Download PDF
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: normal"><b><u><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Representation:<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">O.S. Akinola for the Claimant<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Ama Akalonu with K.C. Nwaimo for the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendants<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">G. C. Opara for the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center"><b><u><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">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 lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">This action was commenced by way of Originating Summons at the Federal High Court Owerri on the 16<sup>th</sup> day of July 2014 before it was transferred to this court pursuant to an order of transfer made on the 14<sup>th</sup> day of May 2015 by His lordship Hon. Justice S. M. Shaibu. By an amended Originating Summons filed on the 19<sup>th</sup> day of February 2015 at the Federal High Court, the Claimant sought the determination of the following questions:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <ol style="margin-top:0in" start="1" type="1"> <li class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal;mso-list:l7 level1 lfo2"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Whether the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant’s misrepresentation as regards the status of her grade in English Language in West African School Certificate Examinations (WASC) should give her undue advantage and/or boost her chances of being shortlisted and eventually appointed as the Rector of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant to the detriment of the Plaintiff who has better grade in his West African School Certificate (WASC) and worthy of heading a citadel of learning as the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant.<o:p></o:p></span></li> <li class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal;mso-list:l7 level1 lfo2"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Whether in view of the false representation of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant to the Council of the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant that she had “Credit” grade in English language as stated by the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant in Exhibit G the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant is a fit and proper person to head an esteemed institution of learning as the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant.<o:p></o:p></span></li> <li class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal;mso-list:l7 level1 lfo2"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Whether in view of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant’s false and deliberate representation as regards the status of her pass grade in English Language as “Credit” and the various representation of the pass grade as P, IP, O and P8 to the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendants, the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant is a person of impeccable reputation and notable uprightness to occupy the position of Rector of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant where the nation’s future leaders are being trained for national development.<o:p></o:p></span></li> <li class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal;mso-list:l7 level1 lfo2"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Whether in view of the provisions of Articles 030301 and 030402 of the Public Service Rules of the Federation 2008 and the finding of the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendants that the conduct of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant is “scandalous” and “disgraceful”, the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant is a fit and proper to be appointed or remain as Rector of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant.<o:p></o:p></span></li> <li class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal;mso-list:l7 level1 lfo2"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Whether the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant can approbate and reprobate on its finding that the conduct of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant in her false representation to the Council of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant that she possessed “Credit” grade in English Language ordinary level WASC certificate when indeed she had only P8 in the subject is “scandalous” and “disgraceful”.<o:p></o:p></span></li> <li class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal;mso-list:l7 level1 lfo2"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Whether the conduct of the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant in scheming the process of selection of the Rector of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant in favour of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant who misrepresented her academic qualification to the Council (2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant) which is inconsistent with the dignity of the office of Rector, to the detriment of the Plaintiff who also applied for appointment to the same office of Rector is just, equitable and fair.<o:p></o:p></span></li> <li class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal;mso-list:l7 level1 lfo2"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Whether in view of the provisions of Section 8(2)(a) of the Federal Polytechnics Act Cap 17 LFN 2004 which gives the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant the power to specify the qualities of the person who may apply for the post of Rector and the Council (2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant) having stipulated one of the qualities of prospective applicants to be persons of “impeccable reputation” and “notable uprightness” can turn around to recommend the 3<sup>rd</sup> defendant whose conduct the same Council has found to be “scandalous” and “disgraceful”.<o:p></o:p></span></li> <li class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal;mso-list:l7 level1 lfo2"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Whether the recommendation by the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant for appointment as Rector, whose conduct the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant has found to be “scandalous” and “disgraceful” <b>promotes the best interests</b> of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant.<o:p></o:p></span></li> <li class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal;mso-list:l7 level1 lfo2"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Whether the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant did not misrepresent her result or misguide the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendants with the submission of English Language Pass (P) as an A level result claiming to have obtained same from Ahmadu Bello University School of Basic Studies Zaria.<o:p></o:p></span></li> </ol> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Upon the determination of the above questions, the Plaintiff sought the following reliefs:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <ol style="margin-top:0in" start="1" type="a"> <li class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal;mso-list:l3 level1 lfo3"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> A Declaration of Court that in view of the false representation of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant before a Committee of the Governing Council of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant that she possessed “Credit” grade in English Language which was found to be false, the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant is not a person of impeccable reputation and notable uprightness to be or to remain as the Rector or Chief Executive of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant.<o:p></o:p></span></li> <li class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal;mso-list:l3 level1 lfo3"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">A Declaration of Court that the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant cannot approbate and reprobate on its finding that the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant’s conduct in falsely representing to the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant that she had “Credit” grade in her ordinary level (WASC) certificate in English Language when indeed she had P8 is a “scandalous” and “disgraceful” conduct.<o:p></o:p></span></li> <li class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal;mso-list:l3 level1 lfo3"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">A Declaration of the Honourable Court that in view of the finding that the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant’s conduct in misrepresenting her academic qualification is “scandalous” and “disgraceful”, she is not qualified to remain in the employ of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant as a Lecturer or Rector.<o:p></o:p></span></li> <li class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal;mso-list:l3 level1 lfo3"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">An Order of the Honourable Court mandating and/or directing the 4<sup>th</sup> Defendant to reconsider the propriety of the appointment of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant as Rector of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant or her suitability or propriety of her remaining in that office.<o:p></o:p></span></li> </ol> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">The Originating Summons was supported by a 37-paragraph affidavit deposed to by the Claimant, along with other supporting documents. In the written address filed in support of the Originating Summons, which address was filed on the 24<sup>th</sup> day of March 2015, counsel for the Claimant nominated the 9 questions in the Originating Summons as the issues for determination. Counsel sought leave to argue issues 1-3 and 9 together. Counsel submitted that questions 1, 2, 3 and 9 be resolved against the Defendants. He argued that Exhibit G is the minutes of the interaction of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant with the Council of the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendants wherein the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant represented to the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant in the course of verification exercise of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant’s credentials and academic records that she had a “Credit” grade in her English Language O’ level result. According to Counsel, this development was real and unmistakeable, hence the Chairman of the 1<sup>st</sup> - 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendants Professor S. Bogoro particularly laid emphasis on this representation of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant and she was asked to produce evidence of the assertion. According to Counsel, even though the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant brought what she called a credit grade “remediation” result from the School of Basic Studies, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, her grade in English Language on the said result was still P (Pass) grade. Even when the Council decided to enquire directly from the Authorities of Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant’s result still had P (Pass) grade in the subject. On this point, Counsel referred the Court to Exhibits E3, E4, and F. Counsel went further that a committee of the Council of 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant assigned to look into the allegation of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant’s misconduct, misrepresentation or misguiding the council reported that the conduct of the 3<sup>rd</sup> defendant was “scandalous” and “disgraceful” and recommended that the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant be relieved of her appointment. It was also found that the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant did not possess the minimum qualification of a Chief Lecturer in the employ of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">The Council in accepting the said report (Exhibit J) issued two queries to the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant (Exhibits E and E1). This report and recommendation of the Committee was published to the reading public in the National Agenda Newspaper (Exhibit J1), and the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant did not challenge it. Neither did she challenge the occurrence of the facts stated in the documents which she attached to her application for judicial review in Suit No FHC/OW/CS/23/2006 to the effect that the Council of the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendants acknowledged that the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant actually misguided Council as regards her O’level English Language WASC result when indeed she only had a pass grade in the subject. She only challenged the procedure by which the 1<sup>st</sup> – 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant sought to relieve her of her job in that suit and the subsequent suit she filed in suit No FHC/OW/CS/32/2006 without more. Counsel submitted that the Defendants are estopped from denying the events and circumstances that led to the findings of the 1<sup>st</sup> – 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendants that the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant’s conduct is “scandalous” and “disgraceful”, and as such, the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant cannot qualify to be a person of “impeccable reputation” and “notable uprightness” stipulated as qualification for eligibility to apply for appointment as Rector of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant as prescribed in the advertisement for vacancy as regards the office of the Rector of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant. It is counsel’s submission that the 1<sup>st</sup> – 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendants are not entitled to promote the person of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant as choice candidate for Rectorship of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant at the expense of the Plaintiff whose worthy and scandal-free academic qualification was deliberately ignored to better the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant’s chances. Thus, the conduct of the 1<sup>st</sup> – 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendants amounts to a flagrant abuse of office and/or nepotism by public officers that cannot be protected or backed by law. See <b>MUHAMMED vs. ABU ZARIA (2014) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1407) 500 at 534 A-H, 535 G-H</b>. Counsel urged the court to resolve those questions/issues against the Defendants. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Regarding issue four, counsel submitted that Article 030301 of the Federal Public Service Rules provides that misconduct is defined as a specific act of wrong doing or an improper behaviour which is inimical to the image of the service and which can be investigated and proved. It can also lead to termination and retirement. It includes scandalous conduct such as; unruly behaviour and dishonesty. Article 030402 of the same Rules provides that serious acts of misconduct include falsification of records. Under the Rules, the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant’s misrepresentation of her academic qualifications to the Council and lying before the council constitutes a scandalous conduct, unruly behaviour and an act of dishonesty. It amounts to serious misconduct. Counsel pointed out that the council had looked into these same matters and made a finding that the conduct of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant is both “scandalous” and “disgraceful”. Consequently, the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant is not a fit and proper person to be appointed as Rector of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant or remain in office as such. Counsel urged the court to resolve this issue in favour of 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 lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">With respect to issues 5, 6, 7, counsel submitted that the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant is a creation of statute. The 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant cannot approbate and reprobate over the same issue. See <b>MAIYEGUN vs. GOV. OF LAGOS STATE (2010) All FWLR (Pt. 542) 1704 at 1717 </b>and<b> ADEOGUN vs. FASOGBON (2012) All FWLR (Pt. 576) 485 at 507</b>. Counsel submitted that recommending the same person whose conduct the same person whose conduct the same 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant had earlier considered and found to be “scandalous” and “disgraceful” as the Rector is not an act that promotes the best interests of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant. Counsel further submitted that the selection of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant as Rector to the detriment of the Claimant is unjust, inequitable and unfair. It is counsel’s further submission that if the above issues are decided in favour of the Claimant, the 4<sup>th</sup> Defendant will have no choice than to reconsider the appointment of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant which in effect will pave the way for a new selection process in which the Claimant will be afforded the opportunity to vie for appointment as Rector of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant. In conclusion, counsel urged the court to resolve all the questions in the Originating Summons in favour of the Claimant in the interest of sanitizing the tertiary education sector in Nigeria.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">In opposition, the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendants on 4/5/2015 filed a 23-paragraph counter affidavit deposed to by Mrs. Amanze Honourine Nneka an Assistant Registrar in the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant. Accompanying the affidavit were exhibits in support. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">The 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant on 14<sup>th</sup> January 2016 filed a 27-paragraph affidavit deposed to by the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant. In the accompanying written address, counsel raised three issues for determination as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <ol style="margin-top:0in" start="1" type="1"> <li class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal;mso-list:l5 level1 lfo4"><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Whether in view of the entire episode and facts before this Honourable Court, the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant could be said to have falsely represented to the council of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant that she possessed the requisite academic qualifications for the appointment as Chief Lecturer or Rector in the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant’s institution.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></li> <li class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal;mso-list:l5 level1 lfo4"><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Whether in the light of the facts of this suit, the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendants could be said to have schemed in favour of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant and have run foul of the law in the appointment of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant as the Rector.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></li> <li class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal;mso-list:l5 level1 lfo4"><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Whether the plaintiff has proved his case to be entitled to the reliefs sought or whether this suit is not scandalous, vexatious, and incompetent and an abuse of judicial process.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></li> </ol> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">With respect to issue one, counsel referred to paragraphs 7(d) – (g) of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant’s counter-affidavit and submitted that at the time of the contest, the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant remained the most qualified candidate for the position because she earned her academic certificates and degrees meritoriously. Counsel submitted further that this suit is an afterthought and borne out of the chauvinistic pride of the Claimant. Counsel argued further that a successful party in a competitive race must be allowed to reap the fruit of his labour. See <b>COMEX LTD vs. NAB LTD (1997) 3 NWLR (Pt. 496) 643 and LSDPC vs. CITY MARK LTD (1998) 8 NWLR (Pt. 563) 681</b>. Counsel urged the court to dismiss a frivolous suit. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Again, counsel submitted in respect to issue two, that the rigorous processes involved in the appointment of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant cannot be easily manipulated. Counsel submitted that the Claimant has not placed before the court any material to substantiate his allegations in line with Section 131(1) and (2) and 136 (1) of the Evidence Act 2011. Having failed to prove the allegation, it ought to be discountenanced and dismissed. It is counsel’s submission that the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant’s appointment as Rector was due, proper and credible. Counsel urged the court not to allow itself to be used as a tool in the Claimant’s hands for his selfish purposes. See <b>AGIDIGBI vs. AGIDIGBI II (1996) 6 NWLR (Pt. 447) 300</b> and <b>LASISI vs. TUBI (1974) NSCC 613</b>. Counsel also submitted that the case of <b>MUHAMMED vs. A.B.U. Zaria (2014) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1407) 500</b> cited by the Claimant’s counsel does not apply in the instant case as the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendants have not shown nor expressed any act of nepotism or deviation from any law at all. The 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant was appointed on her merit after fulfilling all the conditions precedent for the appointment. Counsel urged the court to resolve this issue in favour of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">With respect to issue three, counsel submitted that the case of the Claimant is highly embarrassing, speculative and malicious and ought to be dismissed. See <b>ADESOKAN vs. ADETUNJI (1994) 5 NWLR (Pt. 346) 540</b>. According to Counsel, the chauvinistic attitude of the Claimant ought to be curtailed by this Court. He went on that the Claimant has brought this suit in bad faith, and that since 2010 till date the Claimant has done extensive damage to the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant’s reputation. Counsel urged the court to resolve all the issues in favour of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant and dismiss 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 lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">On the 19<sup>th</sup> day of February 2015, the Claimant filed a 22-paragraph Affidavit In opposition to the 1<sup>st</sup>, 2<sup>nd</sup> and 4<sup>th</sup> Defendants’ Counter-Affidavit to the Originating Summons. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Again on 7/7/2015, the Claimant filed a further affidavit of 52 paragraphs deposed to by the Claimant in opposition to the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendants’ 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 lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">On 9/3/2015, the Claimant filed a 27-paragraph Further Affidavit in response to the Counter Affidavit of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">On 4/5/2015 the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant filed a further counter-affidavit of 20 paragraphs, to which the Claimant in opposition, filed a further and better affidavit of 14 paragraphs on 13/11/2015. This was followed by yet another further and better affidavit of 7 paragraphs filed on 23/11/2015 exhibiting documents.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">On 5/2/2016, counsel for the Claimant filed a Reply to the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant’s written address to the Originating Summons. In the first paragraph of the Reply, counsel submitted that the Claimant was unaware of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant’s deliberate misrepresentation to the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant; therefore no burden existed on the Claimant to tell the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendants about the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant’s disqualification. It is counsel’s further submission that the case of <b>LSDPC vs. CITY MARK (WA) LTD (1998) 8 NWLR PT. 563) 681</b> cited by the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant is not relevant as it borders on a judgment creditor being entitled to the fruit of his judgment. Counsel argued that the rigorous process referred to by the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant that was employed in her appointment process is speculative and the court does not act on speculation. More so, counsel submitted that the case of <b>LASISI vs. TUBI</b> cited by the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant is not applicable. Counsel urged the court to discountenance the cases in respect of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant’s second issue and submissions, and grant the reliefs 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 lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">The 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendants on 22/10/2014, filed a Motion on Notice seeking an Order of Court Striking out this suit for want of jurisdiction. In support of the said motion is an 8-paragraph affidavit deposed to by Amanze Honourine Nneka an Assistant Registrar with the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant. In the accompanying Written Address, Counsel formulated a sole issue for determination as follows:<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"><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Is this Honourable Court not bound to Strike out this suit for want of jurisdiction and competence of the Plaintiff to make the Claims and seek the reliefs herein contained?<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Counsel predicated his arguments on this issue upon three main grounds as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <ol style="margin-top:0in" start="1" type="a"> <li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal;mso-list:l4 level1 lfo8"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">That this suit is non-justiciable as it discloses no cause of action.<o:p></o:p></span></li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal;mso-list:l4 level1 lfo8"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">That in the alternative and without conceding that any cause of action is disclosed in this suit, that this Honourable Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the subject matter of this suit.<o:p></o:p></span></li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal;mso-list:l4 level1 lfo8"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">That in the further alternative and without conceding that the Honourable Court is seised with jurisdiction to hear the subject matter of this suit, that this suit is incompetent in so far as it is brought by way of Originating Summons.<o:p></o:p></span></li> </ol> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Arguments were proffered to the effect that the 2<sup>nd</sup>, 4<sup>th</sup>, 6<sup>th</sup>, 7<sup>th</sup> 9<sup>th</sup> and 10<sup>th</sup> Defendants on record are nominal parties, and no claim is made against them. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">I will quickly point out that upon this matter coming up for the first time in this court on the 7<sup>th</sup> day of July 2015, Counsel pointed out that the 2<sup>nd</sup>, 4<sup>th</sup>, 5<sup>th</sup>, 6<sup>th</sup>, 7<sup>th</sup>, 8<sup>th</sup>, 9<sup>th</sup> and 10<sup>th</sup> Defendants’ names had been struck out, and the name of the new 4<sup>th</sup> Defendant the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria added by the Federal High Court. This has been duly reflected in subsequent processes filed both at the Federal High Court and in this Court. Arguments relating to this point of objection and indeed arguments relating to the role of those defendants whose names have been struck out of this action will therefore not be considered in this ruling. <o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">On ground one relating to non-justiciability of this suit, it is counsel’s submission that the Plaintiff has not shown by his affidavit that he has any personal interest in the subject-matter of this suit; and he has not also shown how the declarations and reliefs sought by him in this suit would confer any personal benefits on him or if they are refused, how such refusal would affect his personal rights and interests negatively. Counsel argued that in law, failure to indicate existence of such personal injuries and threats to same is an indication that the Plaintiff has no personal Interest in the outcome of the suit, hence he is either a busy body or an interloper. On this score, it is counsel’s submission that this suit discloses no cause of action to warrant the Plaintiff to institute same in the first place. To counsel, it is not the business of the Plaintiff to institute this action, as he has not pleaded any facts that would show how his interest to commence the action arose, or what those interests are. On this point, Counsel cited the case of <b>CHIEF THOMAS vs. MOST REV. OLUFOSOYE (1986) 2 S.C 325 (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 18) 669 Per Oputa JSC</b>. Counsel submitted further that the issue of locus standi goes to the jurisdiction of the court. If the Plaintiff has no locus standi, then the court has no jurisdiction, and is left with no option than to strike out the matter. See <b>RTEAN vs. NURTW (1992) 8 LRCN 442</b>.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">It is the argument of counsel that for the Plaintiff to maintain this action, he must indicate that he has a cause of action, and for him to have a cause of action, he must be an aggrieved party; and for him to be an aggrieved party, he must show how the actions of the Defendants have injured him personally. Therefore, on the authority of <b>AIYELABEGAN vs. L.G. SERVICE COMMISSION, ILORIN (2009) 22 WRN 108</b>, the Plaintiff has no cause of action and therefore no right to judicial relief, as he has failed to disclose any injury personal to him or any other person for that matter. He cannot make claims for reliefs where he was not injured or shown to have been injured in any way. According to Counsel, for the action to be competent, the person aggrieved must be the Plaintiff. <b>OSADEME vs. AGBADAMU (2012) 51 WRN 163 at 181 line 15</b>. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Another leg of argument of Counsel bothers on the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court to entertain this action. Counsel submitted that it is the National Industrial Court that has exclusive jurisdiction. The case having been transferred to the National Industrial Court, I think this line of submission has been overtaken. I will therefore not consider the said arguments. <o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">On ground three relating to incompetency of this suit on the grounds that it is brought by way of Originating Summons, Counsel submitted that this action does not qualify to be brought by way of Originating Summons because it is based on oral evidence and not purely documentary. According to Counsel, the action is based on oral evidence, contentious and disputable facts, and therefore should not be commenced by way of Originating Summons. Counsel cited the following cases: <b>RAIMI vs. AKINTOYE (1986) 3 NWLR (Pt.36) P 97, NITEL vs. UGBE (2002) 11 WRN 45, EKPUK vs. OKON (2001) 44 WRN 85</b>. He urged the court to strike out the suit for being incompetent. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">In opposition to the application of the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendants, the Claimant filed a Counter Affidavit of 5 paragraphs. In the accompanying written address of counsel, counsel addressed the court on the appropriateness of determining the substantive application (Originating Summons) together with the issues raised in the preliminary objection. He cited the cases of <b>A.P.C. LTD. vs. NDIC (NUB LTD.) (2002) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1002) Pg. 404 at 443 B-E; DAPIANLONG vs. DARIYE (2007) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1036) Pg. 332 at 406 E-F, </b>and <b>MUHAMMED vs. A.B.U. ZARIA (2014) 8 NWLR (Pt. 212) Pg. 652 at 676 D-E. </b>Counsel<b> </b>further pointed out that the application of the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendants was premised upon the initial Originating processes filed by the Plaintiff upon commencement of this action. He reminded that there has been an amendment by leave of court, and the amended Originating Summons filed on 19/2/2015 together with the accompanying documents qualifies the suit to be brought by way of Originating Summons. Counsel proceeded to rehash his written submissions contained in the address accompanying the Originating Summons and submitted that the Court can proceed under the present procedure of Originating Summons. <b>OLAGUNJU vs. YAHAYA (1998) 3 NWLR (Pt. 542) Pg. 501 at 510-511 F-A.</b> <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">On the issue of locus standi, counsel submitted that the courts have since shifted from the traditional strict application of the doctrine of locus standi, and that where the interest of justice demands, the concept of locus standi should be given a broad and liberal scope to bring out the true essence of justice. <b>GUDA vs. KITTA (1999) 12 NWLR (Pt. 629) Pg. 21 at 48 D-F, 47 C</b>. Counsel cited the case of <b>SHELL PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD. vs. NWAKWA (2001) 10 NWLR (Pt. 720) Pg. 64 at 82-83 F-A </b>and<b> DODO vs. EFCC (2013) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1336) Pg. 468 at 523 A-B and 521 F-H</b>, and submitted that once the citizen can show that he has special interest in the performance of public duty sought to be enforced, he has the standi to sue. He went further that Plaintiff has met the guiding principles for determining locus standi as stated by the Supreme Court in the case of <b>AJAYI vs. ADEBIYI (2012) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1310) Pg. 137 at 175-176</b> as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <ol style="margin-top:0in" start="1" type="a"> <li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo9"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">The Plaintiff must be able to show that his civil rights and obligations have been or are in danger of being infringed.<o:p></o:p></span></li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo9"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">The fact that a person may not succeed in the action is immaterial.<o:p></o:p></span></li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo9"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Whether civil rights and obligations have been infringed depends on the particulars of each case.<o:p></o:p></span></li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo9"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">The court should not give any unduly restrictive interpretation to the concept of locus standi. <o:p></o:p></span></li> </ol> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">According to Counsel, the Plaintiff is a person who has suffered prejudice and injury from the abuse of power by the 1<sup>st</sup>-2<sup>nd</sup> and 4<sup>th</sup> Defendants in the way they suppressed the chances of the Plaintiff becoming the Rector out of bad faith and malice, in favour of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant. On the authority of <b>NDAYAKO vs. DANTORO (2004) 13 NWLR (Pt. 889) Pg. 87</b>, counsel submitted that the Supreme Court had extended the frontiers of locus standi. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">On the propriety of bringing this suit by Originating summons, Counsel submitted that by virtue of the amended Originating Summons together with accompanying documents as well as further documents filed along with further affidavits, the Plaintiff had presented the necessary documents, whose interpretation would be sufficient to determine the questions and granting the reliefs sought. He added that there are no substantial disputes of facts in this suit as to disqualify it from being heard under the Originating Summons procedure. He went on that the parties are ad idem on several points, thereby narrowing down the areas of disputes to very little. Counsel cited the following cases: <b>OBIECHEFU vs. GOV. IMO STATE (2008) All FWLR (Pt. 443) Pg. 1255 at 1262, 1268 H-B, A. G. ADAMAWA vs. A. G. FEDERATION (2005) 12 SC (Pt. II) Pg. 32, ADEDIPE vs. THEOPHILUS (2005) 16 NWLR (Pt. 951) Pg. 250, FASHEUN MOTORS vs. UBA LTD (2000) 1 NWLR (Pt. 640) Pg. 110 </b>and<b> BALONWU vs. OBI (2007) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1028) Pg. 488 at 534 A-E and 554 A-C</b>, and submitted that peripheral or cosmetic disputes in affidavits are immaterial, and therefore there are no serious or strong material disputes of facts in this suit to prevent the matter from being heard on Originating Summons. And that even if the court finds otherwise, it should not be struck out but rather the court will order for pleadings. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">He urged the Court to dismiss the application. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">On 4/5/2015, the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendants filed a further affidavit of 8 paragraphs deposed to by Amanze Honourine Nneka in further support of the motion for striking out. In the accompanying address, counsel stated that the suit in its amended form is still incompetent. To counsel, the amendment has not changed the character of the suit, and the subject matter remained intact. According to Counsel, merely having applied for the post of Rector in 2010 does not give the Plaintiff the locus to bring this action, because the tenure of the post for which he applied in 2010 had expired in 2014. Again, the Plaintiff had no personal interest in the employment of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant as a lecturer. Counsel urged the court to dismiss the action.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">The 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant on 15/3/2016 filed a Motion on Notice brought pursuant to Section 2 of the Public Officers’ Protection Act (POPA) and sought an order of the Honourable Court dismissing this suit for want of jurisdiction. The grounds for the application are:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <ol style="margin-top:0in" start="1" type="a"> <li class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal;mso-list:l9 level1 lfo5"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">The 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant is a public officer.<o:p></o:p></span></li> <li class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal;mso-list:l9 level1 lfo5"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">This suit was commenced after the statutory limitation period.<o:p></o:p></span></li> <li class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal;mso-list:l9 level1 lfo5"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">The court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this suit.<o:p></o:p></span></li> </ol> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">The motion was supported by a 5-paragraph affidavit deposed to by Ahamefule Ngozi a litigation secretary in the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant counsel’s Law Office. In the accompanying address, counsel identified one issue for determination, which is: <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"><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Whether this Honourable Court is not bound to dismiss this suit for lack of jurisdiction as the suit is statute barred and outside the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Arguing this issue, counsel stated that Section 2 of the Public Officers’ Protection Act POPA is to the effect that any action sought to be instituted against a public officer must be done within three months. See <b>OKON ANTIGHA ESSIEN vs. CROSS RIVERS STATE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION & ANOR (2014) LPELR 23527</b> and <b>OFFOBOCHE vs. OGOJA LG (2001) 16 NWLR (Pt. 739) 458</b>. Again, counsel submitted that it is the Statement of Claim that determines the jurisdiction of a court. See <b>UBA PLC vs. BTL INDUSTRIES LTD (2007) All FWLR (Pt. 352) 1615</b>. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">In the instant case, counsel submitted further that the claimant in paragraph 9 of his re-sworn affidavit in support of his Originating Summons averred that it was in 2006 that the events surrounding the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant’s lack of a “Credit” grade in English Language occurred. Thus, the Claimant’s right of action became extinguished in 2006. The instant action is in counsel’s opinion statute barred and is worthy to be dismissed by the Court. See <b>EGBE vs. ADEFARASIN (1987) 1 NWLR (Pt. 47) 1</b> and <b>IBRAHIM vs. JSC KADUNA STATE (1998) 14 NWLR (Pt. 584) 1</b>. Furthermore, counsel submitted that the Claimant’s right of action if any, expired as the tenure of office he is contending through this suit expired in 2014. The Claimant did not participate in the race for second tenure, which is still continuing. He can therefore not sue on it as he lacks the requisite right to do so. Counsel urged the court to resolve this issue in favour of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant and dismiss this suit for being statute barred.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">In opposition, the Claimant on 1/4/2016 filed a counter affidavit of 15 paragraphs. In the written address supporting the counter affidavit counsel replied to the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant’s submissions in 10 paragraphs. Counsel submitted that the provisions of Section 2 POPA do not protect public officers who act in bad faith or abuse of office in oppressing others. See <b>OFFOBOCHE vs. OGOJA LG (supra)</b>, <b>EGBE vs. BELGORE (2004) 8 NWLR (Pt. 875) 336 and REPUBLIC BANK vs. CBN (1998) 13 NWLR (Pt. 581) 306</b>. Counsel referred the court to the affidavit in support of the Originating Summons and paragraphs 2-15 of the counter affidavit in opposition and submitted that this suit is competent. It is counsel’s further argument that at this stage the Court is enjoined to look into allegations of malice, vendetta, bad faith, bad faith and oppression by the Public Officer. That is, the court is enjoined to hear the substantive matter with the Preliminary Objection to determine whether those allegations deprive the public officer of the POPA’s protection. See the following cases:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <ol style="margin-top:0in" start="1" type="1"> <li class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal;mso-list:l6 level1 lfo6"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">APC LTD vs. NDIC (NUB LTD) (2006) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1002) 404 at 457<o:p></o:p></span></b></li> <li class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal;mso-list:l6 level1 lfo6"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">MAIKULUM vs. GASHIGAR (2011) All FWLR (Pt. 597) 668 at 682-3<o:p></o:p></span></b></li> <li class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal;mso-list:l6 level1 lfo6"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">MUHAMMED vs. ZARIA (2014) NWLR (Pt. 1407) 500 at 536</span></b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS""><o:p></o:p></span></li> </ol> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Similarly, counsel contended that the 3<sup>rd</sup> defendant counsel’s contention that the claimant’s cause of action arose in 2006 is misconceived. This is owing to the fact that the Claimant was unaware of the events surrounding the academic qualifications of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant, which were suppressed by the 1<sup>st</sup>, 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendants to boost the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant’s chances of being Rector. This action in counsel’s opinion is a manifestation of nepotism, undue influence and oppression in making the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant Rector, which removes the protection of the POPA. Counsel urged the court to overrule the Preliminary Objection and set down this suit for hearing and <a name="_GoBack"></a>determination.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </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:.5in; line-height:normal"><b><u><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">COURT’s DECISION<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 lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">The Defendants have raised several points of objection to the competence of the Claimant’s action. I want to deal with the objections first.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">In their various motions, contents of the affidavit in support of the motions and the submissions of counsels in the written addresses, these points have been identified as the grounds of objection the defendants have raised against the claimant’s suit:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <ol style="margin-top:0in" start="1" type="a"> <li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal;mso-list:l10 level1 lfo11"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">some of the defendants are nominal parties,<o:p></o:p></span></li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal;mso-list:l10 level1 lfo11"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">The <u>Court lacks the jurisdiction on the subject matter of the action,<o:p></o:p></u></span></li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal;mso-list:l10 level1 lfo11"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">The suit is not competent having been brought <u>by way of Originating Summons</u>,<o:p></o:p></span></li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal;mso-list:l10 level1 lfo11"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">The suit <u>discloses no cause of action</u> and the Claimant lacks <u>locus standi</u> to institute the action.<o:p></o:p></span></li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal;mso-list:l10 level1 lfo11"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">The suit is statute barred by reason of the Public Officers’ Protection Act.<o:p></o:p></span></li> </ol> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">I shall consider these grounds together.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">In the motion by the 1<sup>st</sup>, 2<sup>nd</sup> and 4<sup>th</sup> defendants, 10 parties were listed as defendants in this action and in his arguments on the motion, the counsel to the 1<sup>st</sup>, 2<sup>nd</sup> and 4<sup>th</sup> defendant submitted that except the 1<sup>st</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> defendants, all other defendants are nominal parties. When this this matter came up for the first time in this court on 7<sup>th</sup> July 2015, Counsel to the Claimant informed the court that the 2<sup>nd</sup>, 4<sup>th</sup>, 5<sup>th</sup>, 6<sup>th</sup>, 7<sup>th</sup>, 8<sup>th</sup>, 9<sup>th</sup> and 10<sup>th</sup> Defendants’ names had been struck out by the Federal High Court and the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria was joined as the new 4<sup>th</sup> Defendant. I can also observe from subsequent processes filed both at the Federal High Court and in this Court that there are only 4 Defendants on record. Therefore, objection with reference to parties who are no longer in the matter do not deserve consideration. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">In paragraph 4 of the affidavit in support of the motion by the 1<sup>st</sup>, 2<sup>nd</sup> and 4<sup>th</sup> Defendants and paragraph 4 (e) of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant’s affidavit in support of her motion, it was deposed that the subject matter of this suit is triable only by the National Industrial Court. The counsels to the Defendants argued on this account that the suit be struck out or dismissed as the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the suit. I think this ground of the objection has been overtaken by events. The instant motion was filed at the Federal High Court. I observe that this ground of the objection was raised in relation to the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court on the subject matter of this suit. Now that the suit is before the National Industrial Court, this ground of the objection is no longer a strong point.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">The Claimant commenced this suit in the FHC by way of Originating Summons. When the matter was transferred to this court, it was continued as an Originating Summons proceeding. The 1<sup>st</sup>, 2<sup>nd</sup> and 4<sup>th</sup> defendants have contended in their motion that in view of the contentious and disputed nature of the suit, it ought not to have been instituted by way of Originating Summons. The Claimant’s counsel has argued that the interpretation of the documents filed with the Originating Summons is sufficient to determine the questions in the suit. Counsel also argued that there are no substantial disputes of facts in this suit as to disqualify it from being heard under the Originating Summons procedure. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Originating summons is a special process under the rules of the various courts and the Rules usually state the actions which can be heard using the Originating Summons proceedings.</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:Arial"> </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Order 3 Rule 5A of the Rules of this Court (see paragraph 2 of the NIC Practice Direction 2012) provides:<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;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">“(1) Any person claiming to be under an enactment, constitution, agreement, or any other written instrument may apply by originating summons for the determination of any question of construction arising under the instrument for a declaration of the rights of the persons interested. <o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">(2) The originating summons shall be accompanied by:<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> a) An affidavit setting out the facts relied on,<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:1.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">b) Copies of instruments sought to be construed and other related documents,<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:1.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">c) A written address containing the issues to be determined and succinct arguments on the issues.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> Provided that a suit which raises substantial dispute of facts or where substantial dispute of facts is likely to be involved shall not be commenced by originating summons but by a complaint provided in Rule 4 of this order.”<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">The import of this rule is that in this court, action which can be commenced by Originating Summons are those for construction of instruments by persons interested; and suits which are not contentious or not involving substantial dispute of facts. Similarly, the courts have held that originating summons is not appropriate for a matter where there is a dispute of facts or where the proceedings are hostile. In <b>NIGERIAN REINSURANCE CORPORATION vs. CUDJOE (2008) All FWLR (Pt. 414) 1532 at 1556</b><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"><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">“Where it is obvious or evident from the state of the affidavit evidence that there will be an air of friction in the proceedings, then an originating summons is no longer appropriate. An originating summons is only applicable in such circumstances as where there is no dispute on questions of fact or likelihood of such dispute.”<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span class="apple-style-span"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 5pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span class="apple-style-span"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">See also <b>DAPIANLONG vs. DARIYE (2007) 4 S.C. (Pt. III) 118 at 167-168; OSSAI vs. WAKWAH (2006) All FWLR (Pt. 303) 239 at 255;</b></span></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> <b>F.G.N vs. ZEBRA ENERGY LTD (2003) FWLR (Pt. 142) 154 at 192/193.</b></span><span class="apple-style-span"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: normal;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span class="apple-style-span"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">It is clear from the Rules and the authorities cited above</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:Arial"> that Originating Summons is inapplicable or inappropriate for actions </span><span class="apple-style-span"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS"">where the facts are in dispute or there is likelihood of their being in dispute or where the question in issue is not one for the construction of a written law, Constitution or any instrument, agreement or document</span></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">. In this matter, the Claimant filed a 37 paragraph affidavit in support of the amended Originating Summons. The 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendants filed a 23-paragraph counter affidavit while the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant filed a 27-paragraph counter affidavit. The Claimant, in response, filed a 22-paragraph affidavit in opposition to the 1<sup>st</sup>, 2<sup>nd</sup> and 4<sup>th</sup> Defendants’ Counter-Affidavit, a further affidavit of 52 paragraphs in opposition to the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> defendants’ counter affidavit and a 27 paragraphs further affidavit in response to the Counter Affidavit of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant. The 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant too filed a further counter-affidavit of 20 paragraphs to which the Claimant filed a further and better affidavit of 14 paragraphs and another further and better affidavit of 7 paragraphs. I have read all these affidavits. The questions submitted for determination of the court in the Originating Summons having already been set out at the beginning of this judgment, I shall not repeat them here. From a reading of the questions and the contents of the various affidavits of the parties in this matter, it is obvious that there is serious and substantial dispute of facts in this case</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">. </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">I have also observed that</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">the suit is far from being a question of merely interpreting documents or instrument. The Claimant’s case against the Defendants involves acts of wrongdoing and illegality by the Defendants. In fact, right from the questions posed for determination in the Originating Summons, the mind of this court has already been prepared to expect that facts are likely to be in dispute and in my view, these facts can only be resolved and determined by pleadings and hearing oral evidence. W<span class="apple-style-span">here the disputed facts are substantial as in the present case, the proper mode of commencing such action is by Compliant. I agree with the counsel to the 1<sup>st</sup>, 2<sup>nd</sup> and 4<sup>th</sup> Defendants that Originating Summons is not a suitable procedure to adopt in this suit. </span>I hold therefore that this action was wrongly commenced by means of Originating Summons. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Counsel has urged this court to strike out the suit on this ground, among others. I do not share this view. Although the suit was brought by an irregular process, it is not incompetent on that ground. The position of the courts in situations of this nature is not to strike out the suit but to proceed by either converting the suit to Complaint, or order pleadings. See<b> NIGERIAN REINSURANCE CORPORATION vs. CUDJOE (supra) at 1556; KWARA POLYTECHNIC vs. OYEBANJI (2008) All FWLR (Pt. 447) 141 at 192. </b>In <b>OSUNBADE vs. OYEWUMI (2007) 18 NWLR (Pt. 368) 1004 at 1015, </b>the Supreme Court gave the direction in these words- <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; mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">“The proper order a trial court should make where it finds that the action before it was wrongly commenced by way of originating summons, is to order pleadings and not to dismiss such action or pronounce on the merit of the case.”</span></i></b><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS""><o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Therefore, what should ordinarily be done in this situation is to convert the Originating Summons to Complaint, and order pleadings. This will necessitate having to call oral evidence to resolve the disputes. A question arising from this position, is whether this court can revert to that option at this stage? <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Other grounds of objection; particularly that the suit itself is statute barred and that the Claimant has no locus to institute the suit, have been raised against the suit. It will not be appropriate to convert the suit to Complaint or order pleadings with a view to proceeding with the matter when there exists objections to the effect that the action is statute barred, and that the Claimant has no locus to bring the suit in the first place. Therefore, the other grounds of the objections have to be considered and determined before deciding on the appropriate process to proceed with, and indeed if it will still be necessary.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">In paragraph 5 of the affidavit in support of the motion by the 1<sup>st</sup>, 2<sup>nd</sup> and 4<sup>th</sup> Defendants and in paragraph 7 (c) of the Defendants further affidavit, it is deposed that the Claimant lacks locus standi to institute this suit as the facts of the Claimant’s case has not shown that he was injured in any way by the acts he complained of, and the reliefs he sought are not personal to him. In paragraph 7 thereof, it was averred that the Claimant has not disclosed any cause of action against the Defendants. It was on this basis the counsel to the 1<sup>st</sup>, 2<sup>nd</sup> and 4<sup>th</sup> Defendants argued that the Claimant lacks locus standi to institute this suit. In his counter affidavit, the Claimant disputed the averments of the Defendants and further stated that he has a cause of action in this suit.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">In legal parlance, locus standi, which is synonymous with “standing” or “title to sue”, means the right of a party to appear and be heard on the question before the court. The term is usually used in connection with the plaintiff who has instituted an action and the question usually is whether in law, he can commence or prosecute the suit he has commenced. See <b>EAST HORIZON GAS CO. LTD vs. EFIOK (2012) All FWLR (Pt. 605) 386 at 395; ADETONA vs. ZENITH INTERNATIONAL BANK PLC (2012) All FWLR (Pt. 611) 1443 at 1465. </b>The concept of locus standi is founded on two main factors. They are the subject matter of the suit and sufficient interest to be shown by the plaintiff on the subject matter. The law is that there must be the correlation of the plaintiff’s interest in the subject matter of dispute touching him as a party and thus giving him the right of complaint and the right to defend his civil right and obligations against another person, government or authority. <b>METILELU vs. OLOWO-OPEJO (2006) All FWLR (Pt. 337) 418 at 429. </b>Thus, once a party’s standing to sue is challenged, such a party must show that he has sufficient interest in the performance of the duty he seeks to enforce or that his interest is likely to be adversely affected. In order words, where a party does not have sufficient interest in the subject matter in a suit or in the outcome of the suit or if he has not suffered or does not stand to suffer any injury either by the enforcement, or threatened exercise of some power, authority or right, he is said not to have locus standi in the suit.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">It is trite however that the locus standi of a plaintiff is disclosed in the writ of summons and statement of claim. In deciding whether a plaintiff has locus standi, the judge is expected to examine the statement of claim or the affidavit in support of the claim to see whether it discloses a cause of action vested in the plaintiff. The averments in the statement of claim must disclose the rights and obligations or interest of the plaintiff which has been violated. See <b>METILELU vs. OLOWO-OPEJO (SUPRA) at 430</b>. In <b>ADETONA vs. ZENITH INTERNATIONAL BANK (SUPRA) at 1454,</b> the Supreme Court stated that as a general principle, the averment in the statement of claim and the writ of summons are mainly the materials required at this stage to ascertain the locus standi of a plaintiff, that is to say, they are the materials relevant in the consideration of the question of locus standi. Also, in <b>FIRST BANK OF NIGERIA PLC vs. NERIKO ENTERPRISE LTD 2002 FWLR (Pt. 95) 335 at 344,</b> it was held thus:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">“In an application to determine whether a plaintiff has locus standi or not, the judge is bound to confine himself within the four walls of the writ of summons and the statement of claim before him and no more, as the issue of locus standi is a matter of law. Even, if the statement of defence has been filed at the time the objection was made, the judge would still be bound to confine himself to the statement of claim of the plaintiff to decide whether he has a locus standi”<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Therefore, whether or not a party has the locus to institute and maintain an action against another would depend on what interest or injury the litigating party had manifested in the writ of summons and statement of claim. In the instant action commenced by Originating Summons, the processes to be looked at to determine whether the claimant has locus standi to institute this action are the originating summons and the affidavit in support. It is from these processes this court will find whether or not the Claimant has interest in the subject matter.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">The facts upon which these questions and reliefs are to be considered are contained in the Affidavit in support of the Originating summons. The brief facts are that the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant did not have a credit grade in English language in her WASC result which was a requirement for employment in the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant. The 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant’s committee investigated the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant’s academic qualification in 2006 and found that the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant was employed as a lecturer in the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant without the requisite credit pass grade in English Language in WASC. The committee also found the conduct of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant to be “disgraceful” and “scandalous” and consequently recommended the termination of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant’s employment. Following the report, the 3<sup>rd </sup>Defendant was queried but she went to court. The suits were not determined on their merits. When a new counsel was appointment for the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant, the council absolved the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant of the issues about her employment. When the post of Rector became vacant and advertisement placed for the position, the Claimant said he applied but he could not scale through the process because the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendants gave preference to the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant. This undue preference to the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant notwithstanding the earlier findings against her gave her undue advantage over the Claimant and prevented the Claimant from emerging as Rector of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant. The conduct of the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant in the selection of new Rector was an implementation of a script and this attracted various protests against the selection process. The conduct of the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendants misled the 4<sup>th</sup> Defendant in the appointment and renewal of tenure of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant. To the Claimant, he is obligated under the Public Service Rules to report any case of misconduct that comes to his notice to the appropriate authority. His report of non-qualification of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant for the office of Rector is borne out of his said duty. The Claimant believes that the 4<sup>th</sup> Defendant will revisit the issue of appointment of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant if the reliefs sought in the suit are granted.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpFirst" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">From the facts, the Claimant’s cause of action was the exoneration of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant of the issue of her incomplete WASC result and the appointment of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant as Rector of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant. He said that he vied for the same post but the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant was selected instead of him. It is his case that the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant ought not to have been selected in view of an earlier indictment for not possessing requisite qualifications for employment in the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant. Hence the 1<sup>st</sup> question submitted by the Claimant for determination in the Originating Summons is whether the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant’s misrepresentation of her grade in English Language in WASC should give her undue advantage or boost her chances of being shortlisted and appointed as the Rector of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant to the detriment of the Plaintiff who has better grade in his WASC. The Claimant also sought, among others, a reconsideration of the appointment of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant as Rector of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant. In my view, these facts disclose a cause of action and also confer the Claimant with locus standi to sue. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Let me point it out that Locus standi is different from the merit of the case. The fact that a person may not succeed in the action is immaterial. Once the person can show that his interest has been affected by the act complained of, he will have the standi to sue. See<b> AJAYI vs. ADEBIYI (supra).</b> Having examined the case of the Claimant, I have no doubt that he has shown his locus standi to bring this suit, which suit also discloses a cause of action. Consequently, this ground of the objection by the 1<sup>st</sup>, 2<sup>nd</sup> and 4<sup>th</sup> Defendants also fails. In the result, the motion by the 1<sup>st</sup>, 2<sup>nd</sup> and 4<sup>th</sup> have no merit and it is hereby dismissed.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Only the motion by the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant is left for consideration. </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">The 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant’s application is for the suit to be dismissed on the ground that the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant is a public officer and the suit was commenced after the statutory limitation period. In the affidavit in support of the motion, it was deposed therein that the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant is the Rector of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant having been so appointed on 20<sup>th</sup> September 2010. The Claimant participated in the race for Rector of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant in 2010 but lost. The Claimant filed this suit on 20<sup>th</sup> September 2013, which is three years after the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant was sworn in as Rector of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant. The Claimant’s cause of action arose on the date of appointment of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant but since he did not commence the action within 3 months from when the cause of action arose, the action is statute barred. In his counter affidavit, the Claimant averred that the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendants abused their office when they schemed the race for Rector of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant in favour of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant. Although the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant was indicted in certificate verification, officers of the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendants compromised and appointed the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant as Rector. The said officers of the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendants also suppressed the Claimant’s chances of emerging as Rector of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant. He was not immediately seised of the fact that the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant’s conduct was found disgraceful and scandalous. He commenced this suit in the 1<sup>st</sup> tenure of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant and he believes that the Defendants who have abused their office cannot seek protection as 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 lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">In his arguments on the objection, the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant’s counsel cited Section 2 (a) of Public Officers Protection Act and submitted that the Claimant’s suit is statute barred as it was not instituted against the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant, who is public officer, within three months of the accrual of the cause of action. The provision of Section 2 (a) of POPA is as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">“2. Where any action, prosecution or other proceeding is commenced against any person for any act done in pursuance or execution or intended execution of any Act or Law or of any public duty or authority, or in respect of any alleged neglect or default in the execution of any such Act, Law, duty or authority, the following provision shall have effect:<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:1.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in; line-height:normal;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo10"><!--[if !supportLists]--><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">(a)<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></i></b><!--[endif]--><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">The action, prosecution or proceeding shall not lie or be instituted unless it is commenced within three months next after the act, neglect or default complained of, or in case of a continuance of damage or injury, within three months next after the ceasing thereof.”<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">The implication of the above provision is that any action against a public officer in respect of any act done in pursuance or execution of any Act or law or of public duty or any default in respect of same can only be commenced within 3 months of the accrual of the cause of action except in the case of continuance of the damage or injury in which the claimant must institute the action within 3 months after the cessation of the damage or injury. Where the suit is not commenced within the prescribed period, the Claimant’s right of action in respect of that cause will be statute barred and the court will no longer have jurisdiction to entertain the suit. See <b>IBRAHIM vs. J.S.C, KADUNA STATE (1998) 12 SC 20; EGBE vs. ALHAJI (1990) 3 S.C (Pt.1) 63. <o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Upon a review of the Claimant’s counter affidavit to the instant motion and the written address of counsel to same, it is observed that the Claimant did not dispute the fact that the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant or any of the Defendants is a public officer. Let me state for the records, that all the Defendants in this case are public officers within the meaning of the expression. The Claimant did not also dispute the fact that his cause of action arose in 2010 or the fact he instituted this action on 20<sup>th</sup> September 2013. The Claimant’s contention, as revealed in his counter affidavit and submissions of his counsel, is that the Defendants cannot be protected by Section 2 of the Public Officers’ Protection Act because they acted in abuse of their office. Counsel urged the court to refer to the affidavit in support of the Originating Summons where allegations of malice, vendetta, bad faith and oppression by the Public Officer are disclosed against the Defendants. I will come to this argument in a while.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS";color:red"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">I have stated somewhere in this judgment that the Claimant’s complaint in this suit is about the appointment of the Claimant as Rector of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant notwithstanding her indictment for defective WASC result. The Claimant’s cause of action therefore arose the moment the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant was appointed by the 4<sup>th</sup> Defendant as Rector of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant on 20<sup>th</sup> September 2010. By Section 2 (a) of POPA, the Claimant, if he genuinely wanted to challenge the appointment or contend that the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant was not qualified for appointment or challenge the role of the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendants in the emergence of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant as Rector, was expected to file this suit within 3 months of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant’s appointment. The Claimant however filed this suit, then at the Federal High Court, Owerri Division, on 16<sup>th</sup> July 2014. Between 20<sup>th</sup> September 2010 when the Claimant’s cause of action in this suit arose and 16<sup>th</sup> July 2014 when he filed this suit against the Defendants, is a period of about 3 years and 8 months. This is more than the 3 months period stipulated in the Public Officers’ Protection Act within which the Claimant can institute a valid suit against the Defendants. It thus implies that the Defendants can seek to invoke the provision of Section 2 (a) POPA to terminate these proceedings brought against them. Since this suit was filed more than 3 months from the date of the cause of action, it offends the provision of the Act and it is liable to be declared statute barred.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">However, the Claimant has insisted that the suit is not statute barred as the conducts of the Defendants prevent them from taking advantage of the protection of the Public Officers’ Protection Act. According to the Claimant, he has made allegations of abuse of office, malice, vendetta, bad faith and oppression against the defendants and these conducts constitute exception to application of the Public Officers’ Protection Act. As rightly submitted by the Claimant’s counsel, the law is trite that a public officer who acted outside the colour of his office or acted in bad faith or in abuse of office will not be entitled to the protection under the Public Officers’ Protection Act. See <b>OFFOBOCHE vs. OGOJA LOCAL GOVERNMENT (2001) FWLR (Pt. 68) 1051 at 1067; KASANDUBU vs. ULTIMATE PETROLEUM LTD (2008) All FWLR (Pt. 417) 155 at 182. </b>However, it is not a matter of making a blanket allegation of malice, bad faith or abuse of office. The allegations have to be substantiated before they can be said to disentitle the public officer from the benefit of the Public Officers’ Protection Act. This case was heard as Originating Summons. Even though it has been found not to be the appropriate process to commence this suit, it is appropriate to examine the facts in support to see of the Claimant has made out any case of abuse of office, bad faith or malice against the Defendants. The allegations of the Claimant in the emergence of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant as Rector of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant are contained in paragraphs 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31 of the affidavit in support of the Originating Summons. I have examined the averments of the Claimant in these paragraphs but I find nothing there, on which to take seriously, the Claimant’s claim that the Defendants conducted themselves in the manner alleged. The Claimant merely alleged that the Defendants gave the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant undue clearance and undue advantage; the Defendants conduct show they were acting a script and that the Defendants did not provide a level playing ground for all the applicants for the post of Rector. Now, when the Claimant made these allegations, I expected him to go further to enumerate the procedure and qualification for appointment of Rector and also describe the process that was used in the race for Rector and how it was schemed in favour of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant. It is only then this court can be satisfied that the Defendants conducted themselves in the manner alleged by the Claimant. The Claimant did not tell this court whether a credit in English is a condition for post of Rector. Most importantly, he questions the propriety of the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant to have absolved or exonerated the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendants from the credit-in-English issue but he did not tell this court that the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant do not have power to do so. In the absence of these vital facts, the Claimant is unable to substantiate his contention that malice or bad faith or abuse of office has removed the application of the Public Officers’ Protection Act in this suit. I find that the Claimant has no basis to contend that his case is not statute barred. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">In the result, there is nothing shown to disentitle the Defendants from the protection afforded them by the Public Officers’ Protection Act. The facts are clear that this suit was filed more than 3 months from the date the cause of action arose. The action is statute barred and this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain or determine it. In the circumstance, the appropriate order to make is to dismiss the suit. Accordingly, the suit is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Ruling is delivered accordingly.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 8pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 13pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Judge</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""><o:p></o:p></span></p>