Download PDF
By a Complaint dated and filed the 14th day of December, 2011 the Claimant claims against the Defendants the following reliefs: a) A declaration that the second letter of warning issued him in 2007 which is part of what the defendants are relying on is null and void as he was never invited or given any opportunity to defend himself thereby denying him fair hearing. b) A Declaration that he has not breached any of the Senior Staff Rules or any other rule(s) of the University of Benin that will warrant his sack from the University of Benin by the defendants. c) A Declaration that the recommendation of the Senior Staff Disciplinary Committee of the University on which the Defendants want to rely on for the sack of the Claimant is null and void as it is bias, (sic) fraught with irredeemable irregularities and it offends the provisions of the Senior Staff Rules and other rule(s) of the University of Benin and other statutes and also it is against justice, equity, fairness and good conscience. d) An order that the Defendants pay the Claimant the sum of 5,000,000.00 (five million Naira) only for the harassment, embarrassment, mental and psychological torture they are subjecting the Claimant to. And for such other order(s) as the court may deem necessary to make to meet the justice demand of this case. The Complaint was accompanied by a Statement of Facts, an Affidavit of verification of the Complaint, a list of Witnesses and a list of Documents to be relied upon at trial. There is also a motion on notice dated 12th day of December, 2012 and a 21 paragraphed affidavit deposed to by the Claimant in support of the motion on notice which is for an interlocutory injunction. The Defendants/Applicants filed a memorandum of Appearance in the matter on the 7th day of February, 2012 and thereafter filed a notice of preliminary objection to this suit based on the following: 1) That this action is not properly constituted. 2) That there is no reasonable cause of action. 3) That this Honourable Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Learned defendants/applicants counsel also filed along with the notice of preliminary objection, a written address dated 22nd February, 2012 and filed on the same date. On the 13th of March, 2012 the court ordered the claimant/respondent to file and serve his written response to the preliminary objection of the defendants/applicants and also ordered the defendants/applicants to file a reply on points of law, if any. Learned counsel for the claimant complied with the order of court by filing and serving his written address dated 21st March, 2012 and was filed on the same day. Thereafter, the defendants/applicants filed a reply on points of law, dated 2nd April, 2012 but filed on 3rd April, 2012. Furthermore, the claimant/respondent’s counsel filed what he termed “Claimant’s/Respondent’s further written reply on point of law to the defendant’s/applicants reply on point of law dated 3/4/2012”. Let me deal with this process straight away. It was filed after the learned counsel to the defendants/applicants had filed his reply on point of law. Learned counsel for the defendants/applicants urged the court, in making his oral submissions, to discountenance the said process on the ground that it is alien to the proceedings. I have looked at the said process and it is clear to me that the said process is incompetent. This is because the said process was filed outside the clear directive of the court, i.e. after the filing of the reply on point of law by the defendants/applicants counsel. The filing of the reply on points of law is the last in the series of the written addresses parties are expected to file before the court. No leave of court was equally sought to file same. It would therefore amount to overreaching the defendants/applicants for the court to consider the said process of the claimant/respondent. It would also mean that there would be no end to the filing of written addresses by the parties. This cannot be allowed as parties must abide by the order of the court to file a written address in support, followed by a written reply and then a reply on points of law, if any. In the circumstance therefore, the said written address of the claimant/respondent entitled “Claimant’s/Respondent’s further written reply on point of law to the defendant’s/applicants reply on point of law dated 3/4/2012”, is hereby declared incompetent and accordingly struck out. Learned counsel to the parties adopted their respective written addresses. I have carefully considered the processes, arguments and submissions of learned counsel to the parties, both written and oral. The main issue for determination is whether or not the claimant’s suit as presently constituted discloses a reasonable cause of action? If the court arrives at a decision that the action discloses a reasonable cause of action then the preliminary objection would fail but where it is held that there is no reasonable cause of action it would succeed and the case would then proceed to hearing. Both counsel to the parties have referred the court to a number of authorities stipulating what the court should consider in determining whether a suit discloses a reasonable cause of action. See for instance, BAKARE vs N.R.C- [2007] 12 M.J.S.C 76 at 79 ratio 3, where the Supreme Court held inter alia; “The only place to look for the cause of action is in the statement of claim. Cause of action is made up of two factors, that is the wrongful act of the Defendant and the consequential damage occasioned to the Plaintiff…” See also C.B Ltd V. S.S.L Ltd [2007], 3 M.J.S.C. 76 at 79 ratio 3; Union Bank vs Umeoduagu [2004] 19 NSCQR (Vol. 19) 158 at 160 ratios 2,3,6 and 7; and Labode V. Otubu [2001] 7 NWLR (pt 712) 256 at page 276. From the authorities therefore, it is clear that in order to determine the cause of action in the instant suit, the appropriate processes to examine are the Complaint and the Statement of Facts establishing the cause of action. But a more pertinent point is on the meaning of a cause of action, the answer to which is given by the decision cited above to the effect that it is made up of two factors, which are the wrongful act of the defendants on the one part and the consequential damage occasioned to the Claimant. These have to be sorted from the Statement of Facts of the Claimant/Respondent. In asserting that he has a cause of action, the claimant referred the court to paragraphs 7, 11, 13, 14 and 17 of his Statement of Claim. These paragraphs are hereby reproduced for ease of reference: 7. That on the 22nd day of May, 2007, the Claimant was given another warning letter which reads thus “Warning to desist from writing petitions which will not engender harmony in the Department” base (sic) on the petition he wrote to the 2nd Defendant against the 4th Defendant on examination malpractice and he was never invited or given opportunity to defend himself thereby denying him fair hearing. 11. He was surprised and shocked beyond measure and imagination when he was not promoted to a full fledge Professorship due to the reason that one of the Journals, Global Journal of Mathematics hitherto approved by the Appointment and Promotion Board (A&P) of the University, that published his researched works has to be rejected by the same Appointment and Promotions Board (A&P) of the University. As soon as the Claimant heard, at the spur of the moment and spontaneously, he did an innocuous text message: “ This is my story concerning my stalled promotion to full professor. It started in August last year. My Dean came and held Faculty meeting to inform us of the Journal accepted for promotion. He specially listed Global Journal of Mathematics based in a Federal University, Calabar as a much respected Journal and that we are encouraged to publish there. The Vice Chancellor Professor G. OSHODIN USED THIS Journal to promote all the BININS and associates last year only for him to say that Global Journal of Mathematics is not recognized this year. ALL Professors of good outstanding in and out of Nigeria hear of this. DR S.E. UWAMUSE, Department of Mathematics, University of Benin, Benin City”, to a suppose (sic) friend and a confidant, Professor George Eriyamremu of the Department of Biochemistry; University of Benin who thought was his confidant and colleague, expressing his grief and disappointment. 13. The Claimant was then issued a querry for the text message and he responded to the querry and nonetheless he apologized by stating in his response that he was merely expressing his frustration to his friend alone. 17. The Claimant has been reliably informed the Senior Staff Disciplinary Committee chaired by 6th Defendant has recommended he should be sacked. The reliefs the claimant/applicant claims have earlier been set out in this Ruling. Taking the reliefs of the claimant/respondent as well as the Statement of facts, especially the paragraphs just reproduced above, it is clear that the claimant is asking the court consider thee queries issued against and the recommendation for his sack by the Disciplinary Committee of the University chaired by the 6th Defendant. It is thereafter that the court is called upon to grant the reliefs in paragraph 18 sub paragraphs (a) to (d). The judicial authorities show that a cause of action must set out the rights of the claimant, the infringement thereof by the defendants as well as the injury or damage suffered. In the case at hand, the Claimant/Respondent only shows that queries were issued to him at various times and that there is a supposedly leaked information to the effect that he would be sacked by a disciplinary committee chaired by the 6th Defendant. Do all these amount to setting out rights, their infringement by the defendants and injury or damage to the claimant/respondent for which he can be entitled to remedy to constitute a cause of action? I do not think so. In my humble view, the issuance of queries alone and/or the threat of a decision to be taken, not communicated properly to the affected claimant/respondent in this matter can hardly amount to breach of his rights or injury occasioned to him to which a cause of action may be said to have arisen, as to warrant the filing of this suit as it is presently constituted. Learned Claimant/Respondent counsel had argued that there is a cause of action in this case because there is a controversy in existence between the Claimant and the Defendants relying on the decision in Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited vs. LSEPA & 3 Ors (2003) 1 MJSC p. 112 at 118 para. 10. However, the position as propounded by the authorities shows that the court must look at the nature of the controversy from the Statement of Claim of the Claimant to see if the constituent elements are in existence, namely, the alleged infringement of the Claimant’s right by the defendant and the resultant damage emanating from such breach for which the claimant is seeking remedy. In other words, the factual situation relied upon must constitute the essential ingredients of an enforceable right or claim. See the case Chevron Nigeria Ltd vs. Lonestar Drilling Nigeria Ltd (2007) NSCQLR Volume 31 p. 92 at p. 99. See also Alhaji M. M. Abubakar vs. Bebeji Oil and Allied Products Ltd & Ors (2007) Volume 29 p.1634 at 1675. Accordingly therefore, it will not just be enough for the Claimant to state that there exists a controversy between the parties but that such controversy must be one giving rise to an enforceable claim in a court of law. In the case of Abubakar vs. Bebeji, supra, the Supreme Court, per A. M. Mukhtar, JSC, held that: A cause of action arises from circumstances containing different facts that give rise to a claim that can be enforced in a court of law, and thus lead to the right to sue a person responsible for the existence, either directly or by extension of such circumstances. There must in essence be wrongful act of a party (i.e. the party sued) which has injured or given the plaintiff a reason to complain in a court of law for remedy of consequent damage to the party aggrieved. Thus going by the principles established in these cases it is my view that the claimant has not established a cause of action in this matter and I so hold. Learned claimant/respondent’s counsel has raised the issue of whether the preliminary objection of the defendants/applicants’ meets the requirement of law. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel and all he is saying is that the defendants/applicants have not pointed to any law or rules of court that the claimant/respondent breached in filing his claim that would have rendered his process incompetent or that robs the court of its jurisdiction. The grounds of the application filed by the defendants/applicants show that he was raising the issue of absence of a reasonable cause of action on the part of the claimant and thus the absence of jurisdiction on the part of court to entertain the action. It is clear from all the authorities relied upon by counsel that such an application challenging jurisdiction on the basis of absence of cause of action is proper before the court and hence the establishment of the various legal principles governing such determination by the courts. On the two other issues raised by the claimant/respondent, namely, whether facts and evidence are same and whether necessary parties have been sued by the claimant, these are not at all relevant to the determination of the main issue before the court which is whether or not there exists a reasonable cause of action in this suit, and I so hold. In the circumstance therefore, and for all the reasons given above, I hereby hold that the preliminary objection of the defendants/applicants succeeds as the suit of the claimant/respondent does not disclose a reasonable cause of action and hence this court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain it as it is presently constituted. Consequently, the suit is hereby struck out. I make no order as to costs. Ruling is entered accordingly. Hon. Justice Auwal Ibrahim Presiding Judge