a convenient point to conclude this inquiry to determine whether the issue contended on behalf of the applicant would be resolved in his favour is to beam the search light of the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of the <b><i>Council Fed. Ploy Mubi vs Yusuf& Anor 1998 (1 NWLR) Pt 533 page 343 at 351 para D-G</i></b> where the court in frowning at this practice of flagrant disregard of <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">the provisions of the statute by institutions of higher learning unequivocally held thus: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">…in all institutions set up by statute it is incumbent that the statutory provisions be adhered to when it comes to removal of its officers from its office because the institution own their existence to their statutes and must abide by the statutory provisions governing them. Removal from office is not impossible once the statutory provisions are adhered to in carrying out the exercise. But it seems some of these institutions overlook the clear and unambiguous provisions of the statute.</span></i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Counsel then stated that from all that was said, he is fortified in his view that relatedly, and from the conducts of the 1<sup>st</sup>to 5<sup>th</sup> respondents, the 5<sup>th</sup>respondent could be regarded as one of these institutions that overlook the clear and unambiguous provisions of the statute. In addition the respondents' act toward the claimant are imbued with an orchestrated malice, a manifested and manifesting malicious perversion of regularly issued process civil or criminal, obtaining a result not lawfully warranted or properly attainable thereby, for the purposes of humiliating and embarrassing the person of the claimant, jeopardizing his career, future and source of livelihood; subjecting him to pain and anguish, psychological, emotional and unnecessary expenses. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">He submitted that from whichever angle one looks at this application, it is competent and meritorious against the contention of the respondents and the court is urged to grant this application. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Having considered the processes filed, the arguments and submissions of the parties in this matter, the sole issue for determination is whether or not the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought? Before I go into the merits of the case however, I shall deal with some preliminary issues. Firstly, the learned Claimant’s counsel has urged the court to discountenance the further counter affidavit of Mr Fidelis Okafor, the 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondent, filed on 11<sup>th</sup> day of June, 2014, on the ground that it is not known to the Rules of this Honourable Court. He further urged the court to discountenance the annexure to it, Exhibit AA1, on the ground that same offends the provisions of Section 84 of the Evidence Act, 2011. Learned claimant’s counsel in his written reply to the counter affidavit dated 15<sup>th</sup> June, 2014 but which was filed on 17<sup>th</sup> June 2014, and also in his oral argument in adopting his written addresses, had pointed to the fact that the Rules of Court have not authorized for the filing of further counter affidavit. He further argued that even if any such were to be filed, leave of court must be sought and obtained and that has not been done in this case. He therefore urged the court to discountenance it. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On his own part the learned counsel for the Respondents did not respond to this point raised by the learned claimant’s counsel. He only urged the court to rely on the said further counter affidavit while adopting his processes. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Having considered the point raised by the learned claimant’s counsel on the issue of the said further counter affidavit, I have to say that the filing of processes is clearly governed by the Rules of Court. In the instant case, the Claimant filed a motion pursuant to Order 22 of the National Industrial Court Rules, 2007. Therefore, by the provisions of Order 11 Rules 4 and 5 of the National Industrial Court Rules, 2007 as amended, the filing of processes is expressly confined to that of a Counter Affidavit by a respondent where he intends to oppose the application. Thereafter, the applicant can file a reply on points of law. Where this happens, the process is deemed closed unless an application is made to the court pursuant to Order 15 or Order 26 rule 13 of the National Industrial Court Rules, 2007, as amended, both provisions of which enjoin the court to adopt such procedure in dealing with issues in the absence of express provisions of the Rules or any written law. Thus since there is no express provision for the filing of further counter affidavit, a party would be required to ask for leave of court to file same. This means that the failure of the respondents to seek for leave of court in filing the said further Counter Affidavit of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondent on 11<sup>th</sup> of June 2014 was a fatal error. The respondents did not bother to regularize the said process even when their attention was drawn to it by the objection of the Claimant through his process of 17/6/2014. In the circumstance the said further counter affidavit of Mr Fidelis Okafor, the 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondent of 11/6/2014 is hereby discountenanced, for having been filed outside the rules of court and with no leave to regularize same. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Secondly, the Claimant’s counsel equally raised objection to another further counter affidavit of the Respondents deposed to by Sylvanus Asogwa, the Registrar to the 5<sup>th</sup> Respondent, filed on 15/1/2016. He urged the court to discountenance same on grounds of not being known to law and absence of leave of court before the filing of same in court. The arguments canvassed by both parties are the same as the further counter affidavit of Mr Fidelis Okafor, which I ruled upon a while ago. In the circumstance I adopt the same reasons in discountenancing the said further counter affidavit of Mr Sylvanus Asogwa filed on 15/1/2016. The said further counter affidavit of Mr Sylvanus Asogwa is hereby discountenanced.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Thirdly, the learned Claimant counsel’s reply on points of law dated and filed on 7<sup>th</sup> of Aril, 2014, which I have fully reproduced earlier in this Judgment is not strictly speaking a reply on points of law only to the issues raised by the Respondents’ learned counsel. The Claimant’s learned counsel simply re-argued his application by even re-formulating the issue for determination in the case and addressed the court on the facts of the case blending same with some legal provisions to justify his formulation of the new issue for determination. This is not allowed. In the case of <b><i>LasisiAyanrinolaAkayepe& Anor vs GaniyuAyanrinolaAkayepe (2009) LPELR-326 (SC), pp. 18-19, paras F-B, </i></b>the Supreme Court, per Mohammed JSC, observed as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">Although an appellant’s reply brief of argument was filed by the appellants, in the absence of new or fresh points in the respondents brief, there is hardly any need for that reply brief in this appeal. A reply brief is filed when an issue of law or argument raised in the respondent’s brief or argument calls for a reply. That is to say, a reply brief is not a forum for introducing fresh arguments or repetition of arguments already advanced in the appellant’s brief. See <b>Okpala v. Ibeme (1989) 2 NWLR (Pt. 102) 208. </b>The appellants’ reply brief which inspite of noting the fact that the respondent merely adopted the same issues as identified in the appellants’ brief, all the same proceeded to respond to the respondent’s argument on each of the four issues argued, is certainly not a reply brief worthy of consideration in the resolution of the issues arising for determinationin this appeal.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">See also <b><i>Cameroon Airlines vs. Otutuizu (2011) LPELR-827 (SC), pp. 40-44, paras C-A; Longe vs First Bank of Nigeria Plc (2010) 2-3 SC. P. 61, UBN Plc vs. Ayodare& Sons (Nig) (2007) All FWLR (Pt. 383) 1 at 42,</i></b>and <b><i>Clifford Osuji vs NkemjikaEkeocha (2009) LPELR-2816(SC), pp. 24-25, paras A-B.</i></b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Going by authorities cited above, a reply on points of law should be confined to that and a re-argument of the issues already canvassed in the main address. It does seem that some counsel feel that every point made by the respondent in an application must be countered further in the reply on points of law. As clearly pointed by the Supreme Court in <b><i>Akayepe’s case above, </i></b>reply on points of law is not an opportunity for the claimant’s counsel to raise new issues or re-argue his case. I therefore have to discountenance the said reply on points of law of the Claimant, as appropriate.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Now turning back to the issue for determination, let me start with a brief statement of the facts of the case. The Claimant is a senior academic staff of the IMT, the 5<sup>th</sup> Respondent. He was suspended by the 5<sup>th</sup> Respondent on the 26<sup>th</sup> day of November, 2013 following the report of a 5-man committee which investigated an allegation of his using a proxy to invigilate an examination in his department. The Management of the IMT, of which the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> Respondents were part of considered the said report and decided to effect the suspension of the Claimant. The Claimant has now challenged that suspension on the primary ground that he was not given the opportunity to be heard before the suspension and that this violates his fundamental human right to fair hearing guaranteed by Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution. He approached the court through asking the Honourable Court for a Judicial Review pursuant to Order 22 of the National Industrial Court Rules, 2007, as amended.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">In addressing the issue at hand, it should be pointed out the legal basis relied upon by the Claimant to challenge his suspension is the provisions of Sections 29(1) and 30(1) and (2) of Institute of Management and Technology Law, Cap 97, Laws Of Enugu State, 2004 (IMT Law, 2004). For ease of reference the said provisions state as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:2.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-1.5in; line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Section 29(1) The Council shall have power to remove from office on grounds of indiscipline, misconduct or inefficiency or for reason of reorganizations, any member of the academic or non-academic senior staff.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:2.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-1.5in; line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:2.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-1.5in; line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Section 30(1) Where the Council has sufficient grounds to believe that the services of any member of the academic staff or non-academic senior staff of the Institute are no longer required for reasons either of misconduct or inability on the part of such member of staff to perform the functions of his office or employment, the Council may serve on the person concerned a notice in writing of its intention to remove him, stating the misconduct or inability complained of and requiring the person to submit his defense against the accusation in writing to the appropriate investigating committee.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:2.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-1.5in; line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:2.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-1.5in; line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Section 30(2) Where the misconduct or inefficiency relates to-<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:2.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l14 level1 lfo16"><!--[if !supportLists]--><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">(a)<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></i><!--[endif]--><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">the Deputy Rector;<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:2.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l14 level1 lfo16"><!--[if !supportLists]--><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">(b)<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></i><!--[endif]--><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">the Registrar;<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:2.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l14 level1 lfo16"><!--[if !supportLists]--><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">(c)<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></i><!--[endif]--><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">a head of department; or<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:2.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l14 level1 lfo16"><!--[if !supportLists]--><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">(d)<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></i><!--[endif]--><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">a Director of School;<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:2.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">the Council will set up a committee which shall consist of such members of the Council and of the Academic Board, as the Council may decide, to investigate the alleged misconduct or inefficiency and report its findings to the Council.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:2.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-1.5in; line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Section 30(3) Where the misconduct or inefficiency relates to any other member of the academic or non-academic senior staff or any other senior employee of the Institute the Council shall direct the Rector to set up a committee which may be presided over by him to investigate the alleged misconduct or inefficiency and report its findings to the Council.</span></i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">A careful look at all the above provisions clearly show that the power to remove from office any staff of the 5<sup>th</sup> Respondents resides in the Council of the 5<sup>th</sup>Respondent. However, the issue in this case is on the suspension of the claimant for a specified period and the question is whether suspension in the present circumstance is also equal to removal? Here the position of the law is that removal includes suspension. See <b><i>University of Lagos vs Uche (2008) LPELR-5073 (CA).</i></b> The point though must be made that suspension of an employee is not termination or dismissal of the employment. See <b><i>Bernard Ojeifo Longe vs First Bank of Nigeria Plc (2010) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1189) 1</i></b> where the Supreme Court held as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">Suspension is neither a termination of the contract of employment nor a dismissal of the employee. It operates to suspend the contract rather than terminate the contractual obligations of the parties to each other.</span></i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">In the instant case, it is the claimant’s contention that the suspension meted out to him is a punishment and the Respondents do not at all have the power to do so going by the provisions of the IMT Law, 2004. The respondents have alluded to the fact that the suspension of the claimant was a necessary measure following the finding of the investigation carried out by the 5-man committee which included the 3<sup>rd</sup> and 4<sup>th</sup> respondents over the allegation of examination malpractice against the claimant. The claimant wants the court to issue the order of certiorari for the said report of the committee to be brought to court for the purpose of quashing same because there was breach of his right to fair hearing. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Here, although the respondents have not drawn the court’s attention to it, there is in existence in the IMT Law, 2004, the provisions of section 20 which gives the 1<sup>st</sup> Respondent the power to superintend over the affairs of the 5<sup>th</sup> Respondent as well as to maintain discipline therein. This court has held in a similar case, i.e., <b><i>Daniel Ofodile vs IMT & Ors (Unreported) Suit no. NICN/EN/3M/2014 Judgment of which was delivered on 15<sup>th</sup> December, 2015, </i></b>that the power of the 1<sup>st</sup> Respondent to maintain discipline sufficiently empowers him to constitute the panel that conducted investigation into the allegation of misconduct against the claimant. The court further referred to the power of the IMT to suspend its employee. The learned respondents’ counsel while adopting his written address in opposition to this application urged the court to apply the decision in <b><i>Ofodile’s case </i></b>to this case. This was opposed by the learned claimant’s counsel who urged the court to hold that <b><i>Ofodile’s case </i></b>and the instant case are distinguishable on the ground that in <b><i>Ofodile’s case </i></b>the Claimant appeared before the investigative panel in question. In the instant case however, the case of the claimant is that he never appeared before the investigative panel of 5 persons which included the 3<sup>rd</sup> and 4<sup>th</sup> Respondents. The point, however, is that suspension of an employee is a prerogative of the employer either to pave way for investigation or even as punishment. See <b><i>Udemah vs Nigerian Coal Corporation (1991) 3 NWLR (Pt. 180) 477 CA.</i></b> The question to ask here though is about the nature of the Claimant’s suspension in this case, i.e., whether it was for the purpose of paving way for investigation or it was a disciplinary action in itself?<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Exhibit A attached to the affidavit in support of the motion is the letter of suspension given to the claimant dated 26<sup>th</sup> November, 2013. For better appreciation it is hereby reproduced in full.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> <i>IMT/RG/08/XXI/328 26<sup>th</sup> November, 2013<o:p></o:p></i></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> Mr Basil Offoh<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> Language Studies Department<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> IMT, Enugu<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> <b><u>SUSPENSION FROM DUTY FOR EXAMINATION MALPRACTICE</u></b></span></i><u><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><o:p></o:p></span></u></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> <i><o:p></o:p></i></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">You will recall that a committee was set up by Management where your attention was brought to the allegation of your involvement in Examination Malpractice wherein you used <b>unauthorized</b> and <b>unknown</b> person(s) as <b>surrogate(s)</b> to invigilate the Institute’s 2012/2013 First Semester Examinations.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif""> </span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">You were given ample opportunity to defend yourself with regard to your involvement in the above allegations.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif""> </span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">After fair consideration, the Committee found you culpable of using <b>unauthorized and unknown</b> person(s) to invigilate the Institute’s 2012/2013 First Semester Examinations.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif""> </span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">Your action is a <b>gross misconduct and constitutes gross examination malpractice.<o:p></o:p></b></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif""> </span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">Therefore, after consideration of all the above and in keeping with our regulations, prevailing law and the course of natural justice, Management at its meeting of 26<sup>th</sup> November, 2013 directed on behalf of Council, as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif""> </span></i></p> <p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom: 0in;margin-left:1.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align: justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l4 level1 lfo17"><!--[if !supportLists]--><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">1)<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></i><!--[endif]--><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">That you are hereby <b>Suspended from Duty</b> for three months (3) with effect from today 26<sup>th</sup> November, 2013. Please hand over all Institute’s property in your custody and care to the appropriate Officers of the Institute.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></i></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:1.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l4 level1 lfo17"><!--[if !supportLists]--><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">2)<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></i><!--[endif]--><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Your suspension will be presented to the Council for disposal action.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></i></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:1.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l4 level1 lfo17"><!--[if !supportLists]--><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">3)<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></i><!--[endif]--><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">By a copy of this letter, the Ag. Bursar is directed to keep you on half pay throughout the duration of your suspension.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></i></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:1.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l4 level1 lfo17"><!--[if !supportLists]--><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">4)<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></i><!--[endif]--><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">All other provisions of the Law as they pertain to suspension of staff will apply.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif""> </span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">Signed<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">GRACE N. EGWUONWU (MRS)<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">HOD (PERSONNEL)<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">FOR: REGISTRAR/SECRETARY TO COUNCIL<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">It is quite clear from the said document that the Claimant was suspended for three months by a Management Committee of the 5<sup>th</sup> Respondent. The said suspension is sequel to the consideration of the report of the investigation carried out by the Committee of 5 which included the 3<sup>rd</sup> and 4<sup>th</sup> Respondents in this suit. The said action of suspension was to be referred to the Council of the 5<sup>th</sup> Respondent for disposal action. From the document in question, Exhibit A, it is quite clear that the Claimant was suspended but the suspension was still to be referred to Council for “disposal action”. Here the decision of the Management Committee appears to bepunitive against the Claimant. The implication is that it is likely to have adverse impact on the affected employee as opined by the learned author, EM Rao, in the book, <i>Industrial Jurisprudence: A Critical Commentary (</i>LexisNexis Butterworths: New Delhi), 2008 referred to by His Lordship, Hon. Justice B.B. Kanyip in the case of <b><i>BasiriyuAdegokeSheu vs Lagos NURTW (First BRT) Coop. Society (Unreported) Judgment in Suit No. NICN/LA/532/2013 delivered on July 1, 2015</i></b>. His Lordship stated thus:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:3.75pt; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">“<i>The learned author continues at pages 236-237 that there are two types of suspension: ‘suspension pending enquiry’ and ‘suspension as a punishment’. Suspension pending enquiry is not a punishment per se, for if the employee is not found guilty, the suspension has to be lifted and he has to be paid to full wages for the period, as if he was never suspended. On the other hand, suspension imposed on the establishment of guilt is in the nature of punishment; it can have adverse impact on the career prospects of the employee within the organization.<b><o:p></o:p></b></i></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">It is necessary to point out though that the decision to suspend the Claimant here is not final as ithas been made subject to the decision of Council. In this regard, the position is quite similar to that of <b><i>Ofodile’s case, supra, </i></b>where the proceedings were still subject to the overall decision of Council in accordance with the requirements of Sections 29 and 30 of the IMT Law, 2004. In <b><i>Ofodile’s case </i></b>this court held that:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">A careful reading of the sections referred to by both parties in my humble view shows that the Rector has been given the power to set up an investigative committee but only upon the direction of Council pursuant to Section 30(3) of the IMT Law. However, a further reading would also show that the powers under Section 30 are to be exercised only in relation to cases of misconduct where a senior staff is facing a case of misconduct. The point being made here is that there is apparent misconception by the Claimant on the powers of the Council and the Rector in relation to Section 30 of the IMT Law. Those powers are to be exercised in relation to proceedings that could lead to the removal of a senior academic or non-academic staff. In the instant case, the investigation in question conducted by the Panel constituted by the Rector of the 1<sup>st</sup> Respondent was not one that was done in the context of Section 30. I find plausible and correct, the argument of the Respondents’ Counsel that the powers of the Rector to superintend over the discipline and administration of the 1<sup>st</sup> Respondent as contained in Section 20(2) of the IMT Law sufficient to enable him constitute the Panel in question. <o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">The Claimant has however alluded to the issue of the Suspension which has been meted out to him pursuant to the findings of the Panel as well as the issue of fair hearing not being granted to him. Here the position of the law on the power to suspend an employee is that an employer has the power to suspend the employee and the exercise of such power cannot be held to be a breach of fair hearing. This is subject to the full observance of the terms of the contract of employment however. In this regard in the case of <b>Prof. J. AdepojuAkinyanju vs University of Ilorin & Ors, </b>the Court of Appeal, per Muntaka-Coomasie (JCA)(as he then was) held as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif""> </span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">Every employer has the power to investigate any allegation of impropriety or misconductLeveled against his employee. This may lead to suspension pending investigation. In the case of Ayewa v. University of Jos (2000) 6 NWLR (Pt. 659) 142 at 144, Uwaifo JSC in his contribution agreed with the lead judgment delivered by Belgore, JSC and stated thus:<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:.5in;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif""> </span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:1.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">The main issue in this matter is whether a servant who is suspended by his master so as to investigate allegations of impropriety leveled against him can have a recourse to the fundamental rights provision to prevent the suspension from operating. The lower court had decided that such a scenario is not appropriate for asserting breach of fundamental rights. I endorse that view. This a case of master and servant. The law is that a master can suspend his servant when necessary and there can be no issue breach of fundamental rights. <o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">My lord has said it all, I bowed to the reasoning of above erudite jurist.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif""> </span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">Furthermore, in the case of <b>Koomlong I. Miaphen vs University of Jos Consultancy Limited (2013) LPELR-21904 (CA) </b>the Court, relying on the decision in <b>Udemah vs Nigerian Coal Corporation (1991) 3 NWLR (Pt. 180) p. 479,</b> held that the right to suspend an employee is available to an employer in order to effect proper investigation of allegation or during the process of a disciplinary action.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif""> </span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">On the issue of fair hearing, I find the authority relied upon by the Respondents in the case of <b><u>Esiaga Vs University of Calabar& Ors (2004) 4 SCNJ Page 17</u></b>apposite on the point that the issue of fundamental right cannot be applied to an investigative stage such as the one in the present suit, because it is the right of the employer to conduct investigation into the activities of his employee.</span></i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Having said this much, the Claimant’s case is distinguishable from <b><i>Ofodile’s case, supra,</i></b> in the sense that the decision to suspend the claimant is punitive pursuant to the allegation and finding of misconduct against the claimant, as against the situation where the suspension would be regarded as one to pave way for investigation. See the case of <b><i>BasiriyuAdegokeSheu vs Lagos NURTW (First BRT) Coop. Society (Unreported) Judgment in Suit No. NICN/LA/532/2013 delivered on July 1, 2015, </i></b>just cited above. The question here is whether the suspension of the Claimant has been given by the right person or body in accordance with the extant law and regulations, i.e., the Council of the 5<sup>th</sup> Respondent? The Claimant says it was not. The Respondents have argued that it was given by Management Committee on behalf of Council, which view is also supported by the contents of Exhibit A reproduced above. The point here is that the suspension being punitive in nature, deserves to be clearly rooted in the law or regulations of the 5<sup>th</sup> Respondent. The Respondents have not drawn the Court’s attention to such express and clear powers given to the Management Committee of the 5<sup>th</sup> Respondent to effect the disciplinary power of suspension for a specified period on half salary. This would have been the yardstick to measure the validity or otherwise of the punitive suspension. See <b><i>BasiriyuAdegokeSheu vs Lagos NURTW (First BRT) Coop. Society Ltd(Unreported) Judgment in Suit No. NICN/LA/532/2013 delivered on July 1, 2015.</i></b> The only provision which the court has been referred to and is quite relevant in this circumstance is Section 30(3) of the IMT Law, 2004. However, in that respect, it is the Council that would direct the investigation and report made to council which would then effect any reasonable penal measure.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">In this case, there is nothing before the Court to show that the matter had gone before the Council of the 5<sup>th</sup> Respondent; and the reliance on Section 20 of the IMT Law, 2004, which gives the Rector the power to maintain discipline is still subject to the powers given in Sections 29 and 30 of the IMT Law, 2004. The move to punish the Claimant by a fixed term of suspension after investigating him for misconduct cannot be sustained in the absence of a clear and express provision of power to punish the Claimant in exactly that type of circumstance. The Management Committee claimed it acted on behalf of Council of the 5<sup>th</sup> Respondent. There is nothing before the Court to support that assertion. There is nothing in the IMT Law or Regulations that created or established the said Management Committee to mete out the said punitive suspension on the Claimant. This I so find and hold.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The Claimant had relied on the provisions of Order 22 of the Rules of this Honourable Court claiming all the reliefs earlier on outlined in this Judgment. The application is primarily one of judicial review, in which the reliefs of orders certiorari, injunctive and declaratory orders were sought. After going through the processes, arguments and authorities it is my humble view that in terms of the order of certiorari in relation to the letter of suspension issued by the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> Respondents’, Exhibit A, the decision to suspend the Claimant for three months as a punishment as stated there on is to be and is hereby quashed for the reason that the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> Respondents have not satisfied the court on their power to so punish the Claimant. Consequently, and in accordance with the provisions of Order 22 Rule (4) of the Rules of the Court the matter is remitted back to the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> Respondent for proper channeling to the Council of the 5<sup>th</sup> Respondent to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Sections 29 and 30 of the IMT Law, 2004 as well as other Rules and Regulations governing misconduct of the Senior Staff of the 5<sup>th</sup> Respondent.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">All other reliefs are refused because as I have earlier on pointed out in this Judgment, they are predicated on breach of the Claimant’s right to fair hearing. However, as it is the position of the law, the power to suspend an employee cannot be defeated by the claim to right to fair hearing. In other words, an employee cannot be heard to complain that he had not been given fair hearing before his suspension by the employer. See the case of <b><i>University of Lagos & Ors vs Uche (2008) LPELR-5073 (CA)p.35 para B-C.</i></b> In this case the court held that:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">The decision of the learned trial Judge anchored solely on issue of suspension which is one of the reliefs sought which order I have found did not contravene the principles of fair hearing by virtue of the provision of under S17(3) of the Act. There is no specific provision on fair hearing to follow in prohibition/suspension of the academic staff.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">It is important to point out that the provisions of Section 17(3) of the University of Lagos interpreted and applied by the Court of Appeal in <b><i>Uches’s case above</i></b>, is <i>in </i><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p>