Download PDF
RULING INTRODUCTION 1. The claimant is suing as a staff of Auchi Polytechnic, Auchi. On 15th March 2018, the 2nd defendant had issued letters to him dismissing him from the employment of the 1st defendant. The letter of dismissal was issued to the claimant while Suit No. NICN/ABJ/58/2018 and Appeal No. CA/A/797/M/2017 were pending. The claimant accordingly filed this suit on 25th May 2018 claiming against the defendants jointly and severally for the following reliefs: (i) A declaration that the recommendation by the Joint Committee of Council and Academic Board recommending the claimant for dismissal while Suit No. NICN/ABJ/58/2018, Mr IGBINOSUN FRIDAY ESE v. AUCHI POLYTECHNIC, AUCHI & ANOR, was pending in court which was acted upon by the 2nd defendant to dismiss the claimant vide letter dated 15th day of March 2018 was irregularly issued and amount to contempt of court, is unlawful and therefore null and void. (ii) A declaration that all the proceedings at the Senior Staff Disciplinary Committee and the Joint Committee of Council and Academic Board held while Suits No. NICN/ABJ/58/2018, Mr IGBINOSUN FRIDAY ESE v. AUCHI POLYTECHNIC,AUCHI & ANOR, and Appeal No. CA/A/797/M/2017, IGBINOSUN FRIDAY ESE v. THE RECTOR AUCHI POLYTECHNIC, AUCHI & ORS, were pending and the decision/recommendation to dismiss the claimant by the Committees contravene the principle of lis pendens and therefore unlawful null and void ab initio. (iii) A declaration that the letter dated 15th March 2018 dismissing the claimant from the employment of the 1st defendant was irregularly issued and in abuse of court process and therefore null and void. (iv) A declaration that a resort to the National Industrial Court constitutionally vested with jurisdiction to settle disputes between employers and employees by the claimant does not constitute an offence of gross misconduct under paragraph 16.2 of Chapter 16 of the Federal Polytechnic Staff Manual 1990 that can attract a punishment of dismissal. (v) A declaration that paragraph 16.2 of Chapter 16 of the Federal Polytechnic Staff Manual 1990 insofar as it is interpreted by the defendants to deny the claimant’s right to fair hearing and access to court is unconstitutional and therefore null and void. (vi) A declaration that a resort to the National Industrial Court does not amount to a communication with an outside person or agency within the meaning and context of paragraph 16.2 of Chapter 16 of the Federal Polytechnic Staff Manual 1990. (vii) A declaration that the claimant is still in the employ of the defendants and therefore entitled to all his salaries, emoluments and all allowances from the 1st day of April 2018 till judgment and continuing till he attains the age of retirement. (viii) An order directing the defendants to pay over to the claimant his salary and allowances as a Chief Lecturer in CONPCASS 9 step 6 from April 2018 till judgment and continuing till retirement. 2. The defendants in response filed a motion on notice pursuant to Order 17 Rule 1 and Order 18 Rule 2 of the National Industrial Court (NICN) Rules 2017 and under the inherent jurisdiction of the Court. The motion is supported by an affidavit (with 9 exhibits i.e. Exhibits AP, AP1, AP2, AP3, AP4, AP5, AP6, AP6A and AP6B) and a written address. The motion is praying for the following: (1) An order dismissing this suit i.e. Suit No. NICN/ABJ/148/2018, Mr Igbinosun Friday Ese v. Auchi Polytechnic, Auchi & others for want of jurisdiction and for being an abuse of the process of this Honourable Court. (2) And for such further order(s) as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstance. 3. The grounds of the motion are: (1) The claimant filed this suit via complaint on the 25th day of May 2018 challenging his dismissal from the employment of the 1st defendant. (2) Prior to the filing of the instant suit, the claimant filed an application in Suit No. NICN/ABJ/58/2018, Mr Igbinosun Friday Ese v. Auchi Polytechnic Auchi & anor, to set aside his dismissal from the employment of the 1st defendant. (3) The aforesaid application filed by the claimant was granted by this Court on the 24th day of September 2018 reinstating the claimant. (4) The instant suit i.e. Suit No. NICN/ABJ/148/2018 constitutes an abuse of the process of the Honourable Court. (5) The claimant’s suit is now merely an academic exercise in view of the ruling of this Court delivered on 24th day of September 2018. 4. The defendants submitted two issues for determination: (1) Whether the instant suit i.e. Suit No. NICN/ABJ/148/2018, is not an abuse of the process of this Honourable Court. (2) Whether the ruling delivered on the 24th day of September 2018 in NICN/ABJ/58/2018: MR. IGBINOSUN FRIDAY ESE v. AUCHI POLYTECHNIC, AUCHI AND 2 ORS has not rendered this suit an academic exercise. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE DEFENDANTS 5. To the defendants, the claimant filed this suit via complaint on 25th May 2018 principally challenging his dismissal from the employment of the 1st defendant. That prior to the filing of the suit, the claimant had filed Suit No NICN/ABJ/58/2018 i.e. Mr Igbinosun Friday Ese v. Auchi Polytechnic Auchi & anor on 28th February 2018. The claimant also filed an application for his reinstatement to the employment of the 1st defendant and for setting aside of his dismissal by the 2nd defendant, which application was granted by this Court vide a ruling delivered on 24th September 2018 wherein the Court directed the immediate reinstatement of the claimant and also ordered the payment of all his entitlements. That the reliefs in Suit No. NICN/ABJ/58/2018 are similar to the reliefs in the instant suit and the grant of the reliefs in NICN/ABJ/58/2018 will adequately address the issues for determination in the instant suit. Consequent upon the foregoing, the defendants filed the instant application seeking the dismissal of this suit. 6. On issue (1), the defendants contended that the claimant’s suit as presently constituted is an abuse of the process of the court, hence robbing the Court of the jurisdiction to entertain and determine this suit. Citing Madukolu v. Nkemdilim [1961] 2 NSCC 374 at 379 and other cases, the defendants first went into the conditions needed for a court to assume jurisdiction over a matter, submitting in the process the much known rule that jurisdiction can be raised at any stage of the proceedings. That it is trite that an abuse of court process occurs where a party in the litigation process improperly uses the issue of the judicial process to the irritation, oppression and annoyance of his opponent and the efficient and effective administration of justice, relying on Saraki & anor v. Kotoye [1992] NWLR (Pt. 264) 156; [1992] LPELR-3016(SC), Okorodudu v. Okoromadu [1977] 3 SC 21, Ikine & ors v. Edjerode & ors [2001] LPELR-1479(SC) at 50, Attahiru v. Baudu [1998] 3 NWLR (Pt. 543) 656 at 666 and Ogboru & anor v. Uduaghan & ors [2013] LPELR-(SC). That multiplicity of actions on same subject matter where the action is between the same parties with respect to same subject matter may also constitute an abuse of court process, citing Sheriff & anor v. PDP & ors [2017] LPELR-41805CA. Furthermore, that what constitutes or amounts to an abuse of court process is not limited, rather it is infinite and varies from one circumstance to the other, citing Scheep & anor v. The MV Araz & anor [2000] LPELR-1866(SC). 7. The defendants went that from the facts of the instant case, the claimant’s suit is an abuse of the process of this Court. To the defendants, referring to Exhibit AP4, prior to the commencement of the suit, the claimant filed Suit No. NICN/ABJ/58/2018 on 28th February 2018, wherein he sought for the following reliefs: (i) A declaration that letters dated 6th February 2018 and 12th February 2018 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/ IGBINOSUN FRIDAY ESE v. THE Rector AUCHI POLYTECHNIC, AUCHJ & ORS pending at the Court of Appeal Abuja were issued in gross abuse of Court Process and are therefore null and void. (ii) A declaration that the defendants cannot validly take steps or conduct any investigations 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/ IGBINOSUN FRIDAY ESE v. THE Rector AUCHI POLYTECHNIC, AUCHI & ORS pending at the Court of Appeal Abuja. (iii) A declaration that any decision reached based on the invitation contained in the letters dated 6th February 2018 amid 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/79/M/ IGRINOSUN FRIDAY ESE v. THE Rector AUCHI POLYTECHNIC, AUCHI & ORS pending at tile Court of Appeal Abuja is null and void. 8. That from the reliefs the claimant is seeking from the Court in NICN/ABJ/58/2018 as just reproduced from Exhibit AP4, the claimant is seeking to set aside the letters of invitation i.e. Exhibits AP2 and AP3 respectively, issued to him to appear before the defendant and the Joint Committee of Council and Academic Board to face his trial. That if reliefs 1 and 2 above are granted in the earlier suit as contained in Exhibit AP4, the dismissal of the claimant, which he is challenging in the present suit, will automatically fall like a pack of cards. More importantly, by relief 3 above, the claimant sought to set aside any decision reached based on Exhibits AP2 and AP3. That flowing from the statement of facts in the instant suit, the claimant’s dismissal was premised on the outcome of the claimant honouring the invitation as directed in Exhibits AP2 and AP3. That notwithstanding the pendency of the previous suit i.e. Suit No. NICN/ABJ/58/2018, the claimant commenced this action also challenging the outcome of the letters referred to above in abuse of the process of the court, referring to Exhibits AP2, AP3 and AP4. That though the reliefs in both suits are differently couched, they both seek to achieve the same goal of setting aside the dismissal of the claimant from the service of the 1st defendant. Consequently, it is the defendants’ submission that the present suit is an abuse of the process of the court in view of the pendency of Suit No. NICN/ABJ/58/2018. That where a party flies two separate suits against the same parties seeking the same relief from the court, the latter suit will constitute an abuse of the process of the court, citing Ogoejeofo v. Ogoejeofo [2006] LPELR-2308(SC); [2006] 3 NWLR (Pt. 966) 205; [2006] 1 SC (Pt. I) 157, Lokpobiri v. Ogala & ors [2015] LPELR-40838(SC), NIMB Ltd v. UBN Ltd & ors [2004] LPELR-2003(SC) and Dingyadi & anor v. INEC & ors [2010] LPELR-40142 (SC). 9. It is the further submission of the defendants that even though there exist a right, the abuse lies in multiplicity of actions and the manner of the exercise of the right rather than the exercise of the right, citing CBN v. Ahmed & ors [2001] LPELR-837(SC). That it is obvious that the parties in Suit No. NICN/ABJ/58/2018 are the same with the parties in the present suit. The two defendants in Suit No. NICN/ABJ/58/2018 i.e. Auchi Polytechnic, Auchi and the Governing Council of Auchi Polytechnic are the 1st and 2nd defendants respectively in the present suit. The addition of the 3rd defendant who is only a nominal party or an agent of the 2nd defendant as far as disciplining of a senior staff of the 1st defendant’s institution is concerned, is inconsequential to the defendants’ objection, urging the Court to so hold. Again, that the facts in both suits are totally the same and arose from the same transaction, referring to paragraphs 1 to 15 and 17 to 21 of the statement of facts filed in Suit No. NICN/ABJ/58/2018 i.e. Exhibit AP4 attached to the supporting affidavit vis-a-vis paragraphs 1 to 22 of the claimant’s statement of facts in this present suit. 10. The defendants continued that prior to the filing of the present suit, the claimant filed an application in Suit No. NICN/ABJ/58/2018 seeking the relief to set aside his dismissal from the employment of the 1st defendant, which application was heard and granted by this Court vide Exhibit AP5. Consequently, that the present suit constitutes an abuse of the Court in view of the fact that the application have already been granted vide Exhibit AP5, urging the Court to so hold; referring to paragraphs 12, 13 and 14 of the supporting affidavit and Exhibits AP6, AP6A and AP6B indicating that the claimant has taken steps to enforce his reinstatement as directed in Exhibit APS which he is again claiming in this instant suit. 11. It is the submission of the defendants that where the Court finds any process to be an abuse of its process, the Court has the inherent jurisdiction and duty to protect itself from that abuse and invoke its coercive powers to punish the party which is in abuse of the process, citing J. C. Ltd v. Ezenwa [1996] 4 NWLR (Pt. 443) 392, Adesanoye v. Adewole [2000] 9 NWLR (Pt. 127) 671, Arubo v. Aiyeleru [1993] 3 NWLR (Pt. 280) 125 at 146 and NJC v. Agurnagu [2015] 10 NWLR (Pt 1467) 365 at 411-412. Premised on the foregoing, the defendants urged the Court to resolve issue (1) in favour of the defendants and against the claimant. 12. For issue (2) i.e. whether the ruling of 24th September 2018, in NICN/ABJ/58/2018 has not rendered this suit academic exercise, the defendants submitted that a suit is said to be academic when it has no utilitarian value to the claimant even when judgement is entered in his favour, and courts exercise jurisdiction only on live issues, not academic or hypothetical issues, relying on Dahiru & anor v APC & ors [2016] LPELR-42089(SC), Hallmark Bank Plc & anor v. Obasanjo [2013] LPELR-20552(CA), Zarami v. ATS Abatcha (Nig) Ltd & ors [2017] LPELR-43431 (CA) and Mass International & Equipment (Nig) Ltd v. Olayiwola & anor [2018] LPELR-43697(CA). To the defendants, prior to the commencement of this action, the claimant had filed Suit No. NICN/ABJ/58/2018. Subsequently, while this suit was already pending, the claimant filed an application in the previous suit i.e. Suit No. NICN/ABJ/58/2018 seeking for his reinstatement following his dismissal from the service of the 1st defendant, which application was heard and granted on 24th September 2018 wherein this Court reinstated the claimant to his position as Chief Lecturer in the 1st defendant and also directed the immediate payment of all his entitlements. The defendants referred to paragraph 12 of the supporting affidavit and page 14 of Exhibit AP5 attached thereto. That having granted same and reinstated the claimant, reliefs (vii), (viii) in this present suit, being the principal reliefs, are now academic and lack any atom in life. 13. It is thus the submission of the defendants that the claimant having been reinstated vide Exhibit AP5 to his position as a Chief Lecturer in the 1st defendant with all his entitlements, the instant suit has become a mere academic exercise as there is no longer any live issue for this Court to determine. Consequently, any judgement entered in favour of the claimant in this suit will be of no utilitarian value to the claimant, referring to paragraphs 12 and 14 of the supporting affidavit and Exhibits AP5, AP6, AP6A and AP6B. Accordingly,that this Court is now divested of the jurisdiction to entertain the claimant’s suit as the Court does not decide academic issues or engage in academic exercise, urging the Court to so hold and so resolve issue (2) in favour of the defendants and against the claimant. In conclusion, the defendants urged the Court to grant their application. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE CLAIMANT 14. In reaction to the defendants’ motion on notice, the claimant filed a counter-affidavit with Exhibit IEF1 and a written address. To the claimant, it must be borne in mind that the facts leading to this action is punitive and total disregard for the process of court in Suit No NICN/ABJ/58/2018 where the claimant sought for declaratory relief bothering on the conduct of the defendants to try and continue to try him in respect of unverifiable facts in the absence of a Governing Council when he is exercising his constitutional right of appeal and complying with the procedure to appeal as laid down in the Constitution itself i.e. to seek the leave of the appellate court in Appeal No. CA/A/797/M/2017 to appeal against the decision of this Court, which struck out his suit in Suit No NICN/ABJ/258/2016. That in spite of the pendency of Appeal No. CA/A/797/M/2017 and Suit No. NICN/58/2018 the defendants went ahead to dismiss the claimant from the employment of the 1st defendant. That it is the very act of dismissal that the claimant is challenging before this Court constitutionally empowered to look into the dispute between an employer and an employee in virtue of section 254C of the 1999 Constitution. That the Court in Suit No. NICN/58/2018 granted an order of mandatory restorative injunction to the claimant on 24th September 2018 after this suit was filed which, order the defendants have appealed against. That it is this latter suit that the defendants are contending is an abuse of Suit No. NICN/58/2018. 15. The claimant then submitted two issues for determination: (1) Whether Suit No. NICN/ABJ/148/2018 and Suit No. NICN/ABJ/58/2018, which are pending in the same Court amount to an abuse of court process. (2) Whether by the ruling in Suit No. NICN/ABJ/58/2018 this suit has become a mere academic exercise. 16. On issue (1), the claimant submitted that in the determining whether an action is an abuse of court process, the critical factors are a consideration of the circumstances for bringing the suit, the reason for doing so, the grounds relied upon for instituting the action and the desirability for instituting the action, citing Senator Ali Modu Sheriff & anor v. PDP & ors [2017] LPELR-41805(CA). Applying this principle to this case, the claimant submitted that the circumstance and reason for this action is that the claimant in Suit No. NICN/ABJ/58/2018 challenged the legality of the 1st and 2nd defendants in asking him to appear before the Governing Council and the Joint Committee of Council and the Academic Board. While his application for leave to appeal in Appeal No. CA/A/797/M/2017 against the decision in Suit No NICN/ABJ/258/2016, which struck out his suit for want of reasonable cause of action, is pending at the Court of Appeal Abuja Division, the defendants dismissed him from his employment. For purposes of clarity, Suit No. CA/A/797/M/2017 is an application for leave to appeal against the decision in Suit No NICN/ABJ/258/2016. While Suit No NICN/ABJ/58/2018 seeks declaratory relief to determine whether the 1st and 2nd defendant can continue to try him in respect of the alleged offences which Suit No. NICN/ABJ/258/2016 challenges, which was struck out for want of reasonable cause of action and for which the claimant is seeking leave of the Court of Appeal to appeal against. The said application is still pending at the Court of Appeal Abuja Division. That it is while the application for leave to appeal and the suit seeking to stop the trial are pending that the defendants dismissed the claimant. Meanwhile, the claimant applied for an order of mandatory restorative injunction which was granted on 24th September 2018. This suit was filed on 25th May 2018 challenging his dismissal. 17. That from the factual basis this action is earlier in time to the mandatory order of restorative injunction, which was granted in the course of Suit No. NICN/ABJ/58/2016; and the said order has not been obeyed but a subject of appeal. That the mandatory restorative injunction granted in Suit No. NICN/ABJ/58/2018 did not finally decide the issue between the parties to constitute res judicata, citing Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Union Bank of Nigeria Plc & anor [2015] LPELR-24316(CA). That in the instant case, the parties and subject matter are not the same as in Suit No. NICN/ABJ/58/2018 and most importantly the ruling relied upon is interlocutory and did not finally decide the issue between the parties. The ruling merely reinstated the claimant to keep the suit alive pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit. That the desirability of instituting this action is to set aside the letter of dismissal which is not one of the relief claimed in Suit No. NICN/ABJ/58/2018. That it is now settled law that it is not the law that once a party files another suit before another court on the subject matter, there is an abuse of court process. That an act can give rise to different suits and a subject matter may very well give rise to different rights, citing Christian Outreach Ministries Incorporated v. Cobham [2006] 15 NWLR (Pt 1002) 283 at 305-306, Fasakin Foods (Nig) Co. Ltd v. Shosanya [2003] 17 NWLR (Pt. 849) 237, AIC Ltd v. FAAN [2015] LPELR-24537(CA), Saraki v. Kotoye [1992] 9 NWLR (Pt. 264) 156 and CBN v. Ahmed [2001] 11 NWLR (Pt. 724) 369. 18. The claimant the asked: in this case can it rightly be said that this suit is an abuse of court process when the parties and the reliefs are scrutinized vis-à-vis Suit No. NICN/ABJ/58/2018? In answer, the claimant submitted that in the instant suit, the parties are three and the reliefs are eight while in Suit No. NICN/ABJ/58/2018 the parties on record are two and the reliefs are four. That where the parties and the reliefs in the first suit are not the same as in the second suit there can be no abuse of court process, citing Dapianlong v. Dariye [2007] 8 NWLR (Pt. 1036) 239 at 322 and Okafor v. Commissioner for Justice & ors [1991] LPELR-2414. 19. It is the further submission of the claimant that in determining whether a suit constitutes an abuse of court process, the Court will consider the content of the first process vis-à-vis the second one to see whether they are aimed at achieving the same purpose, citing Messrs NV Schee v. S. Araz [2000] 12 SC (Pt. I) 164; [2000] 15 NWLR (Pt. 691) 622 and Agwasim & ors v. Ojiche & anor [2004] LPELR-256(SC). Applying this principle to the instant case, the claimant submitted that the two suits are not aimed at achieving the same result. That this is so as the first Suit No. NICN/ABJ/58/2018 seeks to preserve the constitutional right of the claimant to exercise his right of appeal against Suit No. NICN/ABJ/258/2016, while this suit seeks to challenge his dismissal from his job and a declaration of whether approaching the Court whilst in the employment of the 1st defendant amounts to a gross misconduct under paragraph 16.2 of Chapter 16 of the Federal Polytechnic Staff Manual 1990 that can attract a punishment of dismissal. That from the reliefs claimed in the two suits they do not seek to achieve the same purpose. 20. To the claimant, the mandatory order of injunction granted to him in Suit No NICN/ABJ/58/2018 did not specifically set aside the letter of dismissal issued to the claimant dismissing him from the employment of the 1st defendant when the suit is pending. That the present suit seeks to declare the letter of dismissal a nullity, citing Alhaja Barakat Alafia 7 ors v. Gbode Ventures Nigeria Limited & ors [2016] LPELR-26065(SC) and Saraki v. Kotoye [1992] 9 NWLR (Pt. 264) 156 at 190. That the dismissal of the claimant from the employment of the 1st defendant confers on him a right to challenge the dismissal within three months under section 2(a)of the Public Officers Protection Act, which right will become stale if the dismissal is not challenged within the statutory period, referring to Jumang Shelm & anor v. Fwendim [2009] LPELR-3043(SC) and Okoro v. State [2012] LPELR-7846(SC). That in the instant case where a letter of dismissal has been issued to the claimant by the defendants, he needs a formal order of court to set it aside so that the defendants do not rely on it in future to determine the employment of the claimant, citing Skenconsult (Nig) Ltd & anor v. Ukey [1981] LPELR-3072(SC). 21. For issue (2) i.e. whether by the ruling in Suit No. NICN/ABJ/58/2018 this suit has become a mere academic exercise, the claimant submitted that the letter of dismissal issued to him dismissing him from the employment of the 1st defendant is at the heart of this suit. That the order of the Court in Suit No NICN/ABJ/58/2018 was in the following terms: “For the 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 as chief lecturer in the department of Accountancy of the 1st defendant/respondent with all his entitlement as a chief lecturer is hereby granted”. That from the reliefs sought in the instant suit, it is the nullity of the process leading to the dismissal of the claimant and the dismissal that is called to question, which is not part of the subject matter in Suit No. NICN/ABJ/58/2018. That the life issue in this case is the declaration of the action of the defendants in dismissing the claimant as null and void, not the temporary reprieve granted by the order of mandatory restorative injunction which merely kept the dismissal of the claimant in abeyance without a formal order of court declaring it a nullity, citing Paul Uhunmwangho Simeon v. College of Education Ekeiadolor Benin [2014] LPELR-23320(CA) and CBN v. Amao [2010] LPELR (Pt. 838) 1 at 12-13. That in the claimant’s reliefs (iv), (v) and (vi), he seeks interpretative and declarative reliefs in respect of paragraph 16.2 of Chapter 16 of the Federal Polytechnic Staff Manual 1990, which governs his employment with the first defendant, citing Plateau State of Nigeria & anor v. Attorney-General of the Federation [2006] LPELR-2921(SC), which held that issues relating to the interpretation of the Constitution, which is a living document, are serious issues and cannot be regarded as academic, speculative or hypothetical. Also cited is National Conscience Party (NCP) & anor v. National Assembly of the Federal Republic of Nigeria [2015] LPELR-25990(CA). That the interpretation of the Federal Polytechnic Staff Manual 1990 which governs the employment relationship of the parties to this suit cannot be regarded as academic, urging the Court to so hold. In conclusion, the claimant urged the Court to hold that the action is not an abuse of court process or academic and to dismiss the application with punitive cost. 22. The defendants did not file and reply on points of law. COURT’S DECISION 23. I have carefully considered the processes filed and the submissions of the parties. The issue before the Court is to determine whether the instant suit is an abuse of Court process in view of the pendency of Suit No. NICN/ABJ/58/2018. Suit No. NICN/ABJ/58/2018 granted an order of mandatory restorative injunction to the claimant on 24th September 2018 after the instant suit was filed, which order the defendants have appealed against. The contention of the defendants is that the instant suit is an abuse of court process since the 7 declarations and one order the claimant is paying for in the instant suit are all geared towards upturning the dismissal of the claimant, reinstating him and paying to him all his salary and allowances. To the defendants, though they appealed against the order of mandatory restorative injunction of 24th September 2018, it is an order which cannot be changed by any order made in the instant suit. The claimant, however, thinks otherwise. 24. To the claimant, the critical factors in the determination of whether an action is an abuse of court process are: a consideration of the circumstances for bringing the suit, the reason for doing so, the grounds relied upon for instituting the action and the desirability for instituting the action. The claimant accordingly submitted that the circumstance and reason for this action is that the claimant in Suit No. NICN/ABJ/58/2018 challenged the legality of the 1st and 2nd defendants in asking him to appear before the Governing Council and the Joint Committee of Council and the Academic Board. That while his application for leave to appeal in Appeal No. CA/A/797/M/2017 against the decision in Suit No NICN/ABJ/258/2016, which struck out his suit for want of reasonable cause of action, is pending at the Court of Appeal Abuja Division, the defendants herein dismissed him. 25. In all of this, the problem I see with the claimant’s counsel is that he does not know what to do to assist his client, the claimant, within the limits of the law. The claimant filed Suit No. NICN/ABJ/58/2018 seeking for prayers that will prevent him from being disciplined by the defendants, Suit No. NICN/ABJ/258/2016 having been struck out. While Suit No. NICN/ABJ/58/2018 was pending, the claimant filed a motion on 30th April 2018 praying for reinstatement as against the letter of dismissal dated 15th March 2018 issued to him by the Registrar of the defendants. Before the motion of 30th April 2018 could be heard, the claimant filed the instant suit on 25th May 2018. So what do we have? Two pending processes effectively seeking reinstatement - the one as an interim measure (the motion of 30th April 2018), and the other a permanent measure (the instant suit of 25th May 2018). There is no taking away the fact that in having two processes effectively seeking the same outcome, the claimant abused the process of this Court in terms of the instant suit; and I so find and hold. The motion of 30th April 2018 would subsequently be heard; and by the ruling of 24th September 2018, the order of mandatory restorative injunction was given reinstating the claimant. 26. The proper thing the claimant ought to have done instead of having two processes on the same issue was to stick with his motion of 30th April 2018 in that Suit No. NICN/ABJ/58/2018 and seek the protection of the Court by praying for the setting aside of the letter of dismissal as well as the said dismissal pending the determination of his suit. The Supreme Court made it very clear in Jombo v. PEFMB [2005] 14 NWLR (Pt. 945) 443 that the act of an employer in dismissing an employee from office during the pendency of an action is contemptuous of the judiciary, which has been seised with the determination of civil rights under the Constitution. The claimant rushed to file the instant suit even when he had applied in Suit No. NICN/ABJ/58/2018 to set aside the dismissal. Now that the dismissal of the claimant was set aside by the order of mandatory restorative injunction of 24th September 2018, the claimant now has the difficult task of justifying the continuance of the instant suit; digging deep and asking this Court to consider why he had to file the instant suit in terms of “the reason for doing so, the grounds relied upon for instituting the action and the desirability for instituting the action”. If the claimant’s counsel had simply stuck to the motion of 30th April 2018, all of this would be unnecessary. The caseload in dockets of courts today is astronomical; and the least counsel can do is save the courts precious judicial time. Now, if the order of mandatory restorative injunction of 24th September 2018 is not obeyed by the defendants, the claimant’s counsel knows what to do i.e. activate the coercive powers of the Court to deal with the infracting defendants. It was pointed out to this Court that there is an application at the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal against the order of mandatory restorative injunction of 24th September 2018. This does not take away the fact that order of 24th September 2018 is valid and subsisting. To my mind, whatever complaints the claimant has in the instant suit can be resolved in Suit No. NICN/ABJ/58/2018, if only the claimant is patient enough and his counsel knows what to do. 27. The fact that counsel for the claimant does not know what to do explains why he had agued that the desirability of instituting the instant action is to set aside the letter of dismissal which is not one of the reliefs claimed in Suit No. NICN/ABJ/58/2018. The claimant was very specific that the mandatory order of injunction granted to him in the said Suit No NICN/ABJ/58/2018 did not specifically set aside the letter of dismissal issued to him. But did the claimant specifically pray for the setting aside of the said letter of dismissal? I do not think so. The ruling on the matter in Suit No. NICN/ABJ/58/2018 (Exhibit AP5) was delivered on 24th September 2018. At page 2 of the ruling, it was indicated that the claimant’s motion dated 27/4/18 but filed on 30/4/18 “prays for the 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 Chief Lecturer, having been dismissed from his employment in spite of the defendants/respondents been (sic) 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”. 28. There is no indication that the claimant specifically prayed for the setting aside of the dismissal letter; and courts only grant prayers that are asked, nothing else. See Gabriel Ativie v. Kabelmetal (Nig.) Ltd [2008] LPELR-591(SC); [2008] 10 NWLR (Pt. 1095) 399; [2008] 5 - 6 SC (Pt. II) 47. So if the claimant did not specifically seek for the setting aside of the dismissal letter in terms of his motion of 30th April 2018, how can he now turn around and argue that the mandatory order of injunction granted to him in Suit No NICN/ABJ/58/2018 did not specifically set aside the letter of dismissal issued to him? There are several examples from this Court where termination/dismissal or suspension letters were declared null and void and set aside because they were issue during the pendency of a case. If only counsel for the claimant did his homework, he would have saved his client all these problems. In Fasilat Olayinka Lawal & anor v. Dr O. O. Odunubi & 5 ors unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/175/2014, the ruling of which was delivered on 2nd February 2015, for instance, the claimants had sued the National Orthopaedic Hospital Management Board amongst others challenging their suspension. While the matter was in Court, the claimants were issued with letters of termination. They filed a motion on notice praying that the letters of termination be set aside. This Court granted their prayers and amongst others ordered that: “Pending the determination of the substantive suit, the claimants/applicants remain bona fide staff of the National Orthopaedic Hospital, Igbobi”. The point is that the claimants did not file a separate suit praying to set aside their termination. A second example is Dr Olusola Adeyelu v. Lagos University Teaching Hospital (LUTH) & 2 ors unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/94/2017, the judgment of which was delivered on 25th April 2017, where this Court held to be invalid the suspension of the claimant during the pendency of the action. And in Olu Ibirogba v. The Council, the Federal Polytechnic Yaba [2015] 63 NLLR (Pt. 223) 343, the claimant, the College Bursar, was suspended for whistleblowing on the defendant, his employer. On the date judgment was being read in the case, his employer terminated his employment. That was when he filed another suit challenging his termination since the verdict of this Court was that his suspension was invalid and he was ordered to resume work. This ensuing suit, Olu Ibirogba v. The Council of the Federal Polytechnic Yaba & 2 ors unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/473/2015, the judgment of which was delivered on 7th June 2018, went his way and his reinstatement was ordered. 29. A party with a penchant for court action at the slightest provocation would always seek to circumvent the rules or the law by deliberately mixing up the parties and issues in a second suit to avoid the charge of multiplicity of suits. This is what the claimant did, hence his argument that in the instant suit the parties are three and the reliefs are eight while in Suit No. NICN/ABJ/58/2018 the parties on record are two and the reliefs are four and so there can be no abuse of court process. Nothing proves the point I make than a comparison of the parties in the instant case and those in Suit No. NICN/ABJ/58/2018. In Suit No. NICN/ABJ/58/2018, the parties are two: Auchi Polytechnic, Auchi and The Governing Council, Auchi Polytechnic, Auchi. In the instant suit, the parties are three: Auchi Polytechnic Auchi; The Governing Council Auchi Polytechnic Auchi and The Rector Auchi Polytechnic Auchi. Now, how can anyone in his right senses argue that the imposition of “The Rector Auchi Polytechnic Auchi” as a third party in the instant suit means the introduction of a party different from the two in Suit No. NICN/ABJ/58/2018 when it is common knowledge that it is The Rector that is the Chief Executive of the Polytechnic and carries out the policy directives of its Council? It must be lame of the claimant’s counsel and very poor advocacy and logic to think so and advance such an argument. 30. The claimant talked of a consideration of the circumstances for bringing the suit thus intuiting that the circumstances of each case must be looked into. Yet the claimant drew his examples from the world of politics when he cited Dapianlong v. Dariye [2007] 8 NWLR (Pt. 1036) 239 at 322. One would have expected that the claimant would draw his examples from the world of work as this Court had just done to exemplify what the claimant should have done in the circumstance of his case. But no, the claimant preferred the world of politics where every minute issue is usually litigated given the high stakes that politicians have made of politics. 31. The claimant argued that the instant suit is different from Suit No. NICN/ABJ/58/2018 in that the instant suit seeks to challenge his dismissal from his job and a declaration of whether approaching the Court whilst in the employment of the 1st defendant amounts to a gross misconduct under paragraph 16.2 of Chapter 16 of the Federal Polytechnic Staff Manual 1990 that can attract a punishment of dismissal. Given Jombo v. PEFMB [2005] 14 NWLR (Pt. 945) 443 SC, this issue can be effectively tackled in Suit No. NICN/ABJ/58/2018 in the manner pointed out earlier. The claimant does not need a separate suit to sort that issue out. 32. If the claimant was merely preemptive by seeking judicial intervention to stop the disciplinary process against him, he must note that courts are cautioned from issuing injunctive orders stopping employers from disciplining their employees. An employer has the right to discipline erring employees; and Shell Pet. Dev. Co. (Nig.) Ltd v. Omu [1998] 9 NWLR (Pt. 567) 672 held that it is a disruption of an ordinary employer’s business to fetter him with an injunction not to discipline his servant. In Dr Cecilia Arinye v. The University of Lagos unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/305/2017, the judgment of which was delivered on 16th February 2018, the claimant’s plea for perpetual injunction against the defendant (her employer) was held to be patronizing and so denied. Of course, an employee has the right to approach the Court once the disciplinary process is complete. 33. The claimant cited Plateau State of Nigeria & anor v. Attorney-General of the Federation [2006] LPELR-2921(SC) and National Conscience Party (NCP) & anor v. National Assembly of the Federal Republic of Nigeria [2015] LPELR-25990(CA), which held that issues relating to the interpretation of the Constitution, which is a living document, are serious issues and cannot be regarded as academic, speculative or hypothetical. Relying on these authorities, the claimant submitted that the interpretation of the Federal Polytechnic Staff Manual 1990, which governs the employment relationship of the parties to this suit, must thereby be regarded not as academic. I am at a loss that the claimant would compare the interpretation of the 1999 Constitution with the interpretation of a Staff Manual in this manner. 34. The claimant explained why he had to sue to this Court when he submitted that his dismissal conferred on him a right to challenge the dismissal within three months under section 2(a)of the Public Officers Protection Act, which right will become stale if the dismissal is not challenged within the statutory period. The claimants no longer needs to worry about that. In National Revenue Mobilization Allocation and Fiscal Commission & 2 ors v. Ajibola Johnson & 10 ors [2019] 2 NWLR (Pt. 1656) 247, His Lordship Ariwoola, JSC at 271 sounded the death knell on the applicability of the Public Officers Protection law to contracts of service. In his words: I have no slightest difficulty in holding that the appellants are not covered by the provisions of the Public Officers Protection Act as to render the respondents’ action statute barred. In sum I hold that the learned justices of the court below are right in holding that the appellants do not enjoy the umbrella of Public Officers Protection Law in the contract of service involving the respondents… 35. On the whole, and for the reasons given, I hold that the preliminary objection of the defendants has merit. Accordingly, the continuance of the instant suit is an abuse of court process. I so hold. By Igbeke v. Okadigbo & ors [2013] LPELR-20664(SC) and African Reinsurance Corporation v. JDP Construction (Nig) Ltd [2003] LPELR-215(SC); [2003] 13 NWLR (Pt. 838) 609; [2003] 2 - 3 SC 47, where the court comes to the conclusion that its process is abused, the proper order is that of dismissal of the process. This suit is accordingly dismissed. 36. Ruling is entered accordingly. I make no order as to cost. …………………………………… Hon. Justice B. B. Kanyip, PhD