Download PDF
The Claimant instituted this action in this court on 29th June 2016 by way of Originating Summons pursuant to Order 3 Rule 5A of the 2007 Rules of this court. In the Originating Summons, the Claimant raised the following question for the determination of the court: 1. Whether by the express provisions of the Universities (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Act 2012, which pegged the compulsory retiring age of academic staff in the professorial cadre (which includes the Claimant) to 70 years, whether the Defendants were right to serve the Claimant who just turned 65 years, with a Notice of Retirement on the 27th November 2015. 2. Whether the said Universities (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Act 2012 is applicable to the 1st Defendant. 3. Whether the Claimant who by a letter dated 12/1/2010 by the Defendants was promoted to an Associate Professor with financial effect from 1/10/2008 is not entitled to his promotion arrears of salary withheld by the Defendants from 1/10/2008 up to 1/10/2009 when he was promoted to the rank of a professor. 4. Whether the Claimant who by a letter dated 3rd September 2012 was promoted by the Defendants to the rank of Professor of Construction Technology and Management on CONUASS 7:1 (N2,485,099) per annum with effect from 1/10/2009 should still be subjected to his old salary as Associate Professor since after his promotion to the rank of Professor since 1/10/2009 as clearly spelt out in the letter of promotion dated 3rd September 2012. 5. Whether the Claimant is not entitled to be paid his salary as a Professor since after his said promotion with effect from 1/10/2009 on salary scale CONUASS 7:1 (N2,485,099) as clearly stipulated in his letter of promotion dated 3rd September 2012. 6. Whether the Claimant is not entitled to his promotion arrears of salary as a Professor of Construction Technology and Management on salary scale CONUASS 7: 1 (N2,485,099) per annum as per his letter of promotion dated 3rd September 2012, with effect from 1/10/2009 till date. 7. Whether the purported NOTICE OF RETIREMENT from the Defendants to the Claimant dated 27th November 2015 which completely stripped the Claimant of all his hard-earned academic titles of Doctorate, Associate Professor, and/or Professor and merely addressed the Claimant as "Engr. Bldr. Okereke P. A." was not defamatory of the Claimant. 8. Whether if the purported NOTICE OF RETIREMENT was defamatory, whether the Claimant is entitled to damages for defamation. Upon the determination of the questions set out above, the Claimant sought the following reliefs: 1. A Declaration of Court that the University (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Act of 2012 which amended the University (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act of 1993 applies to the 1st Defendant. 2. A Declaration of Court that by the express provisions of the Universities (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Act 2012 and more particularly Section 4 thereof, the compulsory retiring age of academic staff in the professorial cadre which includes the Claimant, is 70 years. 3. A Declaration of court that the purported NOTICE of Retirement issued to the Claimant by the Defendants dated 27th November 2015 on the ground that the Claimant has turned 65 years is unlawful, illegal, premature, null and void and of no effect whatsoever. 4. A Declaration of court that the failure and/or refusal of the Defendants to pay to the Claimant his promotion arrears of salary as Associate Professor on CONUASS 6 from 1/10/2008 when he was promoted to that rank until 1/10/2009 when he was further promoted to the rank of professor is unlawful, unjust, oppressive and null and void. 5. A Declaration of court that the failure and/or refusal of the Defendants to implement and effect payment of the Claimant's salary as a Professor since after his promotion by the Defendants from the rank of Associate Professor to the rank of Professor on CONUASS 7:1 (N2,485,049) per annum with effect from 1/10/2009 is unjustified, unwarranted, illegal, malicious, vexatious, null and void and of no effect. 6. A Declaration of court that the Claimant is entitled to be paid his outstanding promotion arrears of salary as an Associate Professor from 1/10/2008 up to 1/10/2009 when he was promoted to the rank of professor. 7. A Declaration of court that the Claimant is presently entitled to be paid his salaries by the Defendants as a Professor based on his promotion letter of 3rd September 2012 to the rank of a Professor on salary scale CONUASS 7:1 (N2,485,099.00) per annum. 8. A Declaration of court that the Claimant is entitled to his promotion arrears of salary as a Professor as per the letter of Promotion dated 3rdSeptemer 2012 with effect from 1/10/2009 till date 9. A Declaration of court that the purported NOTICE of RETIREMENT dated 27th November 2015 to the Claimant by the Defendants which Notice stripped the Claimant of all his hard-earned academic titles either as a Doctorate Degree holder (PH.D), Associate Professor and or Professor is highly defamatory of the Claimant. 10. An Order of Court setting aside the purported NOTICE of RETIREMENT dated 27th November 2015 issued to the Claimant by the Defendants on the ground that the Claimant has turned 65 years when the Claimant is an academic staff in the Professorial cadre. 11. An Order of court mandating the Defendants to pay to the Claimant his outstanding promotion Arrears of salary as Associate Professor from 1/10/2008 until 1/10/2009 when the Claimant was promoted to the rank of Professor. 12. An Order of court mandating the Defendants to immediately commence the payment of the Claimant's salaries as a Professor on CONUASS 7:1 (N2,485,099) per annum with effect from 1/10/2009 pursuant to his letter of Promotion to the rank of Professor dated 3rd September 2012. 13. The sum of N100,000,000.00 (One Hundred Million Naira) being general damages jointly and severally against the Defendants for defamation occasioned by the purported Notice of Retirement of the Defendants dated 27th November 2015. 14. An Order mandating the Defendants to tender a written apology duly channeled as the offending letter of 27/11/15 to the Claimant for the defamation of his person. On 31st January 2017, the Defendants filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection to challenge the competence of the suit. Both the substantive suit and the preliminary objection were heard together by this court on 4th July 2017 with a view to pronounce a ruling on the NPO during the delivery of judgment in the suit today. It is observed that the issues raised by the Defendants in the NPO touches on the jurisdiction of this court to entertain or determine the Claimant’s suit. It is the law that once the issue of a court’s jurisdiction is raised, it must be determined first before any other step is taken in the matter. The Supreme Court, in ISAAC OBIUWEUBI vs. CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA (2011) 7 NWLR (Pt.1247) 465 at 494 held: “It is thus mandatory that courts decide the issue of jurisdiction before proceeding to consider any other matter. Usually, where a court’s jurisdiction is challenged by the defence, it is better to settle the issue one way or the other before proceeding to hear a case on the merits. Any failure by the court to determine any preliminary objection or any form of challenge to its jurisdiction is a fundamental breach which renders further step taken in the proceedings a nullity.” It was similarly held in A.P.G.A. vs. ANYANWU (2014) All FWLR (Pt.735) 243 at 256-257, that- “The law by now is well settled that jurisdiction is the life blood of any adjudication and where it lacking, it will render any proceedings, no matter how well conducted, liable to be set aside for being a nullity. Jurisdiction is so fundamental that once the court’s jurisdiction to hear a matter is challenged, it must be dealt with and resolved first before taking another step in the proceedings. It is because it is so fundamental that it can be raised at any time, in any manner and at any stage of the proceedings. It is therefore imperative that the preliminary objection raised by the Defendants be determined first before proceeding to consider the merits of the Claimant’s suit. The Orders sought by the Defendants in the Notice of Preliminary Objection are as follows- 1. An Order of the Honourable Court declining jurisdiction to hear and determine this present suit via originating summons. 2. An Order of the Honourable Court striking out the names of the 2nd and 3rd Defendants for being non legal persons and have no legal capacity to sue or be sued eo nomine. 3. An Order of Court striking out Paragraphs 3, 16, 16A, 17, 19, 23A, 25, 26, 34, and 36 of the Claimant's affidavit and reliefs 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 same being complaint and claims against non-Juristic persons. 4. An Order of this Honourable Court dismissing this suit for non-disclosure of any cause of action. 5. An Order of this Honourable Court striking out this suit for non-compliance with the condition precedence before filing this suit. 6. An Order of the Honourable court striking out this suit for lacking in merit And the grounds upon which the orders are sought are the following: 1. That this Honourable Court lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine this suit via originating summons. 2. That this suit is highly contentious and would require oral evidence to properly deal with the issues raised and as such cannot come by way of originating summons. 3. That the applicant did not comply with the conditions precedent to bringing this suit; that is; the issuance of pre-action notice as required by the law establishing the 1st Defendant. 4. That the 2nd and 3rd Defendants are non-juristic persons and as such have no right to sue or be sued eo nomine. 5. That the Claimant's suit discloses no cause of action. 6. That the main claim of the Claimant has been taken care of, and as such this suit at best is a mere academic exercise. The affidavit of the Defendants in support of the Preliminary Objection was deposed to by one Nzeka Ogechi Favour, a litigation clerk in the law office of S. C. Imo & Co. In the 9 paragraph affidavit, the deponent averred that she was informed by the 2nd Defendant that the Claimant did not serve the 1st Defendant with the mandatory pre-action notice before filing this action as required by the law establishing the 1st Defendant. Exhibit T attached by the Claimant to his affidavit in support of the originating summons was not served on the 2nd Defendant and it did not comply with the requirement of law. She was also informed by Mr. S. C. Imo that the suit of the Claimant did not disclose any cause of action, and that the procedure adopted by the Claimant in bringing this suit is a wrong procedure. It was further averred that the 2nd and 3rd Defendants, who are not juristic persons, are mere designated offices in the establishment of the 1st Defendant. This court consequently lacks the jurisdiction to entertain this suit. In his written address in support of the NPO, learned counsel to the Defendants raised four issues for determination vis: 1. Whether this court can conveniently determine this suit based on the affidavit evidence of the parties and whether the Claimant's suit initiated by Originating Summons is properly constituted. 2. Whether the Honourable Court should assume jurisdiction on a party which the law has not conferred with the right to sue and be sued. 3. Whether the Claimant complied with condition precedence before bringing this suit. 4. Whether the Claimant's suit discloses a reasonable cause of action. On Issue One, the Defendants argued inter alia that the proviso to Order 3 Rule 5A makes it very clear 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 an Originating Summons, but by Complaint as provided in Rule 4 of this Order and that the Defendant on the other hand is required by Order 9 Rule 3 of the Rules of this Court to file a Counter Affidavit together with his exhibits and written address in reaction to the Originating Summons and nothing more. The rationale behind this is that by commencing an action by Originating Summons, the Claimant is clearly saying that the facts are not in dispute or contentious, hence the action can conveniently be disposed of by affidavit evidence. The Defendants also opined that actions commenced by way of Originating Summons are not determined by pleadings, but on the basis of affidavit evidence. Where from the affidavit evidence, it is obvious that the issues in question are contested between the parties, the Originating Summons is no longer appropriate. See Nigerian Reinsurance Company vs. Cudjoe (2008) All FWLR Pt. 414 Pg. 1532 at 1537. The Defendants also argued that a majority of the Claimants reliefs are contentious. On issue 2, the Defendants contended that the 2nd and 3rd Defendants are not creatures of law and cannot sue nor be sued and that there is no law recognizing the 2nd and 3rd Defendants as persons in the eyes of the law. The 2nd and 3rd Defendants are mere designated offices in the establishment of the 1st Defendant and not a legal person. There was no place either expressly or by implication the 2nd and 3rddefendants were granted legal personality. See Chief Gani Fawehinmi vs. Nigerian Bar Association& 4 ors {No.2} {1989} All NLR 274 at 331- 332. See also Iyke Med. March. vs. Pfizer (2001) FWLR (Pt. 53) p. 62. Also reported (2001) 10 NWLR (pt. 722) 540; Ataguba & Co vs. Gura Nig. Ltd. (2006) All FWLR (Pt. 256) Pg. 1219 at 1221 Ratio 2. The Defendants also submitted that Paragraphs 3, 16, 16A, 17, 19, 23A, 25, 26, 34, and 36 of the Claimant's affidavit and reliefs 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 all lumped together juristic and non-juristic persons in a non-severable form and urged the Court to strike them out. The Defendant argued Issues 3 and 4 together submitting that the Claimant did not comply with the mandatory pre-action notice before filing this suit. Section 22 (1) of the Imo State University law 2004 requires pre-action notice to be served on the 1st Defendant before any suit can be commenced against it at least 1 month before commencement of the suit. According to the Defendants, Exhibit T is a purported pre-action notice without evidence showing service on the Vice-Chancellor of the 1stDefendant and a clearly stated cause of action, the particulars of claim, the name and place of abode of the intending plaintiff and the relief he claims. The Defendants further contended that Exhibit T is also short of the time prescribed by the law establishing the 1st Defendant. See Section 18 of Interpretation Act and the case of Osewaru vs. Ezeiruka (1978) 6 & 7 S.C. 135 at 139 and N.D.C. Ltd vs. A.S.W.B. (2008) All FWLR (Pt. 422) Pg.1052 at 1054-1055 Ratio 1, also Pg. 1081, Paras B-D. The Defendants also contended that the requirement of the law is clear that where a party has failed to comply with a condition precedence before bringing a suit, such a suit is pre-mature and goes to no issue. The Defendants went on that the issue of condition precedence goes to the root of the suit, and therefore a jurisdictional issue. They urged the court to so hold and strike out this suit. In opposing the Notice of Preliminary Objection, the Claimant filed a counter affidavit of 28 paragraphs on 28th February 2017 deposed to by the Claimant personally. He stated that the 2nd Defendant was served a pre-action notice in her office on the 13/5/2016 through her secretary, one Ekwerike Sylvia, who received Exhibit T on behalf of the 2nd Defendant. The secretary also acknowledged receipt of the said letter as shown in the acknowledgment copy annexed as Exhibit TT. In paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit, the Claimant deposed thus: “7. That I am informed by my solicitor E. E. Chukwuka Esq and I verily believe him that at the hearing of this Application he will urge the court to strike out paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Affidavit of Nzeka Ogechi Favour as they offend the provisions of the Evidence Act”. The averments in this paragraph are not statements of fact. It contains objection, prayer and legal argument. This offends Section 115 (2) of the Evidence Act 2011. Paragraph 7 of the Claimant’s counter affidavit is hereby struck out. In his written address in support of the counter affidavit, the Claimant’s counsel raised preliminary legal issues and adopted the four issues raised by the Defendants in their preliminary objection. On the preliminary legal issue, the Claimant urged the court to strike out paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Defendants affidavit in support of the preliminary objection, arguing that the said paragraphs are purely issues of law contrary to Section 115 (1) which makes it mandatory that every affidavit used in court shall contain only statement of facts. Furthermore, paragraph 8 of the said Affidavit is a legal argument or legal conclusion contrary to Section 115(2) of the Evidence Act 2011 and coming from a lay person neither learned nor knowledgeable in law. On Issue 1, the Claimant submitted this suit can be determined based on the affidavit evidence of the parties. Counsel further submitted that the Claimant's instant suit initiated by originating summons is properly constituted and fully vests jurisdiction on this court to determine the suit. The Claimants submitted that the main plank of this action was the sudden and premature retirement of the Claimant, an academic staff of the 1st Defendant in the professorial cadre at the age of 65 years, in clear violation of the express provisions of the Universities (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Act 2012 which pegged the retirement age of Professors in Nigerian Universities to 70 years and that it was pursuant to this enactment as above stated and in compliance with Order 3 Rule 5 (A) of the then extant Rules of this court as at 29th June 2016 that the Claimant brought this action by way of Originating Summons. The Claimants submitted that after the service of all the processes filed in this suit on the Defendants, the Defendants served the Claimant a backdated Exhibit U attached to Claimant's Further Affidavit filed on 8th December 2016 by virtue of which the Defendants have admitted that the Originating Summons procedure employed by the Claimant to canvass his grievances against the Defendants was proper in law. The Claimants submitted that by reason of Exhibit U, the Defendants admitted liability to Reliefs 1, 2, 3 and 10 of the Claimant' reliefs sought from this court and that the other reliefs sought by the Claimant are ancillary to the main reliefs arguing that Order 3 Rule 5 A (2) of the then Rules of this court under which this action was predicated upon provides that the Originating Summons shall be accompanied by: (a) An affidavit setting out the facts relied upon. (b) Copies of the instrument sought to be construed (other than an enactment) and other related documents. Counsel for the Claimant also submitted that other than the Universities (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Act 2012 which is not required to be attached all the other documents Exhibits A, A1 B, B1, B2, C, D, E, F, G, H, J, J 1, K, Q, R and S are all documents issued by the Defendants to the Claimant and fall under other related documents pursuant to Order 3 Rule 5 (A) (2) (b). To the Claimant, neither Exhibit L nor Exhibit M were contentious and that only Exhibit N, O and P have to do with letters from other Universities in Nigeria where the Claimant served as Adjunct Professor or External Examiner and none of this is in contention nor challenged by the Defendants. According to counsel, the contention of the Defendants that all other claims of the Claimant other than his reliefs 1, 2, 3 and 10 are highly contentious is false as there is nothing contentious in this case that should warrant the action to be commenced otherwise other than by Originating Summons. On Issue 2, the Claimant submitted that the law has conferred on the 2nd and 3rd Defendants the right to sue or be sued in their official capacities as creations of a statute id est Imo State Univesity Law No. 5 of 2004. Counsel referred the court to Section 6 (2) (1) of the said Law which created the office of the Vice Chancellor (2nd Defendant) and Section 5 (1) of the said Law which also created the office of the Registrar (3rd Defendant). The Claimants agreed with the authority cited by the Defendants in paragraph 4.2.1. of their Address Uzoho vs. National Council on Privatisation (2007) (supra) to the effect that Imo State Law No 4 of 2004 has conferred the 2nd and 3rd Defendants a "legal persona" with an implied right to sue or be sued as legal entities and that Chief Gani Fawehinmi vs. NBA (supra) cited by the Defendants does not apply in this regard. Counsel urged the court to discountenance all the arguments founded on this misconceived and inapplicable authority that the 2nd and 3rd Defendants are not creatures of law and therefore cannot sue or be sued. It is the submission of counsel that the question whether a body created by statute even without being vested with the hallmarks of a juristic person can sue or be sued was laid to rest in the locus classicus Thomas vs. Local Government Service Board (1965) N.M.L.R 310. See also Section 22(1) (a) of the Imo State Law No 5 of 2004. On Issue 3, counsel for the Claimants submitted that they complied with the above provision of the law vide Exhibit T which was served on the 2nd Defendant in her office and received by her secretary one Ekwerike Vivian on the 13th day of May 2016 and she signed the endorsement copy as shown in Exhibit TT. The Claimant also submitted that the said Exhibit T was served on 13th May 2016 whereas this suit was commenced on the 29th June 2016 nearly 2 months after service of Exhibit T on the 2nd Defendant. On Issue 4, the Claimants submitted that when an objection is raised that the statement of claim (in this case the Originating Summons) does not disclose a reasonable cause of action, it is the statement of claim (herein the Originating Summons) that has to be examined to ascertain whether or not there is a reasonable cause of action. See the case of Ogbimi vs. Ololo (1993) 7 NWLR (Pt. 304) 128. Counsel argued that they had proved their cause of action and that the name and place of abode of the Claimant are clearly stated in Exhibit T. Paragraph 2 of Exhibit T and sub-paragraph 1 clearly stated the cause of action. To counsel, Exhibit T passed the required test. He agreed with the authority cited by the Defendants N.D.C. Ltd vs. A.S.W.B. (2008) (supra) per the Supreme Court as the rationale behind the jurisprudence of pre-action notice which has also been satisfied by Exhibit T. COURT’s DECISION Let me address the point raised in the submissions of the Claimants counsel in paragraph 2.01 to 2.03 of the written address in support of the counter affidavit where counsel urged the court to strike out paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Defendants’ affidavit. It was counsel’s contention that these paragraphs of the Defendants’ affidavit contain issues of law, legal arguments or conclusions contrary to Section 115 (2) of the Evidence act 2011. I have examined the said paragraphs of the Defendants’ affidavit but, in my view, they do not suffer from the alleged defect. The depositions in the paragraphs are statements of fact. The prayer of the Claimant’s counsel has no merit. The 5th prayer sought by the Defendants in the Notice of Preliminary Objection is an order striking out this suit for non-compliance with the condition precedence before filing this suit. In the affidavit in support, it was averred that the Claimant did not serve a pre-action notice before filing this action and the pre-action notice attached by the Claimant to his affidavit in support of the originating summons did not comply with the requirement of law. The Defendants’ counsel cited Section 22 (1) of the Imo State University Law and argued that non-service of pre-action notice goes to the root of the suit making the suit liable to be struck out. Section 22 (1) of the Imo State University Law 2005 provides as follows: 1. (a) No suit shall be commenced against the University or any of its bodies until at least one month after written notice of intention to commence same shall have been served on the Vice Chancellor by the intending plaintiff or his agent. (b) The notice shall clearly state the cause of action, the particulars of claim, the name and place of abode of the intending plaintiff and the relief he claims. The provision has laid down a condition which must be observed before a suit can be instituted against the Imo State University or any of its bodies or organs. The condition is that a Claimant intending to sue the Imo State University or any of its organs or bodies, must serve on the Vice Chancellor of the University, a pre-action notice not less than one month before the suit is instituted. The Defendants in this suit are the University, Vice Chancellor and the Registrar. While the 1st Defendant is the University itself, the 2nd and 3rd Defendants are offices or organs in the University. Therefore, for this action against the Defendants to be competent before this court, the Claimant must have done the following: i. Served a pre-action notice on the Vice Chancellor. ii. The pre-action notice must have been served at least one month before the suit was instituted, and iii. The pre-action notice must contain the cause of action, particulars of claim, the name and address of the Claimant and the reliefs sought. The question at this point is whether the Claimant complied with these requirements of the law before instituting this action against the Defendants. In his counter affidavit to the NPO, the Claimant averred that a pre-action notice was served on the 2nd Defendant on 13/5/2016 and it was received and acknowledged by Ekwerike Sylvia, who is the secretary of the 2nd Defendant. The Claimant exhibited the acknowledgement copy of the letter to his counter affidavit as Exhibit TT. The Defendants stated however in their further affidavit in support of the NPO deposed to by Nzeka Ogechi Favour and filed on 11/5/2017 that the Claimant did not serve any pre-action notice on the 2nd Defendant. Besides the facts that the Claimant’s Exhibit TT conflicts with Exhibit T attached to the Claimant’s affidavit in support of the Originating Summons, Exhibit TT does not show that it was served on or received by the 2nd Defendant, as it was not endorsed with the official seal of the 2nd Defendant. It was not signed by the person alleged to have received and there was no such person known as Ekwerike Sylvia who was the secretary of the 2nd Defendant at any time. Before I proceed on this point, I find it necessary at this point to mention a process filed by the Claimant’s counsel at the registry of this court on the 23rd day of May 2017. The process is the affidavit of Barr. E. E. Chukwuka (Counsel to the Claimant) in respect of the service of the one-month pre-action notice Exhibit T attached to the Originating Summons. Even though the said affidavit was filed in respect of the Originating summons, yet I will touch on it because I think the purpose of the affidavit is to prove that pre-action notice was served on the 2nd Defendant. In the said affidavit, counsel for the Claimant deposed that on 13/5/2016, he personally went along with a bailiff from the Magistrate’s Court Owerri, one Mr. John Ogu to deliver the pre-action notice. He deposed further that he registered the letter with the said Magistrate’s court to enable him use the services of the said bailiff. The said letter was then served on one Ekwerike Sylvia whom they believed was the secretary of the 2nd Defendant. According to Counsel, on the 18th day of May 2017, upon being confronted with the assertion that the pre-action notice was never served on the 2nd Defendant, he went with one Barr. Mike Anyanwu in search of Ekwerike Sylvia who had received the pre-action notice on behalf of the 2nd Defendant. They found her and she confirmed that she had endorsed the letter. Much as the content of this affidavit is meant to convince the court that the pre-action notice was served on the 2nd Defendant, yet I find it rather strange that counsel who claimed to have taken the trouble of going along with a bailiff to serve the pre-action notice on 13/5/2016 as he would want me to believe; had the acknowledgment copy of the said notice with him as far back as that date (13/5/2016), and yet he did not exhibit the endorsed copy along with the originating summons. He only filed the purportedly endorsed copy (Exhibit TT) along with his counter affidavit to the NPO which he filed on 28th February 2017. Even after finding the said Sylvia, counsel still could not furnish the court with any material to convince the court or substantiate the facts contained in the affidavit. There is no affidavit from the said Sylvia and no affidavit of service from the Magistrate Court bailiff. One then wonders for what purpose the said affidavit was made by counsel. Now to examine the said Exhibit TT. Exhibit TT of the Claimant’s counter affidavit is a letter dated 4th May 2016 from the law office of Emma E. Chukwuka & Co, solicitors to the Claimant. The letter was addressed to the 2nd Defendant. It is headed “Re: One month pre-action notice to institute an action in court against Imo State University”. At the foot of the 1st page of the letter is this writing: “Received by me, Ekwerike Sylvia. 13/05/2016”. The letter is meant to be a pre-action notice and was clearly addressed to the 2nd Defendant. The Defendants have contended that it was not received by the 2nd Defendant. Ekwerike Sylvia who received the letter did not indicate her address or office. She did not also indicate whether she was the secretary of the 2nd Defendant or works in the office of the 2nd Defendant. There is also no indication that she received the letter on behalf of the 2nd Defendant. Most importantly, Ekwerike Sylvia only stated her name without signing the letter. Acknowledgment of a letter cannot be authentic unless the receiver also appends a signature thereto. There is nothing on Exhibit TT to show that it was received by the 2nd Defendant or in the office of the 2nd Defendant. The Claimant had exhibited a copy of this letter to his affidavit in support of the originating summons as Exhibit T. Strangely, that one is materially different from Exhibit TT of the counter affidavit to the NPO. While Exhibit TT contains the endorsement indicating that it was received by Ekwerike Sylvia, Exhibit T of the originating summons did not have such endorsement. This discrepancy suggests that the endorsement in Exhibit TT purporting to be that of Ekwerike Sylvia was made up for the purpose of responding to the instant ground of the Defendants’ NPO. The Claimant has not been able to satisfy this court that he served the letter on the 2nd Defendant. Consequently, it is my view that the said pre-action notice was not served on the 2nd Defendant. The law also requires that the pre-action notice must be served on the 2nd Defendant at least one month before the suit is instituted. The implication of my finding above is that this suit was instituted without having first served a month’s notice on the Defendants. By the provision of Section 22 (1) of the Imo State University Law, service of pre-action notice on the Vice Chancellor is mandatory and it is a condition that must be observed before the Claimant can institute a valid action against the Defendants. A suit commenced without service of pre-action notice, where it is statutorily required, is incompetent and the court will lack jurisdiction to entertain the suit. See NNONYE vs. ANYICHI [2005] 1 S.C. (Pt. II) 96; MOBIL PRODUCING (NIG.) UNLTD vs. LASEPA (2002) 18 NWLR (Pt. 798) 1. Accordingly, since the Claimant did not meet the requirement of the law by his failure to serve a pre-action notice before he filed this action, the suit is incompetent and the jurisdiction of this court to entertain it has not been properly invoked. The suit is liable to be struck out on this account. The other grounds of the NPO include wrong mode of commencement of the suit, competence of the parties and non-disclosure of cause of action. These issues cannot be considered at this point. This is because it is only when the condition precedent to institution of the suit has been met that the proper mode of commencement of the action or competence of the parties or whether the suit discloses a cause of action can be an issue. In the result, this suit is hereby struck out. No order as to cost. Ruling is entered accordingly. Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe Judge