Download PDF
JUDGMENT INTRODUCTION 1. The claimant had filed this action on 12th October 2016 vide an originating summons. The Court noted that the issues calling for resolution in the originating summons involve contestable facts, hence the appropriate manner to resolve them was by filing pleadings. Accordingly, the Court on 12th January 2017 ordered the applicant, now as claimant, to file a complaint alongside the statement of facts, list of witnesses, statement on oath, list of documents and copies of the documents. This the claimant did. The defendants in reaction filed their statement of defence with the accompanying defence processes (list of witnesses, witness statement on oath, list of documents and copies of the documents) praying the Court to declare that they are not liable to the claimant and to dismiss the suit for being frivolous, vexatious, lacking in merit and a misadventure. In response, the claimant filed a reply to the statement of defence and a further witness statement on oath. 2. By the complaint and statement of facts, the claimant is praying for the following reliefs: (1) A declaration that the Appointment and Promotions Committee of the 1st defendant is the only body that is statutorily charged with the responsibility of appointing and promoting its staff members. (2) A declaration that the Professorial Appointment of the claimant which followed due process, made by the Appointment and Promotions Committee of the 1st defendant and approved by the 2nd defendant on the 23rd October, 2012 is valid and cannot be invalidated. (3) A declaration that by virtue of the facts and circumstances surrounding this case the claimant satisfied the advertised requirements for the appointment of Professor in the 1st defendant’s University. (4) A declaration that by virtue of the Conditions of Service Guiding Senior Staff in the University, 2008 the defendants have no power to invalidate the claimant’s appointment. (5) A declaration that the claimant’s promotion to the position of Associate Professor was concluded and approved. (6) A declaration that the Ad-Hoc Committee set up by the 2nd defendant has usurped the power of the Appointments and Promotions Committee of the 1st defendant who is statutorily charged with the responsibility of appointing and promoting staff members of the 1st defendant. (7) An order of this Honourable Court setting aside and or quashing the decision of the 2nd defendant dated 1st August, 2016 that invalidated the professorial appointment of the claimant. (8) An order of this Honourable Court directing the defendants to reinstate the claimant to his Professorial appointment forthwith and make payment of his entitlements from 14th July 2016 till date. (9) An order of this Honourable Court that the sum of N100,000.000,00 (One Hundred Million Naira) only be paid jointly and severally by the defendants to the claimant as damages. (10) An order of this Honourable Court restraining the defendants whether by themselves, servants and or agents from taking any step whatsoever to invalidate his professorial appointment that followed due process. 3. At the trial, the claimant testified on his own behalf as CW and tendered Exhibits C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, C6, C6(a), C7, C8, C9, C10, C11, C12, C13, C14, C15, C16 and C17. For the defendants, Ezekiel Ajose, an Assistant Registrar who later changed to Assistant Lecturer in the Department of English of the 1st defendant, testified for the defendants as DW and tendered Exhibits D1, D2, D3, D4, D4(a), D4(b), D5, D5(a), D6, D6(a), D7, D8, D9, D10, D10(a), D11, D12, D13 and D14. At the close of trial, the parties filed their respective final written addresses. The defendants’ was filed on 7th March 2019, while the claimant’s was filed on 27th March 2019. The defendant’s reply on points of law was filed on 25th April 2019. THE CASE BEFORE THE COURT 4. To the claimant, he was appointed as a Professor of Genetics and Breeding in the Department of Zoology of the 1st defendant with effect from 28th September 2012 and the said appointment was approved by the 2nd defendant on 23rd October 2012. The said appointment was done after the Appointment and Promotions (Academics) Committee (APC) of the 1st defendant followed all due process as laid down in the laws of the 1st defendant. Sometime in 2015, some members of the Academic Staff Union of Universities, Lagos State University Branch (ASUU-LASU) who were not comfortable with the person of the claimant petitioned the 2nd defendant about the appointment of the 1st defendant as a Professor. Despite that under the laws of the 1st defendant all matters of appointments and promotions are strictly dealt with by the Appointment and Promotions (Academics) Committee of the 1st defendant that recommended the appointment of the claimant, the 2nd defendant set up an ad-hoc committee (known as Appointment, Promotion and Disciplinary Committee to the Council) to investigate the petition against the claimant and revert to it. The said ad-hoc committee concluded its investigations and recommended that same be sent to the Appointment and Promotions (Academic) Committee for adjudication, which the latter then reaffirmed the appointment of the claimant. The 2nd defendant, being dissatisfied with the report of the ad-hoc committee, which was considered by the Appointment and Promotions (Academic) Committee, with the latter upholding the appointment of the claimant, constituted another committee (Council Committee on Investigation of Professorial appointment of Professor O.T.F. Abanikannda). The latter committee came up with a report that found that the appointment of the claimant was defective. However, this report was not circulated or seen by members and neither was it forwarded to the Appointments and Promotions (Academic) Committee which is the statutory body that is empowered to make decisions in respect of the appointment and promotions of members of staff of the 1st defendant. Based on the said report, the professorial appointment of the claimant was invalidated by a letter dated 1st August 2016. It is worthy of note that the laws of the 1st defendant do not empower either the 1st or 2nd defendant to invalidate the professorial appointment of the claimant, more so based on the report made by a committee other than the Appointments and Promotions (Academics) Committee, Hence this suit filed by the claimant to seek redress for the wrongdoing of the defendants. 5. The case of the defendants is that due process was not followed in the appointment of the claimant as a Professor as laid down in the Conditions of Service Guiding Senior Staff of Lagos State University (LASU) June 2008. That the claimant merely used his personal friendship with the erstwhile former Vice Chancellor of the 1st defendant, Professor Obafunwa, to circumvent the system contrary to the clear and unambiguous provisions of the Conditions of Service Guiding Senior Staff of Lagos State University dated June 2008. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE DEFENDANTS 6. The defendants submitted a sole issue for determination i.e. whether having regard to the state of evidence, the claimant has proved his case on the balance of probability. It is the contention of the defendants that this claim revolves around the interpretation of the clear and unambiguous provisions of the Conditions of Service of Senior Staff in the employment and/or services of the defendant. That it is instructive to note that a copy of the Conditions of Service for Senior Staff of the Lagos State University June 2008 was given to the claimant at the time of appointment as a staff of the 1st defendant as regards appointment and promotions of Senior Staff, which by the Court’s record was also put in evidence by the claimant, who has knowledge of its contents. 7. On the sole issue submitted for determination, the defendant answered that considering the totality of the evidence adduced in this case, the claimant is not entitled to the reliefs sought. That relief (2) being the principal relief and declaratory in nature, the refusal or grant of same will determine the outcome of the claimant’s reliefs (1), (3) to (8), (9) being ancillary reliefs, except for relief (9) where no scintilla of evidence has been adduced by the claimant to warrant the grant of same. That the grant or refusal to grant a declaration is at the discretion of the Court, but such discretion should be exercised judiciously and judicially. Furthermore, that the onus of proof in a suit for a declaration, as in this instant case, lies on the claimant and he succeeds on the strength of his case and not on the weakness of the defendants’ case, citing Rabiu v. Adebajo [2012] 15 NWLR (Pt. 1322) 125 at 147-148 and Awodi v. Ajagbe [2015] 3 NWIR (Pt. 1447) 578 at 604. That deducible from this, the claimant undoubtedly is conferred with the onerous task of establishing his case to be entitled to his aforesaid principal relief which is declaratory in nature and cannot capitalize on the weakness in the defendants’ case. 8. That from the evidence placed before the Court, the claimant has not furnished the Court with any evidence that he was ever confirmed as an Associate Professor of the 1st defendant before he applied for the position of a Professor as provided for in the Conditions of Service Guiding Senior Staff of Lagos State University (LASU) June 2008 (Exhibit C15/D11) and the provisions of the Senate Approved Minimum Standard for Appointments and Promotions of Academic Staff in Lagos State University. That the evidence adduced by the claimant is contradictory to his claim that due process was followed in his appointment as a Professor with the 1st defendant. 9. To the defendant, the Senate Approved Minimum Standard for Appointments and Promotions of Academic Staff in Lagos State University provides thus: (A) i. Promotion shall be in two parts: Part I - Assistant Lecturer to Senior Lecturer Part II - Associate Professor to Professor That the practice of the 1st defendant is to issue letters of confirmation of appointment/promotions to staff who are successful at their interview. To further prove this assertion, the claimant tendered Exhibit C1 (his letter of appointment as Lecturer II), Exhibit C2 (his letter of appointment to the post of a Senior Lecturer) and Exhibit C1 (his letter of appointment as Professor with the 1st defendant). That it is noteworthy that the claimant never tendered any letter to show that he was at any point in time confirmed with a letter of promotion as an Associate Professor of the 1st defendant. The defendant referred to paragraph 7 of the claim and paragraph 7 of the claimant’s deposition on oath, which state that” …as a Senior Lecturer, he had at several times applied for promotion to the post of Associate Professor but due to the running battles with some officers of the 1st Defendant at the time, his applications for Confirmation of Appointment and Promotion were never considered. To the defendant, the literal meaning of this paragraph should be employed by the Court. 10. That the claimant in another breath in paragraph 9 of the statement of facts and paragraph 9 of his written deposition stated thus: “…that he responded to the advertisement and after so many years of denial, the Appointment and Promotions (Academic) Committee of the 1st Defendant through its letter dated 5th March, 2012 with reference no LASU/ASE/A&P.DE/048 approved the confirmation of his Appointment effective 3rd December, 2000”. That it is very clear from this paragraph that the claimant further failed to comply with the provisions of Exhibit C15/D11 in his appointment because he clearly stated that he applied for the position of a Professor while he was still a Senior Lecturer of the defendant. 11. The defendant went on that paragraph 11 of the statement of facts and paragraph 11 of the claimant’s written deposition on oath state thus: …the Appointment and Promotions (Academic) Committee at its 97th Statutory meeting held on Wednesday, 16th May, 2012 established a PFQ case in his favour to the position of Associate Professor in the 2006/2007 Assessment year (i.e effective date of his promotion to Associate Professor would have been 1st October, 2007 if it was concluded and so he would have been eligible for promotion to rank Professor in 2009/2010 assessment year). That this is another admission by the claimant that his appointment as an Associate Professor of the 1st defendant was never concluded. 12. That it is the claimant’s claim in his Exhibit C4 (letter dated 5th March 2012) that the said letter conferred him with the title of an Associate Professor. To the defendant, the wording of Exhibit C4 is very clear without any ambiguity. That the claimant’s application for promotion/confirmation to the position of an Associate Professor was considered and approved on the 5th of March 2012 but was back dated to 3rd December 2000. Exhibit C4, 3rd paragraph (ii)(b) & (c) states thus: (b) Dr. Abanikannda be advised to fill APER forms for the following assessment years 2004/2005, 2005/2006 and 2006/2007 respectively; (c) The papers of Dr. Abanikannda should be processed at the Faculty Appointments and Promotions (Review) Committee expeditiously and same forwarded to Central Appointments and Promotions (Academic) Committee. That from this extract, it is very clear that the claimant still had hurdles to cross before the confirmation of the approval of his Associate Professorship as such his appointment was yet to be concluded as an Associate Professor before he applied for the position of a Professor. 13. The defendants continued that assuming without conceding that the claimant’s appointment to the post of Associate Professor was confirmed and backdated to 3rd December 2000 as alleged by the claimant in Exhibit C4, the clear and unambiguous provisions of Exhibit C15/D11 tendered by both parties provides that: (D) The maturation period before moving to the next cadre/grade shall normally be a minimum of three years. Summary of minimum maturation periods for promotion: i) 3 years maturation period to move from Assistant Lecturer to Lecturer II ii) 3 years maturation period to move from Lecturer II to Lecturer I iii) 3 years maturation period to move from Lecturer I to Senior Lecturer iv) 3 years maturation period to move from Senior Lecturer to Associate Professor v) 3 years maturation period to move from Associate Professor to Professor. 14. To the defendants, by the literal interpretation of clause (D) of Exhibit C15/D11, the maturation period before moving to the next cadre/grade is a minimum of three years and not less. That it is glaring that the claimant applied for the position of Professor after a year and half of the approval of his Associate Professorship. That this is against the clear and unambiguous provision of Exhibit C15/D11, which states that the maturation period before a staff can move from one cadre/grade to another is 3 years. That the claimant failed to comply with the said provision hence due process was not complied with in his appointment as a Professor of the 1st defendant. The defendant proceeded that there is no provision in the Senate Approved Minimum Standard for Appointments and Promotions of Academic Staff in the 1st defendant which provides that members of staff are at liberty to skip a cadre and move to another; instead members of staff are to adhere strictly with the 3 years minimum maturation period before they can apply and be promoted to the next level. 15. That at the time the claimant responded to the advertisement for vacancy and by documents tendered by the claimant, Exhibit C5 (Application Letter and Curriculum Vitae) the fourth paragraph of the application states thus: “currently, I am a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Zoology…” That it is interesting to note that Exhibit C5 was written on 27th February 2012 wherein the claimant admitted that he was a Senior Lecturer at the time he responded to the newspaper publication for vacancy in the 1st defendant. The defendants further referred the Court to the Exhibit C5, The claimant’s Curriculum Vitae, which states thus: x. Statement of experience including full details of former and present post provides thus: December 1998 - February 2012 Senior Lecturer (Quantitative Geneticist and biometrician) Faculty of Science, Lagos State University, Nigeria…” The defendants then urged the Court to hold that the Claimant was a Senior Lecturer at the time he applied for the position of a Professor with the 1st defendant and thereby failed to comply with the clear and unambiguous provisions of the Conditions of Service of Senior Staff as regards appointment and promotions in the 1st defendant; the claimant, therefore, cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. Referring to section 138 of the Evidence Act 2011, Kala v. Potiskum [1998] 3 NWLR (Pt. 540) 1 at 17, Nwavu v. Okoye [2008] 18 NWLR (Pt. 1118) 29 at 61 and Ajide v. Kelani [1985] 3 NWLR (Pt. 12) 248 at 251, the defendants urged the Court to hold that the claimant has failed to discharge the burden of proof placed on him that due process was complied with in his appointment as a Professor of the 1st defendant. In conclusion, the defendants urged the Court to dismiss the claimant’s claim for being frivolous, lacking in merit and a misadventure, and DECLARE that the defendants are not liable to the claimants as per the General Form of Complaint and Statement of Facts. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE CLAIMANT 16. The claimant on his part submitted four issues for determination: (a) Whether an ad-hoc committee can usurp the powers of a statutory committee and whether the 2nd defendant without the recommendation of the Appointments and Promotions Committee can withdraw and/or invalidate the Professorial appointment of the claimant. (b) Whether in view of the evidence and exhibits tendered and admitted before this Honourable Court, the claimant has not proved his case. (c) Whether an undated document can be relied upon in the determination of the claimant’s case. (d) Whether the process that led to the invalidation of the Professorial appointment of the claimant followed the principles of natural justice. 17. On issue (a), the claimant submitted that a body that was created under a statute must act within the statute or the regulations made thereunder and must take care not to exceed or abuse the powers derived thereunder; such a body must keep within the ambits of the law in carrying out its duties or in making administrative decisions, citing Amasike v. Registrar-General CAC & anor [2005] LPELR-5407(CA), PHMB v. Ejitagha [2000] 11 NWLR (Pt. 677) 154, UNTHMB v. Nnoli [1994] 8 NWLR (Pt. 363) 376 and Magit v. University of Agric, Makurdi [2005] 19 NWLR (Pt. 959) 211. That during the cross-examination of DW, the following were established: (1) The body that is charged with the appointment and promotion of academic staff members is the Appointments and Promotions (Academic) Committee. (2) That by the conditions of service of the 1st defendant, the body charged with the withdrawal of promotion of academic staff members is the said Appointments and Promotions (Academic) Committee. (3) By the statutes and conditions of service of the 1st defendant, the functions and roles of the Appointments and Promotions (Academic) Committee cannot be usurped by any ad hoc committee. (4) DW informed the Court that the 2nd defendant did not consult the Appointments and Promotions (Academic) Committee before purportedly withdrawing the Professorial appointment of the claimant. 18. The claimant referred to the Conditions of Service Guiding Senior Staff of the 1st defendant (Exhibit C15/D11) states in clause 8.8 as follows: For appointment to Professorial cadre: in Prima facie qualified cases (PFQ), candidates for Professorial cadre can be determined by the University Appointments and Promotions (Academic) Committee… And that clause 16.0 sub-clause 7, which deals with the withdrawal of promotion, states as follows: (a) Promotion is not a right. At any time after a promotion is communicated to a member of staff, the Appointments and Promotions Committee may, if it considers it necessary in the interest of the University withdraw, suspend or defer the said promotion. For the avoidance of doubt the Committee may take action under this section on the grounds that the promotion previously granted was based on a mistake or false information, or of misconduct of other reasonable cause established since the notification of the said promotion as having occurred before the promotion. (b) Any action of the Appointments and Promotions Committee under (a) above shall forthwith be reported to the Council, and any employee affected by the said action may appeal to the Council within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the notice of the Committee’s decision. 19. The claimant then submitted that the word used in clause 16(a) is promotion, not appointment and the Professorship of the claimant which was wrongfully withdrawn was not a promotion but an appointment. That there is no provision for the withdrawal of an appointment that was carried out by due process, as opposed to a promotion. However, that assuming but not conceding that an appointment can be withdrawn as if it is a promotion as stated in clause 16(a), the defendants, particularly the 2nd defendant ought to have followed the procedure laid down in the above clauses of the Conditions of Service in the process of determining the regularity or otherwise of the appointment of the claimant as a Professor. Further, that even if the claimant’s appointment as a Professor did not follow due process, the decision of the defendants which was based on the report of the Committee led by Professor Joseph A. Olagunju is null and void because such a decision ought to be based on the report of the Appointments and Promotion (Academic) Committee. However, that the foregoing statement is at best a hypothetical statement made to further canvass the claimant’s argument because it was established before the Court that the Appointments and Promotions (Academics) Committee reaffirmed the Professorial appointment of the claimant based on the report of the ad-hoc committee that was constituted for the purpose of investigating the propriety of same. That the Conditions of Service, having been enacted under the enabling statute of the 1st defendant, was the procedure that ought to have been strictly followed in the withdrawal of the Professorial Appointment of the claimant. That the proper body that ought to have made the recommendation for the withdrawal of the Professorial appointment of the claimant is the Appointments and Promotions (Academics) Committee and not the Investigative Committee that was spearheaded by Professor Joseph Olagunju. That the defendants acted ultra vires in the withdrawal of the Professorial appointment of the claimant; and that that the defendants exceeded their powers by withdrawing the Professorial appointment of the claimant without involving the Appointments and Promotions (Academics) Committee. Also, that there was no basis for the decision of the defendants in withdrawing the appointment of the claimant as the due process laid down in the Conditions of Service was not followed; as such, the decision to withdraw the Claimant’s appointment is void and a nullity. Accordingly, that the proper thing is for the Court to nullify the decision of the defendants withdrawing the claimant’s Professorial appointment. 20. For issue (b), the claimant submitted that it is settled law that he who asserts must prove and a plaintiff who seeks redress must prove his case on balance of probabilities, citing Onisaodu & anor v. Elewuju & anor [2006] LPELR-2687(SC), Dumez Nigeria Ltd v. Nwakhoba [2008] LPELR-965(SC) and Civil Design Construction Nig. Ltd v. SCOA Nigeria Ltd [2007] LPELR-870(SC). That a careful perusal of the facts in this case shows the following: (1) That the claimant satisfied the advertised requirements for appointment of Professor in the 1st defendant’s University, referring to paragraph 5.0(6) of Exhibits D2 and D4A. (2) That the advertisement that led to the appointment of the claimant was placed by the 1st defendant. (3) That the 1st defendant stated in both Exhibits D4A and D4B respectively that “This advertisement supersedes the earlier one published on 26th January, 2012”. (4) That Exhibit D6A shows that the then Dean of Faculty of Science shortlisted the claimant for Professorial appointment. (5) The claimant was shortlisted by the then Dean because he is qualified and satisfied the advertisement requirements. (6) That the claimant on the 20th July, 2012 was invited by the 1st defendant to attend promotion interview and he attended the said promotion Interview, referring to Exhibit C6. (7) That the claimant on the 20th July 2012 was also invited by the 1st defendant to attend an interview for the position of Professor and he also attended, referring to Exhibit C6A. (8) That Exhibit D10A shows the following: (i) That the then Vice Chancellor and Chairman of the Appointments and Promotions (Academic) Committee was absent at the meeting. (ii) That the Committee stated in Exhibit D10A at page 7 as follows: The Committee further NOTED that Dr. ABANIKANNDA was interviewed simultaneously for promotion to the position of Associate Professor and appointment as Professor, and was found qualified on both grounds. However, after due consideration, the Committee recommended Dr. ABANIKANNDA for appointment as Professor noting that the appointment as Professor supersedes his promotion to Associate Professor. (iii) The Committee therefore considered the totality of the positive recommendations from the Assessors of the candidate’s publications and RECOMMENDED the appointment of Dr ABANIKANNDA, Olatunji Tajudeen Fasasi to the position of Professor in the Department of Zoology, Faculty of Science effective 28th September 2012 to the University Governing Council for APPROVAL. (iv) That on 24th October 2012, Exhibit C7 being letter of appointment of the claimant as Professor in the Department of Zoology, Faculty of Science, Lagos State University, Ojo was given to the claimant by the 1st defendant and same was signed by L. O. Animashaun Esq. the Registrar and Secretary to Governing Council. (v) That Exhibit C17 being a letter from the then Vice Chancellor and Chairman of the Appointments and Promotions (Academic) Committee of the 1st defendant clearly and unequivocally states at paragraph 2, lines 8 to 11 that “The process and procedure leading to his appointment, as with ALL other appointments in his Faculty and the rest of the University during the same period, followed laid down procedures”. (vi) That Professor Oyedamola Oke who became Dean Faculty of Science in August, 2012 stated in his submission tendered and admitted as Exhibit D9 as follows: (a) I was invited as a Panelist which is consistent with the usual practice as a Dean of Faculty with candidates. (b) When Professor Abanikannda came into the room, the Vice-Chancellor asked the candidate “I have two papers in respect of your interview, one for Associate Professor and the other for Professorship, which one would you like to be interviewed for?” (c) Professor Abanikannda answered he wanted to be interviewed for Professorship position. (d) Then, he was handed to the expert who did all the questioning. (e) He was interviewed and scored. (9) That the evidence of CW was in consonance with his pleadings and that during cross-examination his evidence remained credible and unshakeable. 21. To the claimant, a look at the evidence of DW will show that the defendants admitted that the claimant satisfied the advertisement requirements as contained in both Exhibits D4A and D4B respectively and that the organ that is charged with the responsibility of appointments and promotions recommended the claimant to the 2nd defendant and same was approved by the 2nd defendant on 23rd October 2012. That they also admitted that the invalidation of the claimant’s Professorial appointment was based on Olagunju led Committee and that they did not consult the Appointments and Promotions Committee before the withdrawal of the Professorial appointment of the claimant. That the then Vice Chancellor, Professor J. O. Obafunwa was not in attendance when the claimant’s Professorial appointment was recommended by the Appointments and Promotions (Academic) Committee. That it is settled law that “Facts that are admitted need no further proof. They are taken as established by virtue of Section 75 of the Evidence Act. Admitted facts are also the strongest evidence available to the Trial Court”, referring to Rivers State Housing and Property Development Authority & anor v. Uwakah [2010] LPELR-4899(CA); and that “Relevant facts under Nigerian Civil Jurisprudence are pleaded facts and includes facts elicited under cross examination and relevant to the facts in issue. The facts elicited under cross examination are facts peculiarly within the knowledge of the other party, they cannot be clearly pleaded, but once extracted and are relevant, they become admissible irrespective of the fact that same has not been pleaded”, referring to Haruna v. KSHA [2010] 7 NWLR (Pt. 1194) 604 at 614 and Danladi v. State [2017] LPELR-43627(CA), Nyavo v. Zading [2018] LPELR-44086(CA) and Obajimi & ors v. Oloye & anor [2017] LPELR-42709(CA), Adeosun v. Governor, Ekiti State [2012] 4 NWLR (Pt. 1291) 1, Ukulele v. Adesanya [2014] 12 NWLR (Pt. 1422) 521 and Pius v. The State [2015] LPELR-24446(SC). 22. The claimant continued that in the determination of this case, the pertinent question that arises before the Court is whether the claimant has proved, by virtue of the evidence placed before the Court and the exhibits tendered and admitted, that he is entitled to the pronouncement of the declaratory reliefs sought in his favour. That he tendered evidence showing that his appointment as a Lecturer II in the 1st defendant’s Department of Fisheries and Zoology (Exhibit C1), and a Certified True Copy (CTC) of the advertisement placed by the 1st defendant in The Guardian Newspaper of 14th February 2012 (Exhibit C3). Also that he tendered evidence showing his appointment letter through which his appointment as a Professor was approved (Exhibit C7). That he also tendered the conditions of service showing the procedure laid down for the appointment of a person as a Professor and the withdrawal of the Professorial appointment (Exhibit C15). That it is very clear from provisions of the conditions of service that the defendants did not comply with the laid down procedure in the removal of the Professorial appointment of the claimant, referring to clause 8.8, which provides thus: “For appointment to Professorial cadre: in Prima facie qualified cases (PFQ), candidates for Professorial cadre can be determined by the University Appointments and Promotions (Academic) Committee…” Also referred to is clause 16.0 sub clause 7 quoted earlier. That it is very clear from these provisions that there is no provision for the withdrawal of an appointment as a Professor. Rather what is contained in the said provision is the withdrawal, suspension or deference of a promotion. Clause 16.0 starts with “Promotion is not a right” and the mere term ‘appointment and promotion committee” shows that an appointment is different from a promotion under the conditions of service (Exhibit C15). It follows, therefore, that the defendants had no right in the first place to withdraw the appointment of the claimant. That this submission is made without even considering the fact that the proper authority that is in charge of the Professorial appointments and withdrawal of a promotion is the Appointments and Promotions Committee. 23. Furthermore, that assuming but not conceding that that the claimant’s appointment as a Professor did not follow due process, the decision of the 2nd defendant, which was based on the report of the Committee led by Professor Joseph Olagunju, is null and void because such a decision ought to be based on the report of the Appointments and Promotions (Academic) Committee. However, that this statement is, at best, a hypothetical statement made to further canvass the claimant’s argument because it was established before the Court that the Appointments and Promotions (Academics) Committee reaffirmed the Professorial appointment of the claimant based on the report of the ad-hoc committee that was constituted for the purpose of investigating the propriety of same. That a consideration of the relevant provisions of the conditions of service shows that the withdrawal of the Professorial appointment of the claimant by the 2nd defendant is null and void. 24. The defendants had submitted that the claimant’s appointment as a Professor was irregular because he did not move from the stage of Associate Professor to Professor. They relied on clause 4.0(A) of the Senate Approved Minimum Standards for Appointments and Promotions of Academic Staff in Lagos State University dated 2nd May 2008 (Guidelines for Promotions of Academic Staff), which states that promotion shall be in two parts, viz: Assistant Lecturer to Senior Lecturer, and Associate Professor to Professor. To the claimant, this submission is misconceived and a subtle attempt to mislead this Court. That clauses 3.8 and 3.9 (Guidelines for Appointment of Academic Staff) of the said documents state as follows: 3.8 For appointment to PROFESSORIAL cadre: in prima facie qualified cases (PFQ), Candidates for professorial cadre can be determined by the University Appointments and Promotions (Academic) Committee. In doing so, candidates are to be assessed by competent experts internally or externally subject to satisfactory report. The Dean will then recommend six external assessors from which the vice-chancellor may select any three for assessment of the candidates. 3.9 All candidates for appointment shall be interviewed. 25. That it is clear from the wordings of the said documents that assumption of a position as academic staff could be either by way of appointment or promotion. That the interview conducted for the claimant for promotion to the position of Associate Professor is totally different and independent from the interview conducted for an appointment and the latter culminated in his appointment as a Professor (the emphasis is the claimant’s). That the defendants’ submissions stating that the appointment of the claimant is irregular because he did not become a Professor through the promotion route is misconceived. That the wording and intendment of the conditions of service and the Senate Approved Minimum standards show that there are two routes through which a person can attain an academic position: (1) Appointment; (2) Promotion. That by no stretch of semantics or imagination can the provisions applicable to a case of promotion be applied to a case of an appointment to a Professorial position as in the instant case. The claimant then submitted that he has proved that his appointment was effected by strict adherence to the procedure laid down in Exhibit C15 in respect of appointment to the position of Professor, urging the Court to so hold. 26. Regarding issue (c), the claimant submitted that the Report of the Governing Council Committee on Investigation of Professorial Appointment of the Claimant (Exhibit D2), which is the basis upon which the 2nd defendant purportedly withdrew the Professorial Appointment of the Claimant, is undated. That this raises a question as to the validity of the document and the probative value to be attached to it. The claimant referred to Ogbahon v. Reg. Trustees, CCC [2002] 1 NWLR (Pt. 749) 675 and Aremu v. Chukwu [2011] LPELR-3862(CA), which held that a document which bears no date of execution or date when it comes into operation is invalid and unenforceable but parol evidence of the date left out in the document is admissible to show when the document was written and from what date it is intended to operate. That DW at trial admitted that the said Report is undated. However, no oral evidence was given by the defendants in the course of the trial as to when the document was prepared or signed by the members of the committee or to show the date it was intended to operate. 27. Referring to Dalek(Nig.) Ltd v. OMPADEC [2007] 7 NWLR (Pt. 1033) 402, the claimant asked what probative value is to be attached to the undated document; and then answer by referring to Okamgba v. Eke [2009] LPELR-8505(CA), which held that what determines the weight of evidence is the value, credibility, quality as well as the probative value of the evidence. That the five factors that are considered in determining the probative value of evidence are: admissibility; relevancy; credibility; conclusiveness; and probability of the evidence by which the weight of evidence of both parties is determined. That even though Exhibit D2 may be relevant and admissible, it cannot be said to be credible as there is no date on the document. That such a document which is undated may as well have been prepared after this suit was filed and as such is not probable. In other words, Exhibit D2 does not satisfy the requirement as to credibility and probability, urging the Court to so hold. That the defendants having failed to give oral evidence as to the date of execution or operation of Exhibit D2, same cannot be relied upon by the Court in support of the defendants’ case and the Court cannot attach any probative value to it. The claimant then urged the Court to attach no probative value to the undated report which is the basis for the purported removal and/or withdrawal of the claimant’s Professorial appointment and declare that the purported withdrawal of the claimant’s appointment is a nullity. 28. Issue (d) is whether the process that led to the purported invalidation of the Professorial appointment of the claimant followed the principles of natural justice. To the claimant, assuming but not conceding that the defendants have the power to invalidate or withdraw the Professorial appointment of the claimant, the Court has to determine if the process that led to the invalidation/withdrawal of the said appointment complied with the twin cardinal principles of natural justice being fair hearing (audi alterem patem) and impartiality and neutrality (nemo judex in casuasua). That it is trite that “Now observance of due process by government or a public authority is an omnibus and a very powerful ground for success fully challenging and setting aside the acts of government of a public authority. This non observance of due process by the government or a public authority is a ground for successfully ascertaining and protecting one’s right and claiming what is due to one from government or a public authority”, referring to Administrative Law, 4th Edition, 2013 by Ese Malemi at page 304. That any person whose civil rights and obligations would be affected by the decision of an administrative panel must be afforded fair hearing, by way of an opportunity to be heard and to defend himself, citing NEPA v. Ango [2001] LPELR-5933(CA). To the claimant, the facts and evidence before the Court show that the claimant was not afforded an opportunity to make any form of representations in respect of the findings of the ad-hoc committee and the Professor Joseph Olagunju led Investigative Committee. That the claimant was not even aware of the materials which led to the purported removal/withdrawal of his Professorial appointment, citing Akwa Ibom State Civil Service Commission & ors v. Akpan [2013] LPELR-22105(CA). 29. The claimant then submitted that the committee set up by the defendants which was spearheaded by Professor Olagunju ought to have afforded the claimant an opportunity to defend himself in view of the fact that its findings would be the basis for a decision that would affect the claimant’s means of livelihood. That it is noteworthy that Professor Joseph Olagunju’s membership of the Governing Council is being sponsored by ASUU-LASU who incidentally agitated and instigated the withdrawal of the claimant’s Professorial appointment. That Professor Olagunju presiding over a matter brought by his group cannot be said to be neutral or impartial in the matter since he is an interested party to the matter. To the claimant, the right to a fair hearing will only arise, as in the instant case, where there is an allegation of irregularity which resulted in the deprivation of the rights and benefits that accrued to him upon his appointment as a Professor of the 1st defendant. That the position of the law is that in every case of dismissal or termination of appointment which may vitally affect a man’s career or his pension, such as in the instant case, the claimant ought to have been given ample opportunity to make representations in respect of the regularity of his appointment. That in respect of the procedure followed in the withdrawal of the claimant’s appointment, not only was it contrary to the provisions of Exhibit C15/D11, it also breached the principles of fair hearing as the claimant was not given an opportunity to defend his appointment before the Committee led by Professor Olagunju who is not a disinterested party, urging the Court to so hold. 30. The claimant proceeded that DW in his evidence acknowledged that the Governing Council took met and took decision on the Report of Council Committee on investigation of Professorial Appointment of Professor O. T. F Abanikanda dated 15th July 2016; and that under cross-examination, DW admitted that the 2nd defendant had a meeting on 14th July 2016 to consider Exhibit D2 but that the Report of that meeting is not before the Court. That despite the claimant in paragraph 31 of his statement on oath giving the defendants notice to produce the said Report, the defendants failed to produce it. That Exhibit C12 confirms that the 2nd defendant on 14th July 2016 considered Olagunju’s led Committee’s report. The claimant then submitted that the defendants did not produce the Report because if produced the Report will go against them. That the said document is the foundation upon which Olagunju’s led committee report stands but same was not produced by the defendants and this shows that they cannot put something on nothing and expect it to stand, it cannot stand. That “where a party does not produce or suppresses useful evidence the natural inference is that the evidence if produced would go against the party who withholds it”, referring to Diamond Bank Ltd v. Ugochukwu [2008] 1 NWLR (Pt. 1067) 1 at 31 and Akindipo v. The State [2012] LPELR9345(SC). In conclusion, the claimant urged the Court to grant all the declaratory reliefs sought in this suit. THE DEFENDANTS’ REPLY ON POINTS OF LAW 31. In replying on points of law, the defendants first submitted that the final written address of the claimant at a cursory look appears to have departed from the sole issue formulated by the defendants and placed before the Court having distilled same. I must state though that even in addressing the issues raised by the claimant, there were attempts by the defendants to go beyond the remit of a reply on points law by their attempt to bring in points they forgot to advance in their final written address given the references to and review of evidence led. 32. On the claimant’s issue (a), the defendants submitted that the argument of the claimant that an ad hoc committee was established by the defendants to investigate his Professorial appointment resulting in same being invalidated falls flat on its face when the provisions of the handbook are reviewed. That the exercise of the power of the committee does not rob/deny the defendants their statutory powers as contained in the enabling law. To the defendants, the Ad-Hoc committee set up by the 2nd defendant was set up sequel to an enabling statute creating the 1st defendant and as such the power exercised was delegated and not a usurpation as being erroneously argued by the claimant, referring to the general rule to the effect that an authority which delegates its power does not divest itself of the power as was decided in Anakwenze v. Aneke [1985] 1 NWLR (Pt. 4) 771. 33. That the claimant’s counsel made heavy weather of the fact that an ad-hoc committee was set up to investigate his Professorial appointment. That the Black’s Law Dictionary defines “committee” to mean a subordinate group to which a deliberate assembly or other organization refers business for consideration, investigation, oversight or action. It also defined an ad-hoc committee as a special committee; referring to Raji v. Unilorin [2007] 15 NWLR (Pt. 1057) 259 at 277, which upheld the power of Council to set up a committee to investigate an allegation against an employee. That in the instant case, the 2nd defendant in considering the rejoinder by claimant decided to constitute a committee i.e. Governing Council Committee on Investigation of Professorial Appointment of the claimant comprising five (5) Council members to investigate the allegation of irregularity in the claimant’s professorial appointment. The defendants then referred to clause 1.0 PREAMBLE 3rd paragraph of EXHIBIT D2, which states thus: The committee was given liberty to; determine its modus operandi; call for memoranda; invite individuals connected with the issue being investigated for interaction where necessary; make appropriate recommendations; and thereafter submit its report for consideration of the Governing Council. That this was the mandate given to the committee set up by the Governing Council to investigate the circumstances surrounding the Professorial appointment of the claimant after which the committee was mandated to submit its report to the 2nd defendant for final consideration. That this is by no stretch of imagination a usurpation of authority. 34. Furthermore, that at page 2 of the said report (Exhibit D2) would be seen the terms of reference i.e. “To investigate, analyze and come up with appropriate recommendations on the Professorial appointment of Prof. O. T. F. Abanikanda for consideration of the Governing Council”. And clause 8.0 of Exhibit D2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT states thus: The committee wishes to appreciate the University Governing Council for giving it the opportunity to serve it in this capacity. It is hoped that the committee’s report will assist in strengthening the system in respect of processes and procedures for appointments in the university. That from all of this, it is clear that the 2nd defendant did not act outside its ambit by setting up a committee to investigate the circumstances surrounding the Professorial appointment of the claimant with the 1st defendant. That it is also clear that the committee merely gave its report as mandated on the findings concerning the Professorial appointment of the claimant but the decision to invalidate the said appointment was taken by the 2nd defendant. The defendants then urged the Court to reject the claimant’s submissions on the ground inter alia that the arguments are at variance with the enabling law of the defendants and handbook given to academic; an examination of which it can be said that due process was followed resulting in the withdrawal of claimant’s Professorship in the 1st defendant’s service. 35. The claimant had submitted that Exhibit D2 tendered by the defendants is undated. To the defendants, this is untrue as the claimant is trying to be clever by half. That the claimant went further and wrongly cited the cases of Ogbahon v. Registered Trustees, CCC [2002] 1 NWLR (Pt. 749) 675 and Aremu v. Chukwu [2011] LPELR-3862 (CA), which are not on all fours with the facts of the case at hand. That Exhibit D2, page 3 clause (b) “Dates of Meeting” states thus: “The committee held two (2) Meetings viz: Wednesday, 22nd and Wednesday 29th June 2016”. Accordingly, that it behooves of commonsense that Exhibit D2 is a summary of the meetings which held on the above-mentioned dates and deduced into a report which was duly executed by the members of the said committee who were in attendance. Therefore, parol evidence is not necessary to prove anything therein. That the claimant went further to buttress the defendants case by citing the case of Dalek (Nig) Ltd v. OMPADEC [2007] 7 NWLR (Pt. 1033) 42, where the Court of Appeal held that it is the relevancy of a document and not the weight to be attached to it that is paramount. That the claimant and the defence are in agreement on this salient point that Exhibit D2 is relevant, urging the Court to so hold. 36. The claimant had cited Akwa Ibom Civil Service Commission & ors v. Akpan [2013] LPELR-22105(CA), where the Court of Appeal gave a very instructive ratio which is applicable to this case, as follows: In an inquiry or investigation by an administrative panel or body, the hearing can be oral, in writing or both. Since the requirement of the law is that the person against whom an allegation was made must be heard before he can be found to be at fault by the panel. That the defendants in accordance with this instructive ratio complied when the Council Committee on Investigation of Professorial Appointment of the claimant invited the claimant and tendered Exhibit D9 (Report of Interactive Session/Interview dated 29th June 2016) in further proof of same. That from the contents of Exhibit D9 it was also recorded that the claimant was called upon and gave his oral evidence which was also tape recorded, referring to clause 6.0 of the Interactive Session with some Identified Individuals. That this shows that the claimant was given fair hearing and, therefore, the principles of natural justice were followed during the investigation of his Professorial appointment. 37. The defendants then urged the Court to discountenance the claimant’s submission as contained in issue (d) as it was not pleaded in his statement of facts and a new issue cannot be raised at the stage of address. In conclusion, the defendants urged the Court to dismiss this suit in its entirety. COURT’S DECISION 38. After a careful consideration of the processes filed and the submissions of the parties, I start off with the opening words of the defendants in paragraph 1.01 of their reply on points of law: “The Final Written Address of the Claimant at a cursory look appears to have departed from the sole issue formulated by the defendants and placed before the Honourable Court having distilled same”. The defendants appear to intuit that the claimant cannot distill his own issues even when the case is his; for the defendants proceeded in paragraph 1.03 to state that “assuming without conceding that the issues formulated by the claimant can be distilled from the facts and circumstances of this case…” The defendants had concluded in paragraph 5.01 of their reply on points of law that: “The sole issue for determination by the Honourable Court is the interpretation of the contents of Exhibit D11 - Conditions of Service Guiding Senior Staff of Lagos State University, June 2008 which guides the relationship between the 1st Defendant and the Claimant”. The instant case is a case filed by the claimant and no one, not even the 1st or 2nd defendant, knows his case better than himself. The claimant has the leverage to distill his issues for determination. 39. I indicated earlier that in addressing the issues raised by the claimant, there were attempts by the defendants to go beyond the remit of a reply on points law by their attempt to bring in points they forgot to advance in their final written address given the references to and review of evidence led. The law frowns on this. A reply on points of law should be limited to answering only new points arising from the opposing brief. It is not meant for the party replying on points of law to reargue its case or bring in points it forgot to advance when it filed its final written address. It is not a form to engage in arguments at large. Alternatively put, a reply on points of law is not meant to improve on the quality of a written address; a reply brief is not a repair kit to correct or put right an error or lacuna in the initial brief of argument. See Dr Augustine N. Mozie & ors v. Chike Mbamalu [2006] 12 SCM (Pt. I) 306; [2006] 27 NSCQR 425, Basinco Motors Limited v. Woermann Line & anor [2009] 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 149; [2009] 8 SCM 103, Ecobank (Nig) Ltd v. Anchorage Leisures Ltd & ors [2016] LPELR-40220(CA), UBA Plc v. Ubokolo [2009] LPELR-8923(CA), Musaconi Ltd v. Aspinall [2013] LPELR-20745(SC), Ojo v. Okitipupa Oil Palm Plc [2001] 9 NWLR (Pt. 719) 679 at 693, Ogboru v. Ibori [2005] 13 NWLR (Pt. 942) 319 and Cameroon Airlines v. Mike Otutuizu [2005] 9 NWLR (Pt. 929) 202. The effect of non compliance is that the Court will discountenance such extended arguments in a reply brief. See Onuaguluchi v. Ndu [2000] 11 NWLR (Pt. 590) 204, ACB Ltd v. Apugo [1995] 6 NWLR (Pt. 399) 65 and Arulogun & ors v. Aboloyinjo & anor [2018] LPELR-44076(CA). 40. The claimant had raised the issue of the admissibility of Exhibit D2/C11 (the Report of the Governing Council Committee on Investigation of Professorial Appointment of the claimant) in terms of his issue (c). To the claimant, Exhibit D2/C11 is undated and is the basis upon which the 2nd defendant purportedly withdrew his Professorial appointment. The defendants’ answer to this is that the claimant’s argument is untrue as the claimant is trying to be clever by half; and that the cases cited by the claimant are not on all fours with the facts of the case at hand. The defendants went on that Exhibit D2/C11, page 3 clause (b) on “Dates of Meeting” states thus: “The committee held two (2) Meetings viz: Wednesday, 22nd and Wednesday 29th June 2016”. That it behooves of commonsense that Exhibit D2/C11 is a summary of the meetings which held on the above-mentioned dates and deduced into a report which was duly executed by the members of the said committee who were in attendance; therefore, parol evidence is not necessary to prove anything therein. 41. I looked through Exhibit D2/C11 and found that it is actually not dated. DW acknowledged under cross-examination that Exhibit D2/C11 is not dated. The defendants erred in their submissions here. Exhibit D2/C11 is not presented as minutes of the two meetings of 22nd and 29th of June 2016. In contrast, Exhibit D9 is presented as minutes of the meeting of 29th June 2016. Even though no other date is provided on its face, Exhibit D9 stands valid on the score that it is minutes of the meeting of 29th June 2016. In any event, does it not sound very illogical that a document presented as a report is bearing two dates? In the face of Exhibit D9, if Exhibit D2/C11 is the product of the two meetings of 22nd and 29th of June 2016, not only is it a separate document, independent of the minutes of the two meetings of 22nd and 29th June 2016, it means that it was prepared after the said two minutes and so must bear a date independent of the two dates of 22nd and 29th June 2016. In fact, I concede that it can bear the date 29th June 2016, if it was prepared on that same date; but here, it must separately bear the date 29th June 2016. This is because the date Exhibit D2/C11 was prepared is its date, which unfortunately for the defendants, is not disclosed either on the face of Exhibit D2/C11 or by parol evidence. I so find and hold. 42. The law is that, except the date is supplied by parol evidence, an undated document is invalid and so has no evidential value. See Aremu v. Chukwu [2011] LPELR-3862(CA). There is no parol evidence before the Court indicating the date of Exhibit D2/C11. Contrary to the submission of the defendants, parol evidence is imperative if Exhibit D2/C11 is to acquire any modicum of evidential value. DW who testified for the defendant is not even a member of the council committee that investigated the claimant in terms of Exhibit D2/C11 as to supply the date of the report vide parol evidence. The argument of the defendants that 22nd and 29th of June 2016 are the dates of Exhibit D2/C11 is as illogical as it can be as a document cannot bear two dates, except for different purposes as where a process is dated on a particular date but filed on another. Incidentally, this is not even the argument of the defendants. This means that Exhibit D2/C11 as an undated document is invalid and so has no evidential value. The argument of the defendant that what is paramount is that Exhibit D2/C11 is relevant and not its weight forgets that an invalid document does not yield to questions of relevancy or cogency (weight or probative value). It remains invalid and so is void, a nullity in the eyes of the law. That is what Exhibit D2/C11 is. This means that all the submissions of both the defendants and the claimant on Exhibit D2/C11 are unfounded as there is no valid document called Exhibit D2/C11 upon which any submission can be made except submissions as to its validity/evidential value. I shall accordingly discountenance Exhibit D2/C11 for purposes of this judgment. I so hold and rule. 43. The claimant’s case is that he was appointed, not promoted, to the rank of full Professor by the defendants vide Exhibit C7 dated 24th October 2012, having applied for same rank, only for the defendants vide Exhibit D12 dated 1st August 2016 to invalidate and withdraw the Professorial rank. In answer, it is the defendants’ case that since the claimant’s promotion to the rank of Associate Professor never materialized, as he was not given any letter to that effect, his appointment as full Professor is wrong and was only possible because of his personal friendship with the erstwhile Vice Chancellor of the University, Professor Obafunwa, which was used to circumvent the system contrary to the conditions of service. That the conditions of service dictate that a staff must be on each rank before attaining the rank of full Professor. As the defendants put it, the claimant’s “appointment was yet to be concluded as an Associate Professor before he applied for the position of a Professor”. 44. The defendants placed great reliance on clause 9.0(D) of Chapter II of Exhibit C15/D11, which provides thus: The maturation period before moving to the next cadre/grade shall normally be a minimum of three years. Summary of minimum maturation periods for promotion: i) 3 years maturation period to move from Assistant Lecturer to Lecturer II ii) 3 years maturation period to move from Lecturer II to Lecturer I iii) 3 years maturation period to move from Lecturer I to Senior Lecturer iv) 3 years maturation period to move from Senior Lecturer to Associate Professor v) 3 years maturation period to move from Associate Professor to Professor. 45. The argument of the defendants here is that the maturation period required of the claimant before moving to the next cadre is a minimum of three years. That the claimant applied for the position of Professor after a year and half of the approval of his Associate Professorship. That this contravenes clause 9.0(D) of Chapter II of Exhibit C15/D11. But is this the case? Clause 9.0(D) starts with the words, “The maturation period before moving to the next cadre/grade shall normally be a minimum of three years” (my emphasis). In law, as in ordinary usage, the word “normally” is used to denote that the proposition where it is used is not absolute and so admits of exception(s). As an adverb, the New Oxford American Dictionary defines the word “normally” as “usually, ordinarily, as a rule, generally, in general, mostly, for the most part, by and large, mainly, most of the time, on the whole; typically, customarily, traditionally”. All of these words denote that what is being said is not absolute; it admits of exception(s). So when clause 9.0(D) of Exhibit C15/D11 talks of the maturation period on a cadre shall normally be a minimum of three years, what it signifies is that the three year maturation rule is not absolute; it is not a hard and fast rule and so it admits of exception(s). The question is whether the claimant’s case comes as an exception. 46. A critical issue, not really addressed by the defendants, is whether the claimant has the qualification(s) needed to be a full Professor aside from the three years on a cadre requirement. The defendants never argued that the claimant is not qualified to be a full Professor, only that “his appointment was yet to be concluded as an Associate Professor before he applied for the position of a Professor”, and that it was unmerited. The way clause 9.0(D) is couched, the three-year maturation period can be by-passed and a Senior Lecturer appointed to full Professor so long as other qualifications for being a full Professor are met. Where this is the case, such appointment cannot be invalidated on the sole ground of not complying with the maturation period of three years. I must point out that the claimant was appointed full Professor, not promoted to that rank. The academia often makes a distinction between Professorship by appointment and Professorship by promotion; and as will be seen this distinction is self evident in Exhibit C15/D11 itself in terms of clauses 8.8 and 10.0 on the one hand and clause 9.0(D) on the other, all of Chapter II of Exhibit C15/D11. While clauses 8.8 and 10.0 relate to appointment, clause 9.0(D) of Chapter II of Exhibit C15/D11 relates to promotion; and so the words “moving to the next cadre/grade” as used in clause 9.0(D) connotes promotion from one cadre to the next, not the appointment to a cadre. This means that clause 9.0(D) cannot regulate the occupation of any of the cadres indicated therein by way of appointment - anyone may be appointed as Assistant Lecturer, Lecturer II, Lecturer I, Senior Lecturer, Associate Professor and Professor once all other conditions are met without the necessity of the maturation period. But no one can be promoted to any of these cadres without fulfilling the maturation period as required by clause 9.0(D). I so find and hold. 47. The arguments of the defendants that the claimant failed to comply with clause 9.0(D), hence due process was not complied with in his appointment as a Professor of the 1st defendant, that the claimant did not furnish the Court with any evidence that he was ever confirmed as an Associate Professor of the 1st defendant before he applied for the position of a Professor, and that the claimant applied for the position of Professor only when he was a Senior Lecturer, are accordingly untenable. These arguments are based on wrong premises and interpretation of the said clause 9.0(D) of Exhibit C15/D11. It is this misinterpretation of clause 9.0(D) that led the defendants to conclude that there is no provision in the Senate Approved Minimum Standard for Appointments and Promotions of Academic Staff in the 1st defendant which provides that members of staff are at liberty to skip a cadre and move to another; instead members of staff are to adhere strictly with the 3 years minimum maturation period before they can apply and be promoted to the next level. The talk of “apply and be promoted” only shows a gross misunderstanding of the true import of clause 9.0(D) by the defendants. In contrast to clause 9.0(D), clauses 8.8 and 10.0 of Exhibit C15/D11 make provision for appointment to Professorial cadre i.e. Associate Professor and Professor contrary to the thinking of the defendants. 48. Exhibit C13/D10(a) also recognized the difference between promotion and appointment when it stated thus: The Committee further NOTED that Dr. ABANIKANNDA was interviewed simultaneously for promotion to the position of Associate Professor and appointment as Professor, and was found qualified on both grounds. However, after due consideration, the Committee recommended Dr. ABANIKANNDA for appointment as Professor noting that the appointment as Professor supersedes his promotion to Associate Professor. Here, it should be noted that for Associate Professorship, what was in issue was promotion; and for full Professorship, what was in issue was appointment. 49. A closer look at the facts of this case as deduced from the evidence before the Court reveals a good deal. Exhibit C3/D4(a) is the copy of The Guardian Newspaper publication dated 14th February 2012 and Exhibit D4(b) is a copy of The Nation Newspaper publication of 15th February 2012, in which the advertisement for vacancies was made including the position of Professor of Parasitology, Breeding and Genetics in the Department of Zoology. These adverts were signed by L. O. Animashaun Esq, the Registrar and Secretary to Governing Council. Of note is that the advertisement was an internal and external advertisement. What is meant by internal and external advertisement is that qualified persons from within (internal) and without (external) the University are free to apply. If the University did not deem it fit that internal staff who are qualified should apply, the University would have restricted it to only an external advertisement. In Academic Staff Union of Research Institutions v. Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development & 6 ors [2015] 61 NLLR Pt. 215 558, the claimant had argued that an advert placement did not indicate that applicants should have been a Director (Research) in the 2nd to 5th defendants’ Institutes before they can qualify to apply. In other words, the positions advertised were meant for only those who have served or are serving in the 2nd to 5th defendants’ Institutes. This Court held the claimant not to be serious; and then asked: “Why would the Conditions of Service call for internal and external advertisements if the idea was that only internal staff can apply for the relevant posts?” The point is that this Court thereby recognized that internal and external advertisement means that both the staff of the organization and those outside of the organization are free to apply for the vacancies advertised where the advert is an internal and external advert placement. The case of Exhibits C3/D4(a) and D4(b) in the instant case cannot thus be any different. I so find and hold. 50. Exhibit C5 dated 27th February 2012 is accordingly the claimant’s application for the position of Professor, Breeding & Genetics in the Department of Zoology of the 1st defendant in response to Exhibits C3/D4(a) and D4(b). Exhibit C6 dated 20th July 2012 invited the claimant to a promotion interview given the Faculty of Science recommendation that the claimant be promoted to the position of Associate Professor. Exhibit C6(a) also dated 20th July 2012 invited the claimant to attend an interview for the position of Professor in the Department of Zoology following his “recent application for the position of Professor in the Department of Zoology…” I must state here that, contrary to the position taken by the defendants, there is nothing unusual in the claimant being considered simultaneously for both positions: for Associate Professor, and full Professor. The one (Associate Professor) was by promotion, and the other (full Professor) was by appointment. Once Exhibits C3/D4(a) and D4(b) called for internal and external applications, Exhibits C6 and C6(a) cannot be unusual. I so find and hold. 51. The claimant was successful in the interview for the position of full Professor; for in Exhibit C13/D10 dated 4th October 2012 the Secretariat of the Appointments and Promotions Committee recommended the claimant for appointment as full Professor, and in Exhibit C7 dated 24th October 2012 and signed by L. O. Animashaun Esq (the Registrar and Secretary to Governing Council), the defendants appointed him Professor in the Department of Zoology. In the words of Exhibit C7: I am pleased to inform you that the University Governing Council at its 98th Statutory Meeting held on Tuesday, 23rd October, 2012 considered and APPROVED your appointment as Professor in the Department of Zoology, Faculty of Science, Lagos State University, Ojo. This is sequel to the establishment of Prima-Facie Qualified (PFQ) case for appointment as Professor at the Appointment Interview held on Thursday, 2nd August, 2012 AND the subsequent consideration of the External Assessors’ reports for same position by the Appointments and Promotions (Academic) Committee at its Emergency Meeting held on Friday, 28th September, 2012. Please NOTE that your appointment as Professor takes effect from 28th September, 2012 and is deemed to be continuous with your previous appointment with the University which takes effect from 3rd December, 1998. May I reiterate that this is a full time appointment AND no paid work OR other continuous work with other parties outside the University may be undertaken without the consent of the University Authority. By this elevation, you will move from your present salary of Consolidated University Academic Salary Structure (CONUASS) 05 Step 10 to (CONUASS) 07 Step 01 as at 28th September, 2012. 52. Some members of the academic community of the defendants were not happy with the appointment of the claimant and so complaints were laid. Exhibit C8 is a presentation by the Academic Staff Union of Universities, Lagos State University Branch (ASUU-LASU) made on the request of the 2nd defendant on various forms of allegations against the Vice-Chancellor (VC), Prof John Oladapo Obafunwa. It is simply dated June 2015. Although Exhibit C8 sets out complaints against the highhandedness and maladministration of the said VC, it opens up with allegation of his wrongdoing in terms of double standard and denial of appointments and promotions of academics; and under case 1 i.e. unmerited appointment of Professors, the claimant was the very first of the cases on unmerited appointments. Exhibit C8, however, took off on a very wrong premise. The opening words of the complaint against the claimant are: “That Dr. Abanikannda, O. T. F. applied to move from Senior Lecturer to Associate Professor through the normal University channel for promotion”. 53. I must state that the claimant did not apply (indeed there is no application before the Court to this effect) to be moved from Senior Lecturer to Associate Professor vide the process of promotion. By Exhibit D5 dated 17th June 2016 and written by Dr Abiodun A. Denloye, who was Head of Department (HOD), the claimant submitted his Appointments and Promotions Evaluation Report (APER) forms for promotion assessment from Senior Lecturer to Associate Professor cadre, which was forwarded to the Dean. The Faculty of Science then recommended him for the position and the Appointments and Promotions (Academic) Committee approved it. See Exhibit C6. What the claimant applied for was for the position of full Professor. See Exhibit C6(a). 54. The further complaints of ASSU-LASU in Exhibit C8 as to non-existent advertisement, insufficient papers, the claimant’s scoring not capable of being cumulated as to earn the status of a Professor, the 3 PFQ assessment reports coming from the same Federal University of Agriculture, Abeokuta and the absence of departmental and Faculty appointment and promotion records to show that the claimant’s papers were ever considered at those levels, are complaints that cannot be held against the claimant since these are maters outside of his control. In any event, Exhibits C3/D4(a) and D4(b) debunk the claim as to absence of an advertisement. Exhibit D7 is the claimant’s Annual Performance Evaluation Report. Annexure A to it contains the claimant’s works/publications, which disclose the 13 papers ASSU-LASU complained of as being insufficient. The point to note here is that the claimant did not misrepresent the fact of his works/publications. If the defendants at that time found them to be sufficient, the same defendants cannot turn around later to complain that they are insufficient. The defendants must stand and fall by their folly. And Exhibits C13/D10 (the decision extract), D10(a) i.e. minutes of the emergency meeting of the Appointments and Promotions (Academic) Committee held on 28th September 2012 and C7 (the letter of appointment of the claimant as full Professor), all elicit a presumption of regularity in favour of the claimant against the defendants. CITEC International Estate Ltd & ors v. Francis & ors [2014] LPELR-22314(SC), relying on Moss & ors v. Kenrow (Nig) Ltd & ors [1992] 9 NWLR (Pt. 264) 207 at 222, for instance, held that there is a rebuttable presumption as to the regularity of official acts as provided for in section 168(1) of the Evidence Act 2011. The defendants have not rebutted this presumption especially as I have discountenanced Exhibit D2/C11, the report upon which the decision to invalidate and withdraw the claimant's Professorship was based. DW confirmed under cross-examination that the decision to invalidate the Professorship of the claimant was based on Exhibit D2/C11. 55. More importantly, Chapter II of Exhibit C15/D11 deals with Appointments. Clause 8.0 under Chapter II makes provision in terms of “Senate Approved Minimum Standard for Appointments and Promotions of Academic Staff in Lagos State University (Effective from 14 February, 2008 and 21 February 2008)”. Clause 8.1 under same Chapter II provides the guidelines for appointment of academic staff. And clause 8.8 makes provision for Professorial cadre in these words: In prima facie qualified cases (PFQ), candidates for Professorial cadre can be determined by the University Appointments and Promotions (Academic) Committee. In doing so, candidates are to be assessed by competent experts internally or externally subject to satisfactory reports. The Dean will then recommend six external assessors from which the Vice-Chancellor may select any three for the assessment of the candidates. Clause 10.0 of same Exhibit C15/D11 reiterates this. Two things are evident from clauses 8.8 and 10.0. First, they permit internal assessment. Secondly, contrary to the complaint of ASSU-LASU in Exhibit C8 that the claimant’s assessment reports came from the same University of Agriculture, Abeokuta, clauses 8.8 and 10.0 do not qualify the spread of external assessors in terms of prohibiting assessors coming from one institution. External assessment is external assessment once the assessors are from outside of the 1st defendant irrespective of whether they are from the same institution so long as that institution is not the 1st defendant. 56. Clause 9.0 under Chapter II of Exhibit C15/D11 on its part makes provision as to “Senate Approved Guidelines for Promotions of Academic Staff”. It is here that provision is made in clause 9.0(A)(i) that promotions shall be in two parts: Assistant Lecturer to Senior Lecturer; and Associate Professor to Professor. Note that clause 9.0(A)(i) is silent as the promotion from Senior Lecturer to Associate Professor. Clause 9.0(D) then proceeds to make provision as to maturation period on each cadre before moving to the next, something earlier addressed in this judgment. 57. The significance of all of this, and here I agree with the claimant, is that the wording and intendment of the conditions of service (Exhibit C15/D11 with its Senate Approved Minimum Standards for Appointments and Promotions of Academic Staff in Lagos State University and Guidelines for Promotions of Academic Staff) show that there are two routes through which a person can attain an academic position: (1) Appointment; (2) Promotion. The claimant by appointment was made a full Professor. He was not made a Professor by promotion. I so find and hold. And so, he cannot be gagged by the vagaries of the defendants. 58. The defendants would, however, later start an inquisition into the appointment of the claimant as full Professor. Exhibit D3 dated 17th June 2016 and written by Mrs O. M. Olanrewaju-John of the 1st defendant’s Academic Planning Unit (APU) would later state that when the claimant was appointed full Professor, there was actually no vacancy, and she then called for an investigation into who called for the advertisement for the post of Professor in the Department of Zoology as certainly it was not the APU. However, Exhibit D5 dated 17th June 2016 and written by Dr Abiodun A. Denloye, who was Head of Department (HOD) at the time the claimant submitted his Appointments and Promotions Evaluation Report (APER) forms for promotion assessment from Senior Lecturer to Associate Professor cadre acknowledged that at that time there was no Professor in his Department, and that this made it necessary for him to forward the claimant’s forms to the Dean; but that he knew nothing about the claimant’s appointment as Professor as he never received any application to that effect. This is understandable and expected as applications for appointment as Professor would go directly to the organ of the University that the advertisement indicated it should go to. Only promotions would go through the HOD. In fact, Exhibit D5 further underscores the distinction between appointment and promotion to the Professorial cadre. 59. On the whole, and for all the reasons adduced, the invalidation and withdrawal of the Professorial appointment of the claimant by the defendants vide Exhibit D12 dated 1st August 2016 is not only wrong but most unjust. Arguments of the claimant as to not being given fair hearing do not even arise as the very action of the defendants invalidating and withdrawing his Professorship is wrong and unjust ab initio. This being so, the claimant’s case has merit in terms of reliefs (2), (3), (4), (7), (8) and (10), which are hereby granted in terms indicated below. 60. Reliefs (1) and (6) are not granted as prayed as they are too general and not specific to the claimant. The instant case is a case specific to the claimant. Relief (5) is not granted as the validity or otherwise of the promotion to Associate Professor is no longer in issue and is overtaken by the validation of his appointment to the rank of Professor. Relief (9), the prayer for N100 Million as damages cannot be granted. The claimant’s reinstatement and order as to payment of his backlog of salary from 14th July 2016 till date presuppose that the grant of relief (9) will thereby amount to double compensation. The law frowns on windfalls and double compensation. See Mabamije v. Otto [2016] LPELR-26058(SC). By Agu v. General Oil Ltd [2015] LPELR-24613(SC), relying on Alhaji Mustapha Aliyu Kusfa v. United Bawo Construction Co. Ltd [1994] 4 NWLR (Pt. 336) 1, once a party has been fully compensated for the loss or harm suffered, it should not be open to the court to proceed to award him any other kind of additional damages that may look like a bonus. For to do this is to compensate a party twice of the same wrong complained of. This is tantamount to double compensation which the court will always frown at. In the more specific field of employment law, reinstatement and damages are not awarded at one and the same time. An employee can only get either. See Joseph Ifeta v. Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nig Ltd [2006] LPELR-1436(SC); [2006] 8 NWLR (Pt.983) 585, CCB (Nig.) Ltd v. Okonkwo [2001] 15 NWLR (Pt. 735) 114 CA, Kabelmetal Nig. Ltd v. Ative [2002] 10 NWLR (Pt. 775) 250 CA and Onalaja v. African Petroleum Ltd [1991] 7 NWLR (Pt. 206) 691 CA. 61. In consequence, I make the fowling declarations and orders in favor of the claimant: (1) It is hereby declared that the Professorial Appointment of the claimant which followed due process, made by the Appointment and Promotions Committee of the 1st defendant and approved by the 2nd defendant on 23rd October 2012 is valid and cannot be invalidated. (2) It is hereby declared that in virtue of the facts and circumstances surrounding this case the claimant satisfied the advertised requirements for the appointment of Professor in the 1st defendant’s University. (3) It is herein declared that in virtue of the Conditions of Service Guiding Senior Staff in the University, 2008 the defendants have no power to invalidate the claimant’s appointment. (4) It is ordered that the decision of the 2nd defendant dated 1st August 2016 that invalidated the professorial appointment of the claimant is hereby set aside. (5) It is ordered that the defendants shall reinstate the claimant to his Professorial appointment forthwith and make payment of his entitlements from 14th July 2016 till date. (6) The defendants, whether by themselves, servants and or agents, are hereby restrained from taking any step whatsoever to invalidate the claimant’s Professorial appointment that followed due process. 62. Judgment is entered accordingly. I make no order as to cost. …………………………………… Hon. Justice B. B. Kanyip, PhD