of this Honourable Court seeking the following relief from this Honourable Court:- An order striking out this suit i.e. Suit No. NICN/ABJ/269/2017: Engr. Dr. Sule Olohi Ohikhena v. Auchi Polytechnic, Auchi & Ors for want of reasonable cause of action and for being an abuse of the process of the Honourable Court. " The said application is supported by an affidavit of 31 paragraphs depose to by Mr. Cornelius S. Garuba, the Deputy Registrar, Senior Staff Establishment of the 1st Defendant/Applicant. The applicants also in line with rules of this Court have filed a written address. Sunday Iyemeake, Esq; Counsel for the Defendants/Applicants in his oral submissions before the Court relied on all the averments in the affidavit in support of the motion on notice and the supporting documents attached as exhibits. In the written address Counsel submitted sole issue for determination, to wit: ‘‘whether the Claimant/Respondent's suit is not incompetent and liable to be struck out’’. In arguing the issue for determination Counsel for the Defendants/Applicants submitted 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 on the merit. It is the very basis on which any court or tribunal tries a case. It is the lifeline of all trials. A court will have and exercise jurisdiction when the following conditions exist:- 1) It is properly constituted as regards numbers and qualifications of the members of the bench; and no member is disqualified for one reason or another; and 2) The subject matter of the case is within its jurisdiction and there is no feature in the case which prevents the court from exercising its jurisdiction; and 3) The case comes before the court initiated by due process of law and upon fulfillment of any condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction. On the above submission Counsel relied on the locus classicus decision of the Supreme Court in Madukolu v Nkemdilim (1961) 2 NSCC 374 at 379. Counsel further relied on the following judicial authorities:- Okereke v Yar' Adua (2008) 12 NWLR (Part 1100) 95, Tukur v Taraba State (1997) 6 SCN] 81, Nashtex tnt'I Ltd v Habib Bank (Nig) Ltd (2007) 17 NWLR (Part1063) 308, Diamond Bank Ltd v Ugochukwu (2008) 1 NWLR (Part 1067) 1. It is the submission of Counsel that the issue of objection to jurisdiction can be taken or raised at any stage of the proceedings 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 place reliance on the following judicial authorities:- Alintah v. FRN (2010) 6 NWLR (Pt.1191) 508 at 527, Ecobank (Nig.) Pic v.lntercontenetal Bank Pic (2012) 5 NWLR (Pt.1293) 219 at 234, Odessa v. FRN (No.2) (2005)10 NWLR (Pt. 934) 528 at 558-559. It is the Defendants/Applicants' contention that the Claimant/Applicant's suit as presently constituted does not disclose any reasonable cause of action. Counsel defined a cause of action as the entire set of circumstances or facts giving rise to an enforceable action. It is the entire factual situation the existence of which entitles a person to obtain from a court remedy against another person. For this proposition of the law, Counsel relied on the following judicial authorities:- Rockshell Int'l Ltd v Br Q.S. Ltd (2009) 12 NWLR (Part 1156) 640 at 665, Williams v Williams (2008) 10 NWLR (Part 1095) 364 sc. In P.N. Udoh Trading Co. Ltd v Abere (2001) 5 SC. (Part 11) 64; (2001) 11 NWLR (Part 723) 114, Nwankwo v Ononeze - Madu (2009) 1 NWLR (Part 1123) 671, Kwara State v Olawale (1993) 1 NWLR (Part 272) 645 at 663, Rinco Construction Co. Ltd v Veepee Industries Ltd (2005) All FWLR (Part 264) 816 at 822; (2005) 9 NWLR (Part929) 85, C.B. Ltd v Intercity Bank Pic (2009) 15 NWLR (Part 1165) 417 at 457 - 458 paras H - C. It is contended further that for cause of action to accrue in favour of the Claimant to warrant the exercise of jurisdiction by the court, the facts must ex - facie clearly reveal an enforceable right in favour of the Claimant. The facts must establish an infraction of the alleged right of the Claimant and the consequent damage done to the Claimant for a cause of action to be said to exist in his favour. For this contention, Counsel cited the following judicial authorities: Osigwe v. PSPLS Mgt Consortium Ltd (2009) 3 NWLR (Part 1128)378, Oshoboja v Amuda (1992) 7 SCNj 317 at 326; (1992) 6 NWLR (Part 250) 690, Afolayan v Ogunrinde (1990) 1 NWLR (Part 127) 369, Ojukwu v. Yar'adua (2009) 12 NWLR (Part 1154) 50 at 131, Adimora v Ajufo and others (1988) 3 NWLR (Part 80) 1, Muomah v. Spring Bank pic (2009) 3 NWLR (Part 1129) Counsel also submitted that it is settled position of the law that the only document this court is entitled to look at this stage in deciding whether there exist a reasonable cause of action is the reliefs of the Claimant/Respondent as endorsed on his complaint. According to Counsel in the instant case, it is submitted that it cannot be said that there exists the complete act to give rise to any reasonable cause of action. There is also no established infraction of the Claimant/Respondent's right. It is contended that from the facts of the case, the management of the 1st Defendant/Applicant received Exhibits A and A1 wherein the Claimant/Respondent was alleged to have had extra marital affairs with a married woman, a subordinate staff of the 1st Defendant/Applicant working under him. The management of the 1st Defendant/Applicant also received Exhibits A2 and A3 wherein it was alleged that the Claimant/Respondent held meeting with some executives of the Student Union Government and some cult group members with a view to cause riot and disturbance in the 1st Defendant/Applicant and disrupt the implementation of the 1st Defendant's policy of No School fees No Exams. The Claimant/Respondent was consequently invited by the Chief Security Officer who afforded the Claimant the opportunity to react to the petition/letters. The Claimant made statements to the panel headed by the CSO but insisted he wants to meet with the persons who accused him the extra marital affairs. Upon the request of the Claimant/Respondent, the CSO arranged for a meeting between the Claimant and his accusers for the Claimant to cross examine them but the Claimant failed to show up but subsequently wrote a letter wherein he maintained that he cannot submit himself to the panel for investigation. Consequent upon the report of the Committee, the Claimant/Respondent was issued with queries vide Exhibits A9 and A10 and he reacted to the queries vide Exhibits A11 and A12. After due consideration of the Claimant's replies, the queries issued to the Claimant together with the Claimant/Respondent's replies thereto were sent to the Senior Staff Disciplinary Committee for discreet investigation. Upon the invitation by the SSDC, the Claimant/Respondent appeared before the SSDC and opted to rely on his written replies to the queries but maintained he will not submit himself for any investigation by the SSDC until the 2nd Defendant/Applicant replies the letters he claimed to have written to the 2nd Defendant/Applicant. According to Counsel in the instant case, it is submitted that it cannot be said that there exists the complete act to give rise to any reasonable cause of action. There is also no established infraction of the Claimant/Respondent's right. It is contended that from the facts of the case, the management of the 1st Defendant/Applicant received Exhibits A and A1 wherein the Claimant/Respondent was alleged to have had extra marital affairs with a married woman, a subordinate staff of the 1st Defendant/Applicant working under him. The management of the 1st Defendant/Applicant also received Exhibits A2 and A3 wherein it was alleged that the Claimant/Respondent held meeting with some executives of the Student Union Government and some cult group members with a view to cause riot and disturbance in the 1st Defendant/Applicant and disrupt the implementation of the 1st Defendant's policy of No School fees No Exams. The Claimant/Respondent was consequently invited by the Chief Security Officer who afforded the Claimant the opportunity to react to the petition/letters. The Claimant made statements to the panel headed by the CSO but insisted he wants to meet with the persons who accused him the extra marital affairs. Upon the request of the Claimant/Respondent, the CSO arranged for a meeting between the Claimant and his accusers for the Claimant to cross examine them but the Claimant failed to show up but subsequently wrote a letter wherein he maintained that he cannot submit himself to the panel for investigation. Consequent upon the report of the Committee, the Claimant/Respondent was issued with queries vide Exhibits A9 and A10 and he reacted to the queries vide Exhibits All and A12. After due consideration of the Claimant's replies, the queries issued to the Claimant together with the Claimant/Respondent's replies thereto were sent to the Senior Staff Disciplinary Committee for discreet investigation. Upon the invitation by the SSDC, the Claimant/Respondent appeared before the SSDC and opted to rely on his written replies to the queries but maintained he will not submit himself for any investigation by the SSDC until the 2nd Defendant/Applicant replies the letters he claimed to have written to the 2nd Defendant/Applicant. Based on the protest letters vis-à-vis the SSDC Report, the Claimant/Respondent rushed to court to file the instant suit and obtain an interim injunction to restrain the 2nd Defendants from hearing and determining the same matter he had laid before it vide Exhibit A14. It is very important to note that it is the 2nd Defendant/Applicant that is statutory body empowered to discipline senior academic staff like the Claimant/Respondent in line with the Federal Polytechnic Act Cap F17 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 and the Federal Polytechnic Staff Manual. That being the case, it is obvious that the Claimant has not being tried for any misconduct or offence as at the time this suit was filed. The 2nd Defendant has not even considered the report of the Chief Security Officer or the SSDC or the protest letters of the Claimant/Respondent as at the time of filing of this suit. Consequently, it is submitted that the Claimant's right has not been infringe upon in any way. Preliminary investigation by an investigating body like the Committee set up by the Chief Security Officer of the 1st Defendant and SSDC which is not a statutory empowered body cannot be said to be infringement of the Claimant/Respondent's right. For this contention, Counsel relied on the Supreme Court decision in UNTHMB v. Nnoli (1994) 8 NWLR (Pt. 363) 376 at 404. It is the contention of Counsel that no court can stop or gag the power of an employer to discipline its staff. The court can only intervene where the employee is not afforded fair trial. In the instant case trial has not even commenced for the court to determine whether the Claimant/Respondent was accorded fair hearing. All that has been done is mere preliminary investigation, as it is the 2nd Defendant that has the power to try and take disciplinary measure against any senior staff of the 1st Defendant. That power has not been exercise. Counsel relied on the following judicial authorities:- 1. Unreported decision of this court in Suit No. NICN/ ABJ/258/16: Mr. Friday Igbinosun Ese v. The Rector, Auchi Polytechnic, Auchi & Ors. delivered on 29th September, 2017. 2. Unreported decision of this court in Suit No. NI /AB / 311/2016: Mr. Obomeghie Idris Adam v. The Rector, Auchi Polytechnic, Auchi and Ors. delivered on 10th July, 2017 It is further submitted that the Committee set up by the Chief Security Officer and the SSDC are not statutory body vested with disciplinary powers but the 2nd Defendant/Applicant. Consequently, it is submitted the Claimant/Respondent case as presently constituted is nothing but a ruse to cloth this court with jurisdiction where none exist. Assuming but without conceding that the Committee set up the Chief Security Officer of the 1st Defendant and the SSDC are bound by the strict rule of Natural Justice in their preliminary investigation, it is submitted that the Claimant/Respondent's suit is still devoid of merit as the Claimant/Respondent from his own showing was given opportunity to defend himself by the Chief Security Officer and the SSDC but bluntly refused to utilize same. From the totality of the reliefs of the Claimant/Respondent, the Claimant/Respondent wants to use the instrumentality of the Court to shield himself from lawful investigation by his employer. This court as well as other superior court has always warned itself of not allowing parties to drag the court to areas that are outside the scope of its jurisdiction but exclusive to academic bodies. For this contention, we draw support from the Court of Appeal decision in Inuwa v. Bayero University Kano &Anor (2016) LPELR-41615(CA) posited thus: " ... too often nowadays, ever since the case of Garba v University of Maiduguri (supra), many litigants have tended to inundate the Courts with frivolous claims and have tried to invest the Court with powers to run a university usually described as Ivory Tower with their strange claims. A university is a place of great learning and research. I would view with consternation and trepidation the day the court would immerse itself into the cauldron of academic issue which is an area it is not equipped to handle the danger posed by such venture is better imagined than expressed’’ (emphasis mine). From the Claimant/Respondent's reliefs the Claimant wants this court to disband the SSDC and probably appoint persons to the Committee or empower him to appoint members of the SSDC. The Claimant wants this court to believe that investigation of employee misconduct by his employer amounts to harassment, threat and torture. What is spurious claim? Counsel urged the court to decline such unholy and bizarre invitation by the Claimant/Respondent. Counsel submitted that upon the foregoing, it is submitted that no reasonable cause of action has accrued in favour of the Claimant/Respondent as at the time of filing this suit. There exists no infraction of any of the right by the Claimant/Respondent to warrant exercise of the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court to entertain this suit. It is submitted that it is the position of the law that where no reasonable cause of action is revealed in an action, the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the matter is thereby affected. For this settled position of the law, Counsel referred to the following judicial authorities:- Utih v Onoyivwe(1991) 1 NWLR (Part 166) 166 at 216, Daily Times (Nig) Pic v. os. v. Ltd (2014) 5 NWLR (Part 1400) 327, Azuh v. UBN PIc (2014) 11 NWLR (Part 1419) 580 at 614. It is further contended that where the court comes to the conclusion that no reasonable cause of action is established, the court is entitled as a matter of law to strike out the matter. Counsel placed reliance on the following judicial authorities:- Ojukwu v. Yar'Adua (Supra) at 132, jegede v Akande (2014) 16 NWLR (Pt 1432) 43. Counsel urged the court to discountenance the attempt by the Claimant/Respondent to rake up the baseless and feeble case to protect himself from lawful investigation by his employers. It is trite that the court will not allow any party to use its machinery as a shield for his unlawful conduct. For this contention, reliance was placed on the case of Gbadamosi v. Akinloye (2013)15 NWLR (Pt. 1378) 455 at 478, It is further contended that the court cannot stop an employer from discipline his employee. The court can only intervene where due process is not followed. It is further submitted that the Claimant/Respondent's suit is totally bereft of substance and premature. The Claimant/Respondent claims to have written protest letters to the 2nd Defendant/Applicant that has the statutory responsibility to discipline senior academic staff of the 1st Defendant/Applicant vide Exhibits A 14 and A 15 dated 20th July 2017 and 11th August 2017 respectively and commenced this suit when the 2nd Defendant has not reconvene to considered his protest letters nor the report of the SSDC. As at the time the Claimant filed the present suit, no determination has been made by the 2nd Defendant as to whether the Claimant should be tried in line with the provisions of section 17(1) of the Federal Polytechnic Act, Cap F17 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 which provides that it is only when it appears to the Council that person should be removed from office that the trial procedure stipulated in the Act reference the above as well as the Manual will be activated. For ease of reference provision of the Act is reproduced below:- "If it appears to the council that there are reasons for believing that any person employed as a member of the academic, administrative or technical staff of the institution other than the Rector should be removed from office on the ground of misconduct or inability to perform that function of his office, the Council shall- give notice of those reasons to the person in question afford him an opportunity of making representations in person on the matter to the Council; and if he or any three members of the Council so request within the period of one month beginning with the date of the notice, make arrangements- (i) if he an academic staff, for a joint committee of the Council and the Academic Board to investigate the matter and to report on it to the Council, or (ii) for a committee of the Council to investigate the matter, where it relates to any other member of the staff of the polytechnic and to report on it to the Council; and (iii) For the person in question to be afforded an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by the investigating committee with respect to the matter and if the Council, after considering the report of the investigating committee is satisfied that the person in question should be removed as aforesaid, the Council may so remove him by an instrument in writing signed on the direction of the Council" The process of preliminary investigation and issuance of query are not the responsibilities of the Council. It is In the case of Bamgboye v. University of Ilorin (1999) 10 NWLR (Part 622) 290 at 353 para B the apex court Coram Ayoola JSC, while interpreting a similar provision of the University of Ilorin Act had this to say:- "I venture to think that although it may appear to it by any other means, usually it is when the Council would have received the report and recommendations of the Committee that it would "appear" to it that there are reasons for believing that the members of staff concerned deserved to be removed from his office or employment on the ground of misconduct. " It is only after the consideration of report of SSDC that it can appear to the Council that disciplinary action should be commenced against an academic staff of the 1st Defendant. The Claimant/Respondent by his claim wants this court to stop the 2nd Defendant from carrying out its statutory duties. The Council having not considered the report of the Senior Staff Disciplinary Committee or has it come to determination that the Claimant/Respondent should be tried for any misconduct, it is submitted that the Claimant/Respondent's suit is premature and devoid of merit, Counsel urged the Court to accordingly so hold. Further, it is contented that the Defendants/Applicant are not investigating any criminal offence against the Claimant/Respondent but for his plans to instigate students against the Management of the 1st Defendant/Applicant and frustrate the implementation of the Polytechnic's policy of No School Fees No Exam. Where the misconduct of the employee falls within the jurisdiction of the employer, the employee can be investigated and dismissed without being held to be trying a criminal charge. On this submission Counsel relied on the Court of Appeal decision in Mr. O. Eno Osagie v. New Nigeria Bank Pic (2004) LPELR-5894 (CA) where the Court of Appeal Coram, Augie JCA, (as he then was) held as follows:- "Once the offence committed by the employee is within the domestic jurisdiction of the employer, disciplinary action in such a case can be taken without recourse to a criminal charge. See Uzoho v. Task Force on Hospital Management (2004) 5 NWLR (pt. 867) 627 where the court held that where an allegation of misconduct by an employee can be proved without the need to find the employee guilty of acts amounting to criminal offence, a disciplinary tribunal can investigate the allegation without being held to be trying a criminal charge. That the prosecution of an employee before the law court is not a sine qua non to the exercise of power of summary dismissal by an employer was brought out clearly by the Supreme Court in Yusuf v. Union Bank of Nigeria (1996) 6 NWLR (Pt 457) 632, where Wali, JSC stated as follows- "On the issue of fair hearing which the appellant belatedly introduced, it is my considered view that before an employer can dispense with the services of his employee under the common law all he needs to do is to afford the employee an opportunity of being heard before exercising his power of summary dismissal, even where the allegation for which the employee is being dismissed is being dismissed involves accusation of crime" Counsel submitted that misconduct is defined in Chapter 3 section 3 Rule 030301 as an act of wrong doing or improper behaviour which is inimical to the image of the service and which can be investigated and proved. Immoral behaviour is listed as one of the acts constituting misconduct of a public officer which can be investigated under the above rule. Under section 4 of the above Chapter of the Public Service Rule, rule 030402 (t), sabotage is listed as an act of serious misconduct. The Claimant/Respondent been a public servant is bound not to work or do anything against the interest of his employer. Counsel urged the Court to hold that the Defendants/Applicants are not investigating the Claimant for any criminal Offence but for misconduct which is within the jurisdictional competence of the Defendants/Applicants so as to save the image and security of the 1st Defendant/Applicant's Polytechnic which ought to be a place of high discipline. It is the submission of Counsel that there is no iota of law supporting the Claimant/Respondent's suit. Undoubtedly, the Claimant/Respondent's case is not only devoid of a reasonable cause of action, it is also premature, incompetent and an abuse of the process of this Court. On this contention Counsel place reliance on the Supreme Court decision 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. In concluding his submission Counsel urged the Court to uphold the Defendants/Applicants' objection and strike out the Claimants/Respondent's case on the following grounds:- 1) The Claimant/Respondent's case does not disclose any reasonable cause of action. 2) The Claimant/Respondent's case constitutes an abuse of the process of court. OPPOSITION BY THE CLAIMANT. In reaction to this application the Claimant filed a written address which was adopted in the course of oral adumbration before the Court. In the written address Counsel submitted lone issue for determination, to wit: ‘‘Whether the claimant's suit does not disclose a reasonable cause of action’’. ARGUMENT In arguing the issue for determination Counsel started with definition of a cause of action, ‘as the aggregate of fact giving rise to the claimant's claim which facts state the infractions complained of and the relief sought. In the Supreme Court case of CBN V UMEODUAGU (2004) 11 MJSC 127 @ 129 RATIO 1 & PARAS G - A @ 135 -136, Kalgo JSC said as follows: Cause of action has been defined by courts to mean a combination of circumstances giving rise to the right to file a claim in court for a remedy. It includes all things which are necessary to give a right of action and every material fact which has to be proved to entitle the plaintiff to succeed. In CHEVRON (NIG) LTD V L.D. (NIG) LTD, (2007) 10 MJSC 103 @ 105 & 108 PARA F - G, the Supreme Court per Oguntade JSC had this to say adopting the words of Karibi-Whyte JSC in BELLO VS ATIORNEY GENERAL OF OYO STATE (1986) 5 NWLR (PT 45) 828 @ 876 thus: I think a cause of action is constituted by the bundle or aggregate of facts which the law recognize as giving the plaintiff a substantive right to make the claim against the relief or remedy being sought. In other words the factual situation relied upon must constitute the essential ingredients of an enforceable right. Oguntade in CHEVRON (NIG) LTD V L.D. (NIG) LTD, (2007) SUPRA @ page 109 PARA C - D also adopted the definition supplied by Fatai Williams in Savage V Uwechia ... thus A cause of action is defined in Stroud's Judicial Dictionary as the entire set of circumstances giving rise to an enforceable claim. To my mind, it is, in effect, the fact or combination of facts which give rise to a right to sue and it consists of two elements- the wrongful acts of the defendant which gives the plaintiff his cause of complaint and the consequent damages. See also SOCIETY BIC S.A & ORS V CHARZIN IND. LTD (2014) 2 MJSC (PT11) 1 @ 4 RATIO 1 & 31 PARAS A- D Counsel submitted that in determining cause of action it is the claim that will be look at. On this submission counsel relied on CBN V UMEODUAGU (SUPRA) PARAS C -G @136, 7 - Up Bottling Company Ltd & Ors V Abiola and Sons Bottling Co. Ltd. (2001) 13 NWLR (PT 730) 469 @ 495, Olabode V Otubu (2001) 7 NWLR (PT 712) 256 @ 276, CHEVRON (NIG) LTD V L.D. (NIG) LTD, (2007) (supra) Counsel refereed to the Statement of Facts particularly paragraphs 8 - 61 and submitted that the facts averred therein constitute infractions that form the basis of claimant's and the relief he seeks. It is the contention of Counsel that the claimant avers that the acts of the 3rd defendant and his supporters, agents, hirelings and the SSDC amount to serial violation of his Fundamental Right to freedom from harassment, threats, torture and are a denial of his right to fair trial and fair hearing and in addition constitute a continuing violation of the said right and continuing denial of his rights aforementioned. These in summary are the aggregate of facts contained in claimant's Statement of Facts which the claimant relies on for the reliefs he claims. It is the submission of Counsel that these facts have the features of a reasonable cause of action as set out in the following authorities of CBN V UMEODUAGU (2004) 11 MJSC 127, CHEVRON (NIG) LTD V L.D. (NIG) LTD, (2007) 10 MJSC 103, BELLO VS ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OYO STATE (1986) 5 NWLR (PT 45) 828, SOCIETY BIC S.A & ORS V CHARZIN IND. LTD (2014) 2 MJSC (PT11) 1. The facts disclose a cause of action and a reasonable one at that. This is more so as these facts, by the nature of the application of the applicants to strike out the claimant's suit for not disclosing a reasonable cause of action, are deemed to be admitted by them. Counsel relied on STEPHEN ENG. LTD. V S.A. YAKUBU NIG. LTD (2009) 5 MJSC (PT 11) 58, It is the submission of Counsel that in the light of the admission of these facts which the claimant has set out in his Statement of Facts, it cannot be gainsaid that a reasonable cause of action has been disclosed by the claimant An examination of the applicants' application shows a motion which on its face enumerated 14 grounds on which the application is based. The said motion is supported by an affidavit of 31 paragraphs deposed to by one Mr. Cornelius S. Garuba and numerous exhibits. The said 14 grounds and the 31 paragraph affidavit and exhibits merely replicate the applicants' defence to the claimant's claim are clearly in breach of the long standing position of the Supreme Court in the decisions cited above as to what should be the basis of an application of this nature and what material to look at and where to locate them. It is the submission of Counsel that at this point in this suit the motion and affidavit are worthless papers that this court cannot look at and must of necessity shut its eyes to them. It is well established that at the stage of determining whether a cause of action exists in a suit the applicant is not called upon to offer a defence to the substantive suit. The applicants are to keep their gun powder dry. In this case the applicants have prematurely launched a battery of fire power against a non-existing target. The applicants fell into deep conceptual error in treating their application as an opportunity to dispute the claimant's claim thus missing the very significant implication that for the purpose of the application the applicants are taken to have admitted the facts alleged by the claimant in his Statement of Facts and cannot therefore be heard to dispute them The other point the applicant sought to score by their copious affidavit and exhibits in support of motion is that the claimant at best has a weak or bad case. The application is also not the stage for that. It is trite law that the weakness of the plaintiff' case is not a relevant consideration when the question is whether or not the Statement of Claim discloses a reasonable cause of action: MOBIL V LSEPA (2003) I MJSC 112@ 117- 118 RAIO 11 & 132 PARA B - C. See also the case of CHEVRON (NIG.) LTD V LD (NIG) LTD (2007) 10 MJSC 103 @ 106 RATIO 4 & 121 PARA G. In view of the foregoing, it is submitted by Counsel that the applicants have nothing before this Honourable Court on which their application can be founded as the grounds stated on the face of the motion paper, the supporting affidavit and the exhibits are irrelevant to the proceeding at this stage. Similarly the written address of the applicant is worthless in so far as it is based on the grounds stated on the face of the motion paper, the supporting affidavit and exhibits. The written address amounts to putting something on top of nothing and must fall to the ground. We urge your Lordship to so hold. It is submitted that it is now beyond question and doubt that if a body has duty to carry out especially a quasi - judicial one it must be carried out following due process. As is now notoriously known when some members of the Oyo State House of Assembly who were less than the full house (some members having been suspended days earlier) sat at a hotel and impeached the then Oyo State Governor, Senator Rashidi Adewolu Ladoja, the Supreme Court held that unless the procedure for impeachment was followed to the letter and the members sat at their usual place of business their proceedings were null and void. See INAKOJU V ADELEKE (2007) 2 MJSC 1. No one can quarrel with the right of the pt defendant to discipline its staff but the procedure must be proper and in accordance with due process. Counsel submitted that one of the allegations made by the claimant is that he is a senior member of staff of the Polytechnic and he was invited to appear before ad hoc staff of the polytechnic to be investigated. It is like inviting casual workers of the judiciary or junior staff such as messengers and security men to subject a judge to investigation. If that does not disclose a cause of action what then is a cause of action. Another is that the Senior Staff Disciplinary Committee (SSDC) did not accede to his plea to be given time to prepare his defence and call his witnesses whom he could not reach because of the short notice, he having appeared same day he was invited to appear before it; failure and refuse to record his defence in spite of his protests when he proceeded to offer it; refusal to allow the claimant meet and confront the persons accusing him of adultery as well as those who alleged that he had a meeting with them in a Degap hotel; irate disposition of the members of the panel who accused the claimant unjustly of rudeness and told him to save his breathe, that the committee was not a court and when he gets his letter of dismissal he can go to court and invoke whatever rights he wishes. Counsel submitted that these are allegations of disciplinary procedure in breach of the rules of fair hearing on an occasion when the claimant's job and means of livelihood was on the line. Counsel contended that the procedure of investigation by the Security Unit and "trial" by the SSDC must be by competent persons and must embrace the rules of fair hearing. The panel must be impartial and fair. It is when these are done that the outcome can be said to be unimpeachable. Where the procedure falls short of these requirements, that fact itself generates a cause of action. The distinction between procedure and proceedings and their relationship was stated by NIKI TOBI JSC in INAKOJU V ADELEKE (2007) SUPRA @ PAGE 70 PARAS B - C thus: ‘‘Procedure is the set of actions necessary for doing something. It is also the method and order of directing business in an official meeting. On the contrary, proceedings are the record of activities. In this definition, procedure generally comes before proceedings. Putting it in another language, proceedings are built on the procedure established for the particular activity’’. Finally, Counsel submitted that the claimant need not wait until he has been done in by the defendants who course of inquiry and trial was evidently biased, lacking in fair hearing and impartiality and in breach of his Fundamental Right to fair hearing before approaching the court. The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended (whose overwhelming supremacy and binding force is enshrined in section 1(1) and whose provisions prevail over any other enactment as stated in section 1(3)) has provided in section 46(1) that when the Fundamental Right of a citizen "Is being or likely to be contravened" he can approach the court for redress. Finally, Counsel submitted that he is not unaware of the ruling of this Court in Suit No NICNjABJj258j2016 Mr. Igbinosun Friday Ese V The Rector, Auchi Polytechnic & 4 Ors where this Honourable court held that the claimant's suit did not disclose a cause of action. Nonetheless, it is submitted that the ruling is only persuasive on his court but not binding. In addition the issues in that case are not the same as in this case. According to Counsel here there is no challenge to the power of the Polytechnic to discipline its staff but a challenge to the procedure or process which denies the claimant a right to know his accusers and confront them more so when it is clear from the pleadings of the claimant that the charges against him are trumped up and instigated by the 3rd defendant whose desire is to eliminate the claimant from the race for rector of the 1st defendant. DEFENDANTS/APPLICANTS REPLY ON POINTS OF LAW. Counsel started his reply on points of law by submitting that having failed to file a counter affidavit to the Defendants/Applicants' application, the Claimant/Respondent is deemed to have conceded all the material averments contained in the supporting affidavit to the Defendants/Applicants' motion on notice. A party who intend to challenge the facts contained in an affidavit is bound to file a counter affidavit. For this submission, we place reliance on the Court of Appeal decision in Momoh v. Adedoyin (2015) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1465) 433. Consequently, the Claimant/Respondent is deemed to have conceded the entire paragraphs of the Defendants/Applicants' supporting affidavit. For this contention, Counsel relied on the following judicial authorities:- Danladi v. Dangari (2015) 2NWLR (Pt. 1442) 124 APC v. INEC (2015) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1462) 531 Atakpa v. Ebetor (2015) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1447) 549. It is submitted that upon the foregoing submission and judicial authorities, this Honourable Court is urged to totally discountenance all the arguments bordering on fact in the written address of the Claimant/Respondent. It is also submitted that the Claimant's submission at page 7 of his unparagraphed written address in opposition to Applicants' motion for striking out to the effect that this court cannot look at or consider the supporting affidavit to the Defendants' application in the determination of the application is totally spurious and misconceived, firstly on the ground that Order 17 rules 5 and 6 of the National Industrial Court Rules 2017 enjoins the Defendants to file along with the application an affidavit and a written address. That is to say, attaching an affidavit to the application, Is in compliance with the provisions of the rules of this Court, which the law enjoins parties to always comply with at all times. In Idris v Abubakar (2011) All FWLR (pt 733) @ 736, it was held that "rules and order of court are meant to be obeyed, and not made in vacuum. They are not made for the fun of it. More so, that the entire paragraphs of the said supporting affidavit are summary of the Claimant's case before the court which forms the basis of the Defendants' contention that the Claimant's case does not disclose any reasonable cause of action. Counsel submitted that as much as he will agree with the submission of the Claimant's counsel that all the Court needs to consider to determine if there is a reasonable cause of action is the Claimant's Statements of Fact, however, the Applicant's Affidavit in Support of the motion, stands and serves as a compass, directing the mind of the Court to those salient points the Court should be looking out for in the Claimant's Statement of Facts. Counsel also submitted that Lack of Reasonable Cause of Action, is a jurisdictional matter, hence, this Honourable Court can suo motu raise the issue of jurisdiction and the Court is entitled to consider any fact that will enable the Court to effectively decide the issue of jurisdiction raised before it by the Defendants. Consequently, the cases of CBN v. Umeoduagu (2004) 11 MJSC 127 at 136 and Chevron (Nig) Ltd (2007)10 MJSC 103 at 105 & 108 both cited and relied upon by the Claimant to contend that this court cannot look at or consider the Defendants/Applicants' supporting affidavit, are completely inapplicable to the facts of this case. The above authorities relate to the propriety of considering the Defendants' statement of defence, WHEREAS the Claimant's contention relates to the supporting affidavit to the Defendants' application which the Rules of this court requires the Defendants/applicants to files as a matter of necessity along with is motion on notice, hence the application will be incompetent. Order 17 Rule 5 which provides for the filing of an affidavit in support of an application is couched in mandatory terms with the word "SHALL." The Claimant cannot urge this court to disregard the above provision of the rules of the court which was made to aid the court in the just determination of matters before it. Counsel accordingly urge the court to discountenance the above misconceived contention of the Claimant/Respondent. It is settled principle of law that the ratio of a case is only an authority for what it decides. The ratio of a decided case cannot be pulled by the hair and made willy-nilly to apply to other cases were the facts are different. For this submission, Counsel cited the following judicial authorities:- Yabatech v. M. C. &. D Ltd (2014) 3 NWLR (Pt 1395) 616, Okafor v. Nnaife (1987)9-10 SCNJ 63, (1987) 4 NWLR (Pt. 64) 129. This was exactly what counsel for the appellants did in his brief. Notwithstanding that the facts of the two cases of Attorney General of Lagos State v. Attorney General of the Federation (supra) and UAC of Nig PIc and Ors v. A.G. Lagos State and Ors are different from the facts of this case, he clung to them. This is not right. The import of Okafor v. Nnaife (supra) is that a case can only be an authority for what it actually decided having regard to the facts and issues agitated before the court. Anekwe v. State (2014)10 NWLR (Pt. 1415) 353 at 370 - 371 para H-A. It is also submitted that the Claimant/Respondents' contention at page 7 of his unparagraphed written address to the effect that the entire paragraphs of the Defendants/Applicants' supporting affidavit to the instant application is a re-harsh of the Defendants defence is incorrect and grossly misleading. Counsel adopted his contention at paragraph 1.0 above and submit that the entire paragraphs of the Defendants/applicants' supporting affidavit is summary of the Claimant/respondent's case which forms the basis of Defendants/applicants' objection to the Competence of the suit. Furthermore, it is argued by the defendants that paragraphs a - bb contained at pages 4 - 6 of the Claimant's written address are totally inconsequential in resolving the issue of lack of reasonable cause of action raised by the Defendants. The Claimant cannot at this stage raise new issue, it is the facts as contained in the statement of facts that the Court is enjoin to X-rayed to resolve the issue. The Claimant cannot even lift the said paragraphs from the Statement of Facts to his written address for the court to consider it. It is further submitted that the Claimant's argument that there exist a cause of action in this suit is totally misconceived. In employment matters a cause of action can only arose in favour of the employee where the employer has terminated the contract of employment and formally communicate same to the employee vide a letter. It is only at that point the employee can either challenge the procedure adopted by the employer or ground of the decision of the termination of the contract by the employer. This is the only time a cause of action can arise in a contract of employment. For this trite and settled principle of law, we humbly place reliance on the Court of Appeal decision in Oduko v. Gov., of Ebonyi State of Nig. & Ors (2016) 65 NLLR (Pt 231) 325 at page 345-346 where the Court held as follows:- ‘‘A cause of action accrues for the Plaintiff's benefit from the time the breach of the contract is committed and not when damages is suffered. In other words, an event can only give rise to an actionable cause of action only when such is brought to the notice of a person. In contract of employment for an example, notice of formal information by one party to the other that the contract is to be brought to an end at a specified date. The cause of action accrues only when the letter is written by the employer and received by the employee. " (emphasis mine) It is the submission of Counsel that this Court followed the above Court of Appeal decision in Suit No.NICN/ ABJ/314/2016: Mr. Braimah Bashiru Adamu v. The Rector, Auchi Polytechnic, Auchi & Ors in its judgment delivered on 10th July, 2017, where this court coram Hon Justice E. N. Agbakoba held at page 14 of the judgment as follows:- "The judicial authorities show that a cause of action must set out the rights of the Claimant, the infringement thereof by the Defendants as well as the injury or damage suffered. In the case of Dr. Stephen E. Uwamasi Vs. The Governing Council, University of Benin NIC/EN/24/2011 (unreprted) delivered on 31st May, 2012 where the claimant came to court because he was issued three queries and learnt of the recommendation for his sack by the Disciplinary Committee of the University chaired by the 6th Defendant, the court held that the claimant had not established a cause of action. " (emphasis mine) Consequent upon the foregoing, it is submitted that the Claimant's submission that a reasonable cause of action has been disclosed is totally spurious and untenable and accordingly urged the Honourable Court to so hold. Counsel submitted that it is important to note that all the above cases involve situations where the contracts of employment are with statutory flavored as in the instant case. Consequently, the Claimant's contentions at page 9 of his written address to the effect that the decision of this court in Suit No. NICN/ ABJ/258/2016: Mr. Igbinosun Friday Ese v. The Rector, Auchi Polytechnic, Auchi & Ors which is consistent with the foregoing decisions of this Court and the Court of Appeal as reproduced above, does not apply to his case, to say the least is bereft of substance and misconceived and accordingly urged the Court discountenance it. It is submitted by Counsel that in Igbinosun's case, the focal point of the argument was that the matter was premature, as the matter was still under investigation, the disciplinary processes have not been concluded, hence a decision has not been reached by the Governing Council, who in this case is the 2nd Defendant/Applicant. The Court upheld the submission. In this instant case, also, no decision has been reached by the Defendants/Applicants which affect the Claimant's contract with the 1st Defendant/Applicant to warrant the filing of the present suit by the Claimant. The Claimant has not appeared for trial before the 2nd Applicant, who has the power to hire, fire, try and discipline Senior Staff of the 1st Applicant institution, hence Claimant's suit therefore is totally speculative and bereft of a reasonable cause of action. It is further submitted that on the Claimant/Respondent's argument that his Fundamental Right has been breached hence a cause of action, His Lordship, Hon Justice E. N. Agbakoba was more emphatic in the above judgment in Suit No. NICN/ ABJ/314/2016: Mr. Braimah Bashiru Adamu v. The Rector, Auchi Polytechnic, Auchi & Ors (supra) while resolving the issue of likelihood or anticipation of breach of Claimant's right to fair hearing wherein the court held at page 16 as follows:- "In the unreported case of SUIT NO: NICN//IB/42/2013: D.K. SHANGODOYIN Vs. UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN delivered on the 23rd June 2014 where the claimants in arguing against the defendants application to strike out his suit on similar grounds argued that the application contended that the action was filed to challenge the wrongful unlawful and unconstitutional steps being taken by the defendants is clearly justiciable as a person whose right is breached or in imminent danger of being breached or violated has the locus standi to approach the court to protect his constitutional rights from being trampled over. And this court held that with regard to the anticipation of infringement or better known as the equitable remedy of quia timet, or quai timet action this Latin maxim meaning "because of fear" this entitles one to approach the court in fear of his right or res being destroyed. This remedy is more suitable for land or property issues with a permanent res. The res in labour and employment matters is transient and more fleeting with the effect that a quia timet action would be hard placed to find a place in this court." (emphasis mine) It is also the contention of Counsel that on the Claimant/Respondent's argument that his fundamental right has been breached, in a purely labour or employment matter. It is trite that fundamental right enforcement cannot be accommodated in a labour matter. In Igbinosun v The Rector Auchi Polytechnic and 4 Ors, Suit No:NICN/ ABJ/258/2016 delivered on the 29th September 2017, Hon Justice R. B. Haastrup at page 9 posited as follows- " .... The Court also held that an employee under investigation On allegations of impropriety leveled against him cannot have recourse to fundamental rights provisions to prevent any disciplinary action from operating, which is what the Claimant/Respondent has attempted to do in this case'~(emphasis mine) It is respectfully submitted that the reliefs being claimed by the Claimant/respondents betrays his contention that he is merely challenging the procedure adopted by the Defendants/Applicants. The Claimants/Respondent by his reliefs before the Honourable court is not only challenging the power of the Defendants/Applicants to try him but he is also challenging constitution of the Senior Staff Disciplinary Committee and the entire proceedings thus distinguishing his case from that of Inakoju v. Adeleke (Supra) he has relied upon. The reliefs of the Claimant/Respondent are already set out in paragraph 4.05 of the written address in support of the defendants/Applicants' application. Furthermore, the Claimant/Respondent has lost sight of the fact that the facts and circumstance of his case is totally different from that of the case of Inakoju v. Adeleke (supra). The Inakoju's case has to do with the impeachment of a duly elected Governor by the House of Assembly whilst the Claimant/Respondent's case is that of discipline of an employee by the employer as regulated by the Auchi Polytechnic Staff Manual and Federal Polytechnic Act, Cap, F17 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004. In the employer/employee relationship the setting of ad hoc security panel to investigate situation to ascertain certain facts before the case will be referred to the appropriate disciplinary body cannot be said to be an infringement of employee fundamental right which in any event is not cognizable in labour matter as in the instant case. The preliminary activities by the Security panel are a commendable practice which is to ensure that frivolous matters are not given undue attention. It is also important to note that the activities of the Senior Staff Disciplinary Committee are also preliminary, because it is the Governing Council that is saddled with the powers to discipline an employee of the 1st Defendant. It is even in the best interest of the Claimant/Respondent. Consequently, the case of Inakoju v. Adeleke (supra) the Claimant/Respondent has place strong reliance on is totally inapplicable to the facts of the instant case and we accordingly urge the Honourable court to so hold. It is the contention of Counsel that in view of the foregoing submissions and judicial authorities cited and relied on above, the Claimant's attempt to draw a distinction between master and servant contract from a contract that is statutory flavored is of no moment and totally misplaced. Counsel. Therefore urged the Court to so hold and consequently discountenance all the submissions of the Claimant/Respondent. COURT’S DECISION. I have perused the originating process commencing this suit and its accompanying documents as well as the motion on notice filed by the Defendants, the affidavit in support and the addresses of Counsel for both parties. It is my humble view that the issue for determination in this suit is: ‘‘Whether the Claimant’s suit disclosed a reasonable cause of action worthy for consideration by the Court’’. Before proceeding to determine the issue for determination, I would like to deal with certain preliminary issues arising from the submissions of Counsel first and foremost, Counsel for the Defendants/Applicants has profusely argued that the non-filing of counter-affidavit is fatal to the Claimant/Respondent’s position before the Court. The law is settled that facts in an affidavit not challenged, contradicted nor controverted by a party are deemed to be admitted by him unless such facts on the face of it will lead to absurdity if it is taken to be the truth of what is being sought to be established. When an affidavit filed deposing to certain facts and the other party does not file a counter affidavit or a reply to counter-affidavit, as the case may require, the facts deposed to in the affidavit or counter-affidavit would be deemed unchallenged undisputed and in essence, admitted. Such admitted evidence requires no further proof. See MAISAJE V HASSAN 2004 11 NWLR PT.883, 181, EZEANAH V ATTAH 2004 7 NWLR PT.873 648, BUHARI V OBASANJO (supra). However, it is also the law that that unchallenged and uncontroverted facts deemed admitted in the affidavit must be capable of proving and supporting the case of the party as the applicant. In otherwords facts contained in the unchalleged affidavit must be cogent and strong enough to sustain the case of the Applicant. See OGOEJEOFOR V OGOEJEOFOR (2006) 3 NWLR (PT.966) 205. The Claimant on his part challenged the rationale behind the filing of affidavit in support of the motion on notice considering the fact that the motion is raising objection on point of law. The Counsel for the Defendants relying on order 17 rule 1 (5) strenuously argued in answer to the accusation of inappropriateness in filing affidavit in support relied on the rules of this Court and contended that all motions must be supported with affidavit. However, it is the view of this Court that going by the provisions of Order 17 Rule 1 (10), of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017, filing of counter-affidavit is made subject to the need for doing so, it is not in all situations that counter-affidavit must be filed. By the provisions of Order 17 Rule 1(12) of the Rules of this Court, a respondent who did not file counter affidavit is allowed to address the court on points of law alone. In view of the foregoing provisions of the Rules of this Court I am fortified to come to the conclusion that an application based on points of law alone may be filed without the necessity of filing affidavit evidence by either party. Coming to the main issue for determination, both parties are at ad idem on the issue that in an application of this nature it is the pleadings of the Claimant that is relevant for consideration in determining whether or not an action has disclosed reasonable cause of action or not. There are legions of Authorities supporting this view. Suffice to cite THOMAS & ORS V OLUFOSOYE (1986) 1 NWLR (PT.18) 669, in that case a reasonable cause of action was defined by the Supreme Court ‘as cause of action with some chances of success when only the allegations in the pleadings ore considered’’ It is clear from this Supreme Court authority that so long as the statement of claim or particulars disclose some cause of action or raise some question fit to be decided by a judge or jury, the mere fact that the case is weak and not likely to succeed is no ground for striking it out. However, where the statement of claim discloses no cause of action and if the Court is satisfied that no amendment however, ingenious will cure the defect the statement of claim will be stuck out and the action dismissed. From the averments in the statement of facts and the frontloaded documents in this case, it is clear as day light that the main grouse of the Claimant that encourage him to institute this action is the alleged lack of following due process in the disciplinary procedure adopted to disciplined the Claimant due to the alleged breach or violation of the Claimants fundamental right to fair hearing. I have scrutinized the entire gamut of the Claimants claims as endorsed on the amended complaint, the amended statement of facts and the documents attached to the originating process as document to be relied on at the trial as per paragraph 75 a – x of the amended statement of facts. It is patently clear from the originating process and all the accompanying documents that the aim of this suit is to attack and condemned the outcome of the investigation conducted by the Security Unit of the 1st Defendant based on the documents in paragraph 75 a, b, p, q, r, s, t, and u of the statement of facts. It is also clear that this suit is also challenging the processes attached in paragraph 75 c, d, e, f, I, j, k and l, of the statement of facts. Looking at the claims of the Claimant clearly shows that the claims are geared towards truncating the disciplinary action being taken against the Claimant based on allegation of misconduct as contained in the documents pleaded in paragraph 75 w and x of the statement of facts. Therefore, it is apparent that the report of the Security Unit led to the issuance of queries to the Claimant and referral of the queries to the Senior Staff Disciplinary Committee for investigation and the subsequent invitation of the Claimant to appear before the Senior Staff Disciplinary Committee to depend himself on the allegations levelled against him. It is also clear from the statement of facts that the Claimant did appear before the Committee, but demanded that the 2nd Defendant should reply to his complaint before taking any disciplinary action against him. It is at that point that the Claimant instituted this suit on 7/9/17, seeking for the reliefs endorsed in his claim before the Court. The claims of the Claimant are as follows:- The question now begging for answer is has the Claimant by his complaint and statement of facts disclosed factual situations that can be said to have entitled the Claimant to an action before the Court. The answer to this is question is not farfetched, in that an ad hoc committee that has no statutory power to discipline an erring worker cannot affect the civil rights and obligations of the worker. This issue has long been settled by the Supreme Court in the case of UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA TEACHING HOSPITAL & ANOR V NNOLI (supra). I have searched in vain to discover any question as to civil right and obligations of the claimant raised in the statement of fact. I cannot not phantom how recommendations by an ad hoc committees not established by the statute as prelude to the taking of disciplinary action can affect or raise any question as to civil rights and obligations of the claimant. In the case of REV. PROF. PAUL EMEKA V REV. DR. CHIDI OKOROAFOR & ORS. (2017) 11 NWLR (PT.1577) 410, the apex Court says that ; ‘‘All administrative bodies, even though they are not courts, are bound to observe the rules of natural justice and fairness in their decision, which affect the rights and obligations of citizens. However, in order to seek to enforce his fundamental rights to fair hearing provided under chapter iv of the constitution, the alleged violation must be in respect of proceedings before a court or tribunal established by law and not before domestic or standing ad hoc tribunals’’. 483 paras D-F It is without any doubt from the above decision of the Supreme Court that breach of Fundamental Right under section 36 of constitution arises only where the denial of fair hearing has been charged against a court or tribunal established by law and not before domestic or standing ad hoc tribunals raised departmentally by parties. The case of the claimant in this suit is violation of his fundamental rights by ad hoc committee which decision are decision of non-judicial body, there is no violation of the right of claimant that can be subject of enforcement before a Court of Law. See also BAKARE V LSCC (1992) 8 NWLR (PT.262) 641, where the Supreme Court at page 699 paragraph H, has this to say: ‘‘section 33 (1) of the 1999 Constitution (now section 36(1) of 199 Constitution) from its very words deals with determination of the civil rights and obligations of a person by a Court or a tribunal established by law. It deals with judicial bodies and does not necessarily extend to all bodies not judicial but all the same deciding on rights and obligations’’. In EKUNOLA V CBN (2013) 15 NWLR (PT.1377) 224, the apex Court of Land at page 265 paragraph C, has warned Counsel to desist from the habit of using fair hearing in the hopeless case. The Court per Chukwuma-Eneh, JSC, (as he then was) stated thus: ‘‘fair hearing has become the whipping principle for counsel trying to Catch at straw to sustain a modicum of standing in a hopeless case where the case is already dead as dodo. This approach of counsel in general is deprecated. Fair hearing should for what it is and represents in our adjudicative process before the courts be invoked with every sense of seriousness and in appropriate settings. It is not the case in the instant appeal’’. Where the charge of denial of fair hearing as in this case is not against a court or tribunal established by law but is against a domestic, standing ad hoc committee of a non-judicial body, the infringement of the right cannot be sustained. The provisions of fair hearing under section 36 of the constitution of the federal republic of Nigeria, means a trial conducted in according to all the legal rules of formulated to ensure that justice is done to all the parties. BAMIGBOYE V UNIVERSITY OF ILORIN (2001) FWLR (Pt.32) 12, NTUKIDEM V OKO (1986) 5 NWLR (Pt.45) 909, it is clear from these cases that the requirement of fair hearing founded on the rules of natural justice is better applied in a trial before a court of law or tribunal established by law. It is also not the law that once there is a criminal investigation in the act or conduct of an employee, the employer will have no power to exercise disciplinary measure on him unless his guilt or otherwise is determined in a criminal investigation by the police. Therefore, the Court will not allow its processes to be used to usurp or whittle down the power of employee to take disciplinary action against a worker. The Claimant specifically averred in his claim that after getting wind of plan to try him for misconduct by the 2nd Defendant he directed his Counsel to institute this action where an interim order of injunction was secured that restrained the Defendants from taking disciplinary action against the Claimant. This assertion in the statement of facts goes to show the mind-set of the Claimant to disrupt and curtail the processes put in place by the Defendant to discipline the Claimant. This Court will not allow the use of the processes of Court by the Claimant to scuttle the power of the Defendants to discipline the workers of the 1st Defendant including the Claimant in this suit. It is a deliberate action taken by the Claimant to prolong and postponed the disciplinary action undertaken against him. To allow the Claimant to continue to drag and prolong the processes set in motion to try him for misconduct will breed indiscipline at workplace. If this is allowed it will amount to giving employee blanket cheque to do as they like and thereby dragged the process of taking disciplinary action to disrepute. In view of the foregoing and in the absence of any right to be enforced or protected based on the recommendations of the two ad hoc committees that tried the Claimant, there is no reasonable cause of action worthy of trying by this Court. The Claimant is therefore chasing shadow leaving the substance. If there should be any cause of action, it should be when the Governing Council who has the statutory power to try the Claimant must have considered his case and determine same. It is only when the Council is to consider the recommendation of the ad hoc committees and failed or refused to accord the Claimant right to be heard that his cause of action will accrue. The document in paragraph 75 w and x clearly shows that the Governing Council has commenced process of disciplining the Claimant, but for the order of interim injunction issued by this Court restraining the 2nd Defendants from taking further action. It is therefore clear that the process of taking disciplinary action has commenced but not completed. By the document in paragraph 75 w and x of the statement of facts, the 2nd Defendant commenced disciplinary action against the Claimant. However, the order of this Court is serving as a clog to the continuation of the disciplinary action. The facts that will have given the Claimant cause of action to be entitled to enforce his right are yet to mature. This suit is therefore premature. The 2nd Defendant in the exercise of disciplinary action is free to use any source to gather facts in the discharge of its function of discipline of the workers of the 1st Defendant. It is therefore without any hesitation to say that the use of security Unit and Senior staff disciplinary Committee to gather information having not been a Court or an administrative tribunal having statutory powers cannot be faulted or be made subject of litigation for the simple reason that such kind of arrangement does not affect rights and obligations of the Claimant. See BAMIGBOYE V UNIVERSITY OF ILORIN (Supra) and section 17(1) of the Federal Polytechnic Act. In any event courts cannot stop disciplinary action instituted against a worker to do that will amount to institutionalization of indiscipline in workplace environment. It is my view even if all the averments are taken to have been admitted as it is the law, in an application of this nature, the claimant in the face of the two Supreme Court decisions cited above will still not have a legally recognized right to entitled him to institute an action based on the alleged infraction of his right by an ad hoc committee of investigation. It is also my view that no amendment no matter how ingenious it may be that can donate cause of action to the Claimant in this suit in respect of the investigation by an ad hoc committee which is not having statutory powers to discipline the Claimant. This kind of action is capable of eroding or impeding the right of employer to have disciplinary control over his employee. It is in view of the foregoing, that I support the decisions by my learned Brothers Hon. Justice E. N. Agbakoba and Hon. Justice R. B. Haastrup in the decisions cited in the argument of Counsel. However, I beg to disagree with the decisions of my learned brother Hon. Justice Z. M. Bashir, also cited by Counsel, I consider those decisions to have been made per incuriam in the face of the Supreme Court decisions in UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA TEACHING HOSPITAL & ANOR. V NNOLI (supra) and that of REV. PROF. PAUL EMEKA V REV. DR. CHIDI OKOROAFOR & ORS. (supra). In view of the foregoing, I have no hesitation in coming to conclusion that the Claimant in this suit did not disclose a reasonable cause of action. I am also satisfied that no amendment however ingenious will cure the defect. Consequently, since no civil right and obligations have been raised by the claim, I therefore, in line with the decision in Thomas v Olufosoye (supra) struck out the statement of facts and the action dismissed.