RULING. The claimant commenced this suit vide general form of complaint dated 28/2/18 and filed on the same day, praying for: 1. A DECLARATION that the letters dated 6th February 2018 and 12th February, addressed to the claimant to appear before the Governing Council in respect of a case of gross misconduct and the joint Committee of Council and Academic Board while APPEAL NO CA/A/797/M/2017 IGNINOSUN FRIDAY ESE V THE RECTOR AUCHI POLYTECHNIC, AUCHI & ORS. IS PENDING AT THE COURT OF Appeal Abuja were issued in gross abuse of court process and are therefore null and void. 2. A DECLARATION that the Defendants cannot validly take steps or conduct any investigation and/or take any decision in respect to any matter connected to the letters dated 6th February, 2018 and 12th February, 2018 addressed to the claimant to appear before the Governing Council and the joint Committee of Council and Academic Board respectively in respect of a case of gross misconduct while APPEAL NO CA/A/797/M/2017 IGNINOSUN FRIDAY ESE V THE Rector AUCHI POLYTECHNIC, AUCHI & ORS is pending at the Court of Appeal Abuja. 3. A DECLARATION that any decision reached based on the invitation contained in the letters dated 6th February, 2018 and 12th February, 2018 addressed to the claimant to appear before the Governing Council and the joint Committee of Council and Academic Board respectively in respect of a case of gross misconduct while APPEAL NO CA/A/797/M/2017 IGNINOSUN FRIDAY ESE V THE RECTOR AUCHI POLYTECHNIC, AUCHI & ORS is pending at the Court of Appeal Abuja is null and void. 4. AN ORDER OF INJUNCTION restraining the Defendants by themselves their servants agent and or privies however so called from further conducting any investigation, making recommendation or taking decision in respect of the allegation of the offence of gross misconduct leveled against the Claimant until APPEAL NO CA/A/797/M/2017 IGNINOSUN FRIDAY ESE V THE Rector AUCHI POLYTECHNIC, AUCHI & ORS pending at the Court of Appeal Abuja is heard and determined. Vide motion on notice dated 27/4/18 and filed on 30/4/18, brought pursuant to Order 17 Rule 1 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017, the claimant/applicant is prays for grant of a mandatory order of restorative injunction compelling the respondents including the Registrar, Auchi Polytechnic, Auchi, who issued letter dated 15th day of March 2018, dismissing the claimant/applicant and/or anyone purporting to act for or on their behalf to reinstate the Claimant as Chief lecturer in the Department of Accountancy of the 1st defendant/respondent with his Salary and allowances intact including all his entitlement as a Chief Lecturer, having been dismissed from his employment in spite of the defendants/respondents been promptly served with the main suit and the motion on Notice for interlocutory injunction dated 28th day of February, 2018 by order of this court of 6th March, 2018, which are pending before this Honourable court and have not been determined. The grounds of this application are as follows: (i) That there is an application for interlocutory injunction pending before this Honourable Court that has not been determined. (ii) That the writ of summons, statement of facts and the motion for interlocutory injunction were duly served on the Respondents and the motion for interlocutory injunction fixed for 14th March 2018 for hearing (iii) That on the 14th day of March the Respondents Counsel was present in court and filed a counter affidavit to the Motion for interlocutory injunction coupled with a preliminary objection to the main suit The application is supported by a 40 paragraphs affidavit sworn to by the claimant/applicant, with nine exhibits attached therein and marked as exhibits BAA1 – BAA9. A written address was also filed along with the motion on notice. D. A. Alegbe, Esq; Counsel for the claimant/applicant in his oral submission informed the court that he is relying on the deposition contained in the affidavit in support and the exhibits attached therein. Counsel also adopted the written address as his argument. The relevant facts as can be gleaned from the affidavit in support of the motion on notice are that the claimant/applicant was an academic staff with the department of accountancy of the 1st defendant/respondent. That vide letter dated 15/3/18, signed by the Registrar of the 1st defendant/respondent, the claimant/applicant was dismissed from service. This is despite the facts that the defendants/respondents were duly served with the originating processes commencing this suit and an application for interlocutory injunction seeking for order restraining the defendants/respondent from tempering with the employment of the claimant/applicant pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit. It was stated that before the letter of dismissal was served on the claimant/applicant, the defendants/respondents had due Notice of the date of the motion and had filed a counter affidavit to the motion for interlocutory injunction and a Notice of preliminary objection to the main suit which said applications are pending before this honourable court. On the 14/3/18, when this matter came up before the court the defendants/respondents’ counsel was in court. The suit was at the instance of the counsel for the defendants to the 24th day of May 2018 for hearing. In the written address counsel formulated lone issue for determination, to wit: ‘‘Whether from the affidavit evidence and the exhibits thereto the Claimant/Applicant has not made out a case for a mandatory order of restorative injunction to issue against the Respondents’’. ARGUMENT OF THE SOLE ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION In arguing the lone issue for determination, counsel contended that it is settled law that restorative mandatory injunction can be granted by court to set aside completed act and restore the parties to status quo ante bellum. On this submission counsel relied on EZEGBU V F.A.T.B (1993) 6 SCNJ 122, HEPA GLOBAL ENERGY V FRN (2016) LPELR-41288 (CA); ABBI V CHIEF (PRO) J.J.T PRINCEWELL & ORS (2011) LPELR-3952 (CA). It is the submission of counsel that the status quo ante bellum in this case is the position the parties were in before the letter of dismissal was issued on the 15th day March 2018. On this point reliance was placed on the case of MILITARY GOVERNOR OF LAGOS STATE V OJUKWU (2001) FWLR (Pt 50) 1779 @ 1810. It is also argued that where the jurisdiction of court is invoked to grant an interlocutory mandatory injunction to deal with a defendant who attempts to steal a match on the plaintiff, the court is not concerned with the merits of the plaintiff’s case. Rather, the court is concerned with the invocation of its disciplinary jurisdiction to prevent its jurisdiction to try the case before it from being frustrated or stultified and to maintain the rule of law. On this proposition counsel cited MODILE & ANOR V THE GOVERNOR OF LAGOS STATE & ORS. (2004) 12 NWLR (PT.887) 354, and the case of CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA V UNIVERSAL TRUST BANK OF NIGERIA LTD (1996) 4 NWLR (Pt.445) 694 @ 701-702. Counsel submitted that applying the principles of law in the above cases to the facts of this case, the claimant/applicant herein deposed to facts in paragraph 25-33 of the supporting affidavit to the motion, particularly paragraph 31 wherein he stated the facts which necessitated this application to be that while the application for interlocutory injunction which has been duly served on the defendants/respondents is yet to be determined, the defendants/respondents issued the claimant/applicant with a letter of dismissal dated the 15th day of March 2018, by which letter of dismissal the claimant/respondent stole a match on the Claimant by sniffing live out of the suit and foist a fait accompli on this Honourable court. In support of this contention reliance was placed on the case of CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA V UNIVERSAL TRUST BANK OF NIGERIA LTD (SUPRA). It is the submission of counsel that in this case the special circumstance that necessitated this application is that the conduct of the defendants/respondent is not just stealing a match on the claimant/applicant but has totally sniffed live out of the suit that there is nothing remaining for the court to determine as the Claimant has been relieved of his employment by the letter of dismissal. Without reinstating the defendants the only option left is for him to withdraw the suit as his right of action in this suit has been rendered prostrate by the letter of dismissal. Counsel submitted that this is an exceptional case in which the restorative order of court can be made. On this submission reliance was placed on the case of NIGERIA DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION V SAVANNAH BANK OF NIGERIA PLC (2003) 1 NWLR (Pt. 801) 311 at 372. Counsel submitted that by the provision of Order 17 Rule 13 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, (Civil Procedure) Rules 2017, this Honourable court empowered to grant this application, as it is the only way the court can invoke its disciplinary jurisdiction to restore live to the case and hear and determine the case on its merit and prevent the respondent foisting a fait accompli on the court. It is submitted that this application is an appeal to this honourable court to invoke its discretionary power and in doing that the court is enjoined to exercise that discretion judicially and judiciously. The overriding principle that should guide the court is the interest of justice. ATTORNEY-GENERAL ANAMBRA V OKAFOR (SUPRA); FIRM ROVER INTERNATIONAL LTD & ORS V CANNON FILM SALES LTD (1986)3 ALL E.R 772, 780-782. In concluding his argument counsel urged the court to grant this application as it is in the interest of justice. OPPOSITION BY THE DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS. In reaction to this application, the defendants/respondents, filed a 30 paragraphs counter-affidavit and a written address. In the written address counsel formulated single issue for determination, to wit: ‘‘whether it is not in the interest of justice for the Claimant/Applicant’s instant application to be dismissed’’. Sunday Iyemeake, Esq; counsel for the defendants/respondent in his oral submission before the court relied on the deposition contained in the counter-affidavit filed in opposition to this application. Counsel also informed the court he is relying on 9 paragraphs further and better counter-affidavit, filed after argument on this application has been taken. Counsel begun his argument by submitting that the absence of jurisdiction to entertain the main suit robs the court of the jurisdiction to entertain the instant application. It is trite that jurisdiction being the threshold of judicial power and by extension extrinsic to the adjudication of any matter, the court must first and foremost satisfy itself that it has jurisdiction before it can proceed to determine any cause or matter before it. It is the very basic on which any court or tribunal tries a case. It is the lifeline of all trials. On this reliance was placed on Maukolu v Nkemdilim (1961) 2 NSCC 374 at 379. Counsel contended that issue of objection to jurisdiction can be taken or raised at any stage of the proceeding and once it is raised, the court hearing the matter must resolve it first before taking any further step in the matter. For this submission, counsel placed reliance on the following judicial authorities, Alintah v. FRN (2010) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1191) 508 at 527, Ecobank (Nig) Plc v. Intercontenetal Bank Plc (2012) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1293) 219 at 234, Odessa v FRN (No.2) (2005) 10 NWLR (Pt.934) 528 at 558-559. It is submitted by counsel that the Claimant/Applicant’s suit based on which the instant application was filed is totally an abuse of the process of this court. It is trite law that where the court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the main suit, the court cannot proceed to make any order in the matter including interlocutory order in whatever name it is called. For this contention counsel relied on the case of PDP v. Okorocha (2012) 15 NWLR (Pt.1323) 205 at 258. It is further submitted that it has been held in a plethora of authorities that though a claimant may have the right to commence or institute an action or file an application, the right ends when he starts to use it to the irritation of the other party or where he abuse same. The Supreme Court of Nigeria has stated that what is abhorrent here is the manner in which the right is exercised and the purpose for so doing. On this submission counsel relied on the case of N.J.C. v. Agumagu (2015) 10 NWLR (Part 1467) 365 at page 411 para G. Counsel argued that the Claimant/Applicant filed Suit No. NICN/ABJ/258/16 against the 1st Defendant and other officers of the 1st Defendant for the following reliefs reproduced below as can be seen in Exhibit AP:- “a. A declaration that the Ad-Hoc committee set up by the 1st – 3rd Defendants in the absence of a Governing Council of Auchi Polytechnic is ultra vires the powers of the Defendants and therefore illegal, null and void. b. A declaration that any decision reached in the Ad-Hoc committee to investigate the scandalous publication on Auchi Polytechnic, Auchi not having been constituted by the Governing Council of 3rd Defendant is illegal c. A declaration that the Claimant being a member of the Academic staff of the 3rd Defendant can only be removed, disciplined on the directives of the Governing Council of the 3rd Defendant d. A declaration that the letter of query dated 8th day of June with Reference No. PC/PH.3281/T1 issued to the Claimant based on the report of the Ad-Hoc Committee set up by the 1st and 2nd Defendants was irregularly issued and therefore null and void and should be set aside. e. An order restraining the Defendants from acting on the letter or further acting on the letter of query with reference No. PC/PH. 3281/T1, issued to the Claimant unless a governing council of 3rd Defendant is put in place to set up a valid committee to investigate any publication against it. f. An order restraining the Defendants from carrying out any disciplinary action against the Claimant based on report of the Ad-Hoc committee set up by the 1st and 2nd Defendants. It is submitted that the said suit was dismissed by the Honourable Court on 29th September, 2017, following the preliminary objection filed by the Defendants. In the said ruling it was held at pages 8-9 as follows:- “This court cannot therefore gag or restrain the Defendants (employer) of the Claimant (employee) from exercising its power of disciplinary actions on the Claimant, to warrant the exercise of discretion of the court in reliefs being sought by the Claimant in this suit. The courts have held in a catalogue of cases that every employer has the power to investigate any allegation of impropriety or misconduct leveled against its employee. See case of Professor J. Adepoju Akinyanju vs. University of Illorin & Ors (2005) 7 NWLR (Pt. 923) 87” It is the submission of counsel that this action of the Claimant seeks same injunctive reliefs against the Defendant from taking disciplinary steps against him. It is the contention of counsel that this suit is calling for sitting on appeal over the decision of this court delivered in Suit No. NICN/ABJ/258/16 on 29th September, 2017. This is more so that an appeal is a continuation of the suit from which it lies. On this submission counsel relied on the decision in Donald v. Saleh (supra). It is also the submission of counsel that being aggrieved by the said ruling of 29th September, 2017, the claimant/applicant filed an application on 29th December, 2017 at the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal and also seeks an order of interlocutory injunction restraining the Defendants pending the outcome of the alleged pending appeal One of the reliefs he is seeking before the Court of Appeal as can be seen in exhibit AP 2 read: “….((4) AN ORDER OF INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION restraining the Respondents, by themselves, their servants, agents and/or privies from tempering with the employment of the Appellant insofar as it relates to this suit sought to be appeal against pending the hearing and determination of this application and the substantive appeal” It is the contention of counsel that the claimant/applicant filed this suit and also filed the instant application seeking the reliefs as reproduced above in paragraph 4.09, while the said application is still pending at the Court of Appeal, Abuja. It is submitted that it is only the Court of appeal that has the requisite jurisdiction to consider the claimant/applicant’s suit and the instant application in view of the aforesaid ruling of this court delivered on 29th September, 2017. Counsel urged the court to note that application for injunction pending the hearing of the appeal was first filed at the court of Appeal on 29th December, 2017 before the filing of this suit and the instant application. Consequently, at the time of the filing the suit, only the Court of Appeal is now seized with the requisite jurisdiction to consider the claimant’s case. The situation would have been different if the claimant had filed the present suit before the application pending at the Court of Appeal. By the filing of this suit and the instant application, the claimant/applicant is inviting Your Lordship to meddle into matter which the Court of Appeal now possess the jurisdiction to entertain, thus trying to engage this court in a legal battle with the Court of Appeal over jurisdiction. Counsel urged the court to decline such unholy invitation and decline jurisdiction to entertain this application. ARGUMENT ON THE SUBSTANCE OF THE APPLICATION It is submitted that the Claimant/Applicant has not fulfill the required condition for the grant of an application of this nature. In the ruling of this Honourable Court delivered on 29th September, 2017, this court has held that it cannot restrain the defendant/respondent as employers of the claimant/applicant to discipline the claimant/applicant. That finding of this court has not been set aside. Consequently, the defendants/respondents in line with the decisions of this court invited the claimant/applicant to appear before it and the claimant/applicant did appeared before the 2nd defendant and elected that he wants to be tried by the Joint Committee of Council and Academic Board (JCC&AB) of the 1st defendant. Consequently upon the invitation by the Joint Committee of Council and Academic Board following the Claimant’s election, the claimant/applicant was invited and he did appear before the Joint Committee of Council and Academic Board and utilized the opportunity given him by the JCC & AB to defend the allegations against him. At the end of its proceedings the Joint Committee of Council and Academic Board found the claimant/applicant culpable and recommended his dismissal from the employment of the 1st defendant/respondent which was then approved by the 2nd defendant/respondent. Consequently, it is submitted that the defendants/respondents did not breach any allege right of the claimant/applicant in exercising its powers under the Federal Polytechnic Act, Cap. F17, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 (as amended). Contrary to the claimant/applicant’s contention at paragraph 2-8 of his written address, the defendant/despondent did not steal or attempt to steal any match against the claimant/applicant warranting the intervention of this court. Counsel contended that the cases of Mobile & Anor v. The Governor of Lagos State & Ors (2004) 12 NWLR(Pt.887) 354; Central Bank of |Nigeria v. Universal Trust Bank of Nigeria Ltd (1996) 4 NWLR (Pt. 445) 694; Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Savannah Bank of Nigeria Plc (2003) 1 NWLR (Pt. 801) 311 and Vaswani v. Savalakh & CI (1972) ALL NLR all cited and relied upon by the claimant/applicant does not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case and urged the court to so hold. As the cases were decided based on their peculiar facts. It is trite that decisions of a court is only an authorities for what it decides. The ratio of a case cannot be pulled by the hair and made wily-nilly to apply to another case where the facts are different. On this submission counsel relied on the cases of Anekwe v. State (2014) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1415) 353 at 370-371 para H-A, Yabatech v. M.C & D Ltd (2014) 3 NWLR (Pt.1395) 616 at 659. It is submitted that if at all the claimant/applicant intends to challenge his dismissal from the employment of the 1st defendant/respondent, the claimant can only do so by filing the proper process before this court or the Court of Appeal and not the instant application. Consequently, it is submitted that the instant application is unknown and improper procedure to challenge his dismissal. It is therefore submitted that where there is no iota of law supporting a court process as in the instant application, an abuse of process occurs. On this contention counsel relied on the decision of Supreme Court of Nigeria in Ojo & others v The Attorney general of Oyo State & Others (2008) 15 NWLR (Part 1110) 577; (2008) LPELR-2379 (SC) at pages 14, paragraphs C-D. It is submitted that the claimant/applicant’s argument at paragraph 2.4 of his written address to the effect that the court should not concern itself with the merit of the claimant/applicant’s case is with all due respect totally misconceived and untenable. It is trite principle of law that where the court lacks the requisite jurisdiction to entertain a suit, the court cannot competently proceed to make any order in the matter other than an order striking out or dismissing the entire suit. On this submission counsel cited the cases of Madumere v.Okwara (2013) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1368) 303 at 335, Nigeria Unity Line Plc v. Usman (2014) 6 NWLR (Pt.1404) 546 at 551 paras D-E, A.G, Lagos State v.A.G, Fed (2014) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1412) 217 at 273. It is submitted by counsel that given the facts and circumstances of the present case, it cannot be rightly argued that the defendants/respondents stole a match against the claimant/applicant when the claimant/applicant fully participated in the entire proceedings leading to his dismissal and utilized the opportunity availed him before the 2nd defendant/respondent and the Joint Committee of Council and Academic Board to defend himself. Consequently, the defendants/respondents cannot be said to have carried out any act behind the claimant/applicant as apparent in all the cases cited and relied upon by the claimant/applicant. In view of the foregoing, counsel urged the court to resolve the sole issue for determination in favour of the defendants/respondents and against the claimant/applicant. In concluding his submission counsel urged the court to dismiss the claimant/applicant’s application. COURT’S DECISION I have carefully and painstakingly perused the motion on notice seeking for restorative order of injunction and the reply by the defendants/respondents. From the prayer as contained in the motion papers the issue calling for resolution is whether in the circumstances of this case the claimant/applicant is entitled to restorative order of injunction’’ Let me start by trashing certain preliminary issues arising from the submission of counsel on both sides. The defendants/respondents in their reply to the motion on notice have argued that this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this as the case is an abuse of court process. It is to be noted the law is settled beyond dispute that a court is duty bound when considering motion to restrict its consideration to the prayers presented to it by an applicant. This means that a court must restrict itself to the reliefs claimed by an applicant in his motion. See A-G EKITI STATE V DAMMOLA (2003) FWLR (pt.169) 1121, A-G OF THE FEDERATION V A. I. C. LTD (2000) 10 NWLR (Pt.675) 2093, OKPALA V OKPU (2003) FWLR (Pt.150) 1623. The supreme court re-affirmed the position of the law that parties and the court are bound by the prayers in the motion paper in GOVERNMENT OF GONGOLA STATE V ALHAJI UMARU ABBA TUKUR (1989) 4 NWLR (PT.117) 592. See also COMMISSIONER FOR WORKS BNENUE STATE V DEVCOM CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD (1988) 3 NWLR (PT.830 407, CHIEF OKOYA & ORS. V S. SANTILI (1990) 2 NWLLR (PT.131) 172. It is clear as the day light that an applicant and court are bound by the prayers raised in the application before the court. It is not open for parties to depart from what was circumscribed in the application before the court. In the circumstance in determination of this application, this court will restrict its consideration to prayers as contained in the application before the court. This means that all the submissions made by the counsel for the defendants/respondents that have no bearing on the prayers presented by the claimant/applicant will be discountenanced as going to no issue. The issue of jurisdiction and abuse of court process being raised in the reply by the defendants/respondents have no bearing on the issue of restorative order of injunction. Another issue to be resolved is whether the further counter-affidavit filed by the defendants/respondents on 5/7/18, after argument on this application had commenced can be allowed to be used. The law, as it is now, is that an affidavit filed after the commencement of an application should be disallowed and discountenanced. See MAJOROH V FASASSI (1986) 5 NWLR (PT.40) 39, RAMON V JINADU (1985) 5 NWLR (PT.39) 100. Let me now deal with the main issue for determination as far the applicant’s application before the court. The main prayer of the claimant/applicant before the court in this application is for an order of court for restoration of status quo antebellum. The prayer was predicated on the fact that, while this suit is pending and an application for interlocutory injunction was also pending before the court seeking to restrain the defendants/applicants from tempering with the employment of the claimant/applicant, pending the determination of this suit, the defendants/respondent in disregard of the court processes commencing this suit served on them and the application for injunction, the defendants/respondents vide letter dated 15/3/18, dismissed the claimant from service. The defendants/applicants on their part contended that the claimant/applicant has not fulfilled the required condition for the grant of an application of this nature, because in the ruling of 29/9/17, this court held that it cannot restrain the defendant/respondents from disciplining the claimant, the finding which has not been set aside. According to the defendants/respondents it is in line with the decision of this court that claimant/applicant was found culpable and dismissed from service. Counsel also contended that cases relied by the claimant/applicant are not applicable in this case. It is to be noted that the prayer as can be gleaned from the motion paper is aimed at restoring the parties back to status quo ante bellem. Restoration, generally presupposes that something which was previously put in a particular place or position was displaced and eventually restored to its former position. See KUBOUR V DICKSON (2012) LPELR-9817(SC). Restorative or mandatory injunction by its very nature is designed to judicially instill discipline on an erring patty in order for the court to maintain, restore and preserve its dignity and respect. See EZEGBU V F. A. T. B. SUPRA. The court exercises this power, inter alia, to undo what has been done by the erring party irrespective of what the court will decide on the merit eventually when the matter is heard. The defendants/respondent has argued though erroneously that this kind of application seeking for restoration is unknown to law. It is to be noted that the order being sought is an appropriate order that court can make in deserving cases if the applicant convinced the court that he is entitled to it. The inherent power of the court under section 6(6) of the Constitution of the federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, (as amended), to issue restorative order is two fold. Firstly, it is to enable the court protect itself from unwarranted interference, and secondly, to sustain its dignity in order to promote fair dispensation of justice. See ERISI V IDIKA 1987 4 NWLR PT.66 503, ADIGUN V A.G. OYO STATE 1987 2 NWLR PT.56 197. The power of court to grant restorative order is designed for the maintenance of law and order, dignity and integrity of the court, unless court exercises disciplinary jurisdiction in appropriate circumstances, it will lose its respect in the judicial process. The institution of the court which the law has placed in the exalted and sacred position, surrounded by all aura of legalism and sanctity, will be reduced to a toothless dog which can bark but cannot bite. The principle governing restorative mandatory order of injunction is where proceedings are pending before a court wherein injunctive reliefs are sought, the party against whom those injunctive reliefs are sought is under obligation to refrain from doing that which is sought to be restrained, even when no temporary order of injunction may have been granted. See EZEGBU V F. T. A. B. 1991 1 NWLE PT.220 669, ABIODUN V CHIEF JUDE, KWARA STATE 2008 ALL FWLR PT.448 340, ADEFARATI V GOVERNOR ONDO STATE 2006 1 NWLR PT.960 145 AND F. T. A. B. V EZEGBU 1992 9 NWLR PT.264 132. This position is irrespective of what the defendant/respondent felt about the suit before the court. The parties in a suit are under an obligation to respect processes of the court. I shall now apply the principle of law enunciated in the cases cited, to the facts and circumstances of this suit, with a view to seeing whether the claimant/applicant is entitled to the order being sought. The claimant in this suit was employed by the defendants/respondent in 1993 as a lecturer in the department of accountancy of the 1st defendant/respondent and rose to the rank of Chief Lecturer. The claimant commenced this suit via form of complaint dated and filed on 28/2/18. The claimant/applicant also filed along with the substantive suit, a motion ex-parte and motion on notice for interlocutory injunction. The motion ex-parte came up for hearing and determination before the court on 6/3/18. But, the court on its own wisdom ordered that the defendants/respondents be put on notice. Consequently, the matter was adjourned to 14/3/18 for hearing of the motion on notice for interlocutory injunction. On 14/3/18 when the motion on notice for interlocutory injunction came up for hearing, the defendants/respondents were represented by counsel (Mr. Sunday Iyemeake, Esq;), wherein he requested for time to react to the motion on notice for interlocutory injunction. The court obliged counsel with his request for adjournment. The case was then adjourned to 24/5/18 for hearing of the motion on notice for interlocutory injunction. However, before the date fixed for hearing which was at the instance of the counsel for the defendants/respondents, the claimant was served with a letter dated 15/3/18, dismissing him from the service of the defendants/respondents. This action was taken by the defendants/respondents, a day after securing an adjournment. This application was filed by the claimant/applicant seeking for order of court granting a restorative mandatory order of injunction for maintenance of status quo ante bellem. It is clear from the above stated facts that the defendants/respondents were duly aware of the existence of this suit and the pending motion on notice for interlocutory injunction. In further proof of the defendants/respondents awareness of the existence of this suit and all the processes filed therein, the defendants/respondents were represented by counsel in court on 14/3/18, when this matter came up for hearing of the motion for interlocutory injunction. But, the defendant deliberatively in disregard of the processes of this court decided to do what the application pending before the court sought to restraint i.e dismissal of the claimant/applicant from the employment of the defendants/respondents pending the hearing and determination of this suit. The action of the defendants/respondents clearly violate and treated with disdain the sanctity of the process of this court. It is well settled from the earlier cited decision the law on this issue is well settled, no one is allowed to interfere with the judicial process or take steps during the pendency of a suit that will tend to whittle down or impinges on the power of the court before which the proceedings subsist or which in anyway frustrate its course. The courts frowns at attempt by a party to the proceedings before it to overreach his adversary and create impression that the court has been compromised. The action of the defendants/respondents shows lack of respect to this court. Once a court is seized of a dispute submitted to it by parties to the dispute for adjudication, a court can invoke its disciplinary jurisdiction to prevent its power to try cases before it from being frustrated or stultified for the purpose of maintaining rule of law and integrity of the court. See DR. RABIU MUSA KWANKWASO V THE GOVERNOR OF KANO STATE & ORS. (2006) 14 NWLR (PT.1000) 444. The counsel for the defendants/respondents has strenuously argued before this court that a similar application is pending before the Court of Appeal therefore it is only the Court of Appeal that has jurisdiction to entertain this application. The counsel for the defendants/applicants seems to have misunderstood the aim and objective of the present application under consideration. The application being considered is for restoration of what the defendants/applicants have done, which the claimant sought to restrain them from doing. This court has a duty to also ensure that an action pending before it, as well as appeal pending before the court of appeal are not rendered nugatory. This court has the inherent jurisdiction to ensure that any process before it or before the court of appeal is respected. No party shall be allowed to do anything that will in anyway foist a fait accompli on this court or the Court of Appeal. See ALHAJI SULAIMAN MOHAMMED V LASISI SANUSI OLAWUNMI & ORS. (1993) 4 NWLR (PT.288) 384. Being aware of the pendency of the motion on notice for interlocutory injunction, the defendants/respondents are under obligation to ensure that their action did not in any way interfere with the pending suit before this court which they were fully aware of its existence. The defendants/respondents should have waited a little to allow the court determine the application pending before it one way or the other. Rather than rushing in haste to do what the application before the court sought to restraint. What the defendants/respondents did by dismissing the claimant/applicant from service is to foist on this court a fait accompli thereby rendering it impossible for the court to exercise jurisdiction in even determining whether it has jurisdiction or not to hear and entertain the substantive suit. The mere fact that counsel is contesting the jurisdiction of court does not grant any party before the court a blanket cheaque to disregard the processes pending before the court no matter the conviction of counsel. Parties are duty bound to wait for the court to render decision on whatever position that the parties might have before it. No party should be allowed to take law into his hands. The essence of all I have been saying is that the claimant/applicant’s application is meritorious and is hereby granted. The dismissal of the claimant/applicant from service while this case is pending is hereby condemned. It is an attempt by the defendants/respondents to frustrate the hearing of the suit. For avoidance of doubt a mandatory order of restorative injunction compelling the defendants/respondents including the registrar Auchi Polytechnic who issued letter dated 15/3/18, dismissing the claimant/applicant, to immediately reinstate the claimant/applicant as chief lecturer in the department of Accountancy of the 1st defendant/respondent with all his entitlement as chief lecturer, is hereby granted.. Sanusi Kado, Judge.