Download PDF
RULING The claimant commenced this action by way of Originating Summons on 5th September 2017. In his Originating Summons, the Claimant sought the determination of the following questions: 1. Whether having regard to the clear and mandatory provisions of Section 15 of the Federal Universities of Technology Act, LFN 2004 the suspension of the Claimant from duty as a Lecturer in Federal University of Technology, Owerri on 24th January 2017 has not expired by operation of law and therefore whether his continued suspension from duty has not become invalid, null and void and of no effect and so also the case against him? 2. Whether having regard to the clear and mandatory provisions of Section 15 of the extant Federal Universities of Technology Act, the Defendants are not, in law, barred from further proceeding or continuing or taking any disciplinary action, whatsoever called or in whatsoever manner, against the Claimant as a Lecturer of the Federal University of Technology, Owerri having issued him a Query on 28th July 2016 which he replied on 9th August 2016 and was thereafter suspended on 24th January 2017. Upon the determination of the above questions, the Claimant sought the court to grant him the following reliefs: 1. A Declaration that in view of Section 15 (2) & (4) of the Federal Universities of Technology Act, LFN 2004, the continued suspension of the Claimant from duty or office as a Lecturer in the Federal University of Technology, Owerri (FUTO) since 24th January 2017 is bad in law, ultra vires, null and void, and of no effect and therefore the Claimant is entitled to resume his duty or office in the university. 2. A Declaration that the period stipulated or prescribed by Section 15 (4) & (5) of the Federal Universities of Technology Act, LFN, 2004 for the Defendants to initiate and conclude disciplinary process in respect of the said allegation against the Claimant which led to the issuance of a query on 28th July 2016 to the Claimant, which he replied on 9th August 2016 and was suspended from duty on 24th January 2017 has expired under the enabling Act and therefore the Defendants are barred by the statute from proceeding with or continuing to take or taking any disciplinary decision or action, whatsoever called or in whatsoever manner, against the Claimant, in respect of the said case. 3. A Declaration that whatsoever disciplinary decision or action taken by the Defendants against the Claimant, including termination of appointment or dismissal, demotion deferment of promotion etc, after the expiry of the mandatory period stipulated or prescribed under the Federal Universities of Technology Act LFN 2004 for coming to a decision in a disciplinary matter against a staff or lecturer, which in this case was initiated vide the query of 28th July 2016 is bad in law, null and void and of no effect. 4. An Order of perpetual injunction restraining the 1st to 4th Defendants, by themselves their officers, Agents representative’s successors and/or whatsoever name called from continuing the disciplinary process against the Claimant, or re-subjecting him, the Claimant, to any disciplinary process in respect of the said allegations or tampering with his, that is the Claimant's, appointment or status in any manner or way whatsoever. The Originating Summons was supported by an affidavit deposed to by the Claimant and a written address. The Defendants filed a counter affidavit in defence of the suit. The counter affidavit was deposed to by one Cosmas Njoku, a legal officer in the 1st Defendant. A written address was filed in support of the counter affidavit. The Claimant also filed a further affidavit in support of the originating summons and a reply on points of law. I have examined all these processes filed by the parties. Upon examining the processes filed in this suit, this court observes that the facts in the Claimant’s affidavit and further affidavit reveal that the Claimant’s case is not simply for interpretation of the provisions of the Federal University of Technology Act. The Claimant made allegations against the Defendants which the Defendants have denied. The facts contained in the parties’ affidavits disclose substantial dispute of facts. This case will require resolution of the facts in dispute. In addition, the Defendants have stated in their counter affidavit that the Claimant’s appointment has been terminated while the Claimant, in his further affidavit, has joined issues with the Defendants on this allegation. Although the subject matter of the Claimant’s suit is his suspension by the Defendants, the introduction of the fact of termination of the Claimant’s appointment takes this case beyond the issue of the suspension. A situation has arisen in this case where oral evidence needs to be taken for a proper and just determination of the issues in dispute. In my view, originating summons is not appropriate to determine the suit. The rules of this court which provided for commencement of actions by originating summons also mentioned the actions which can be commenced by the process and those which cannot. Order 3 Rule 3 of the NICN Rules 2017 provide as follows: “Civil proceedings that may be commenced by way of Originating Summons include matters relating principally to the interpretation of any constitution, enactment, agreements or any other instrument relating to employment, labour and industrial relations in respect of which the Court has jurisdiction by virtue of the provisions of section 254C of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) or by any Act or law in force in Nigeria”. In addition, Rule 17 (1) of Order 3 provide thus: “… where a suit raises a substantial dispute of facts or is likely to involve substantial dispute of facts, it shall not be commenced by way of originating summons, but by Complaint as provided for in rules 8 and 9 of this Order”. The courts have also settled the instances where originating summons will not be appropriate to commence an action. See NIGERIAN REINSURANCE CORPORATION vs. CUDJOE (2008) All FWLR (Pt. 414) 1532; DAPIANLONG vs. DARIYE (2007) 4 S.C. (Pt. III) 18. From the Rules of this court and the authorities cited above, originating summons is inappropriate for actions where facts are in dispute or there is likelihood of the facts being in dispute. Also, where the question in issue is not one solely for the construction of a written law, Constitution or any instrument, agreement or document, originating summons will not be the appropriate procedure for the action. These circumstances occur in this case. The rules of this court in Order 3 Rule 17 (2) permits this court to convert the suit to Complaint or order the parties to file and exchange pleadings where the suit cannot be heard by originating summons. See also OSUNBADE vs. OYEWUMI (2007) 18 NWLR (Pt. 368) 1004 at 1015; KWARA POLYTECHNIC vs. OYEBANJI (2008) All FWLR (Pt. 447) 141 at 192. Accordingly, this suit is converted to one originated by a Complaint. The parties are ordered to file pleadings starting with the Claimant who will file a Statement of Facts together with the necessary processes. This must be done within 14 days from today. The Defendants are also given 14 days from the date of service to file their Statement of Defence together with the necessary defence processes. No order as to cost. Ruling is entered accordingly. Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe Judge