Download PDF
By a Complaint dated and filed on the 27th of September, 2011, the Claimant claimed the following reliefs against the Defendants: 1. A Declaration that the decisions of the defendants against the claimant contained at paragraphs 3 and 10 of pages 9, 10 and 11 of the White Paper, paragraph 2(i), (ii) and (iii) of page 23 and paragraph 2(a) of page 27 of the White Paper impugning the claimant in the Imo State Government White Paper on the Report of the Visitation Panel into Imo State Polytechnic from May 2005 –May 2009 dated November, 2010 which was released on 17th May, 2011 by the Government of Imo State is unconstitutional, ultra vires and inconsistent with Section 36 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as it affects the claimant, Section 8(c) of the Imo State Polytechnic Law 2007 as amended and other applicable laws and therefore null, void and of no legal effect whatsoever. 2. A Declaration that the decisions of the defendants against the claimant without affording the claimant an opportunity to defend himself especially as it relates to the purported double payments and awards of contracts in the polytechnic is void and of no legal effect. 3. An order setting aside the decision of the defendants against the claimant contained in paragraphs 3 and 10 of pages 10 and 11 paragraphs 2(i), (ii) and (iii) of page 23 paragraph 2(a) of page 27 of the Imo State Government White Paper on the Visitation Panel into Imo State Polytechnic from May, 2005 – May 2009 impugning the claimant. 4. An order on the defendants to pay the claimant all his retirement benefits, entitlements and allowances due to him as a retired Registrar of Imo State Polytechnic. 5. An Order of Injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, agents and or privies from implementing any or all of the decisions contained in paragraphs 3 and 10 of pages 9, 10 and 11, paragraphs 2(i), (ii) and (iii) of page 23 paragraph 2(a) of page 27 of the Imo State Government White Paper on the visitation Panel into the affairs of Imo State Polytechnic from May 2005-May 2009. 6. Five Million Naira (N5, 000,000.00) as general and special damages against the defendants jointly and severally. The Complaint was accompanied with Statement of Facts establishing the cause of action, a list of witnesses, witnesses’ statement on oath, list and copies of documents to be relied upon at trial. The 1st Defendant entered appearance on 25th of October, 2011. Thereafter the 1st defendant filed a Statement of Defence dated 14th day of November, 2011 but filed on 17th November, 2011, a list of witnesses and a written statement on oath of its witness. The 2nd Defendant also entered appearance dated the 23rd of January 2012 and filed a Statement of Defence, a list of witnesses, and a written statement on oath of his witness. The case proceeded to hearing on the 31st day of January, 2012. All the parties fielded a witness each and at the close of the case for each of the parties, final written addresses were filed accordingly. The 2nd Defendant filed his written address first followed by the 1st Defendant and the Claimant. They adopted their respective written addresses. In his written address the learned counsel for the 2nd Defendant formulated 2 issues for determination by the court as follows: (i) Whether the Visitation Panel as set up by the Governor of Imo State was illegal; if not:- (ii) Whether the Claimant was given fair hearing. Arguing the 1st issue, which is whether the visitation Panel as set up by the Governor of Imo State was illegal, the learned counsel for the 2nd Defendant submitted that the Governor of Imo State was right to set up the Visitation Panel to look into the affairs of the 1st defendant. That the Law establishing the 1st defendant, Edict No. 11 of 1979 as amended, by its Section 5 established a Governing Council for the 1st defendant which shall be responsible for the general supervision and control of the institution, including control of its property and finances. According to counsel, the Governor by Section 6 of the Law appoints the Chairman and some other members of the Council and also by Section 7(3) the Governor can revoke the appointment of any member of the Council. Further, Section 8(c) of the Law empowers the Council to appoint, promote, dismiss and exercise disciplinary control over the staff of the College. The Council shall prepare and submit to the Governor, an annual report on the administration and activities of the institution. Counsel referred to Section 8(h). Counsel then submitted that a community reading of the above sections of the Law shows that the Governor is clothed with enormous powers as it concerns the day to day administration of the 1st defendant. These powers further extend to approval to raise loans as shown in Section 12(a) of the Law and powers to inspect the book in which the minutes of the meetings of the Council or any Committee of the council are recorded either by himself or any other person authorized by him. Counsel referred to Section 18. Furthermore, counsel submitted that the powers of the Governor to set up a visitation panel, though not expressly stated by the law, is however, implied by the above Sections of the statute establishing the 1st defendant. He urged the court to hold so. According to counsel, the Claimant under cross-examination admitted that the Imo State Government funds the 1st defendant by way of annual subventions to it. This was further admitted by both the 1st and 2nd defendants’ witnesses. Thus it is expected that a person who spends enormous amount of money to see to the smooth-running of an Institution has the powers to inquire how the money invested by him is or was being spent. Counsel submitted then that the Imo-State Government, being the proprietor of the 1st defendant and also spends huge amount of money each year by way of subvention, has the right to inquire into the affairs of the 1st defendant. This he can do either by himself or through a panel or committee appointed by him to do so. Therefore counsel submitted that the visitation panel set up by the Imo-State Governor in 2009 to look into the affairs of the 1st defendant was legally set up and in accordance with the Edict establishing the Institution. He urged the Honourable Court to resolve Issue No. 1 in the negative. On issue two which is whether the Claimant was given fair hearing, learned counsel for the 2nd Defendant submitted that the Claimant was given fair hearing by the Panel. That, the Claimant under cross-examination admitted that he was invited by the panel to answer to the allegations against him. The Claimant admitted that he presented himself before the panel and that he appeared up to four or five times. Also both defendants’ witnesses testified to the fact that the Claimant availed himself of the opportunity of appearing before the panel to present his case. According to the 1st defendant, the claimant was present throughout the proceedings of the Panel. It is trite that a person who was given an opportunity to appear before a panel of inquiry and who in fact took advantage of the opportunity and presented himself to the panel cannot turn around to allege that he was not given a fair hearing simply because he was indicted by the panel. That the Claimant never complained that he was not given an opportunity to be heard. He never alleged that the panel did not allow him to present his case when he appeared before it. To counsel, it is trite that the right to fair hearing is a question of opportunity of being heard. The right lies in the procedure followed in the determination of a case and not in the correctness of the decision arrived at in a case. See MILITARY GOVERNOR, LAGOS STATE VS. ADEYIGA (2012) All FWLR Pt.616, Page 396 at 414 Para.B-C. Moreover, counsel continued, the Claimant admitted that he had no prior relationship with any member of the Panel before the time of the inquiry. He did not allege any bias against any member of the Panel. He submitted therefore, that the issue of not being given a fair hearing as alleged by the claimant does not arise. He was given fair and adequate hearing by the panel. He urged the Honourable Court to so hold and resolve this issue in favour of the 2nd defendant. On the issue of non-payment of the Claimant’s retirement benefits, entitlements and allowances due to him as a retired Registrar of the 1st defendant, counsel submitted that the Claimant has failed to prove that the 2nd defendant refused to pay him the said benefits as a result of the report of the visitation panel. That it is in evidence that the recommendations of the visitation panel have not been implemented. There is also no evidence to show that the panel or the Governor directed that the Claimant’s entitlements should not be paid having been indicted in the exercise. Rather it is in evidence that the Claimant is not the only officer of the 1st defendant whose retirement benefits have not been paid. The 2nd defendant still gives subventions to the 1st defendant and has nothing to do with the non-payment of retirement benefits. The Claimant himself admitted that he has been receiving his monthly pensions from the 1st defendant since his retirement. He will also receive his other benefits in due course. Counsel further submitted that the Claimant is not entitled to any damages against the 2nd defendant as shown in his complaint. That it is trite that special damages must be proved to the hilt. It must be specially proved to the satisfaction of the court before a plaintiff could be entitled to it. He referred to DRAGETANOS CONST. LTD VS. FAB MADIS VENTURES LTD (2012) All FWLR Pt.616 Pg 441 at 507 Para. H. The Claimant has not shown any special damage he suffered by the recommendations of the panel more so when the said recommendations have not been implemented by the Governing Council of the 1st defendant. He submitted also that the claimant did not succeed in showing the loss he suffered which was occasioned by the recommendations of the panel. He still receives his pension from the 1st defendant in spite of his indictments by the panel. The panel never recommended for his dismissal or compulsory retirement. The panel did not recommend that he should not be paid his retirement benefits. He has not shown that the inability of the defendants to pay his gratuity was as a result of the recommendations of the panel. To counsel, the Claimant is, therefore, not entitled to any form of damages as Claimed on the face of the complaint. He urged the court to so hold. Concluding counsel stated that in the final analysis, the Claimant has failed to prove his case against the 2nd defendant, as: i. The visitation panel of 2009 set up by the Governor to inquire into the affairs of the 1st defendant was rightly and legally set up. ii. The Claimant was given a fair hearing by the panel. iii. The Claimant has not shown that the 2nd defendant directed that his retirement benefits should not be paid. iv. The Claimant has not proved that he suffered any form of loss by the act of the 2nd defendant. The Honourable Court is, therefore, urged to dismiss the action of the Claimant against the 2nd defendant with substantial cost. The learned counsel for the 1st Defendant adopted the same issues formulated and argued by the 2nd Defendant, namely, (1) Whether the government of Imo state has the powers to set up a visitation panel into the affairs of Imo state Polytechnic? (2) Whether the claimant was given a fair hearing? (3) Whether the claimant is entitled to his reliefs against the 1st defendant? On issue 1 learned counsel submitted that it was the contention of the claimant during trial that the Imo State Governor lacked the powers to set up a visitation panel to the Imo State Polytechnic Umuagwo. The contention was predicated on the Imo State Polytechnic law of 2007. The argument fell short of asking the question as to whether the Governor has the powers to establish and fund the institution in the first place. It is submitted that law No II of 1979 as variously amended does not have to provide expressly that the Governor is the Visitor to the polytechnic, the institution is established and funded by the government of Imo State, see section 25 (2) (a) of Edict No II of 1979. Counsel stated that he did not intend to repeat the sound arguments of the second defendant’s counsel on the issue of the powers of the governor as provided for in law No II of 1979, sections 5, 6, 7 (3), 8 (c)(h), 12(a) and 18. He therefore adopted the arguments contained on pages one and two of the 2nd defendant’s written address before the court as his own to the effect that the Governor of Imo State as the proprietor of Imo State Polytechnic has powers to inquire into the affairs of the institution vide the appointment of a Visitation Panel and he urged the court to so hold. Continuing counsel stated that in construction of statutes, it is the law that the entire statute is read and construed together. The law does not permit the selective construction as argued by the claimant. The object of construction of a statute has always been to discover the intention of the law maker as expressed in the instrument considering it as a whole and in the context. He referred to Gomwack V Okwasa (1999) 1 NWLR 225. In the light of the different provision of law No 11 of 2007 referred to above it will be most unreasonable to suggest that the makers of that law did not intend that the Governor of Imo State after establishing and funding the Imo State Polytechnic has no powers to inquire into how the institution is run. That it is wrong to argue as did by the claimant that the panel embarked upon the investigation of acts which constitute allegations of crime against the claimant. The panel never investigated the claimant on any allegation civil or criminal but discovered in the cause of inquiring into the affairs of the 1st defendant some irregularities including the double payment for a contract as a result of which the claimant was invited in his capacity as the then Registrar to clarify issues. It is not true that the claimant was cleared by the EFCC of all allegations of financial crime as the 1st defendant did not make any allegation against him. Furthermore, throughout the trial the claimant did not produce any evidence of clearance by the EFCC. On the 2nd issue whether the claimant was given a fair hearing in the proceedings of the panel, counsel stated that it is the law that fair hearing is simply a question of giving one an opportunity to be heard. It is a matter of procedure and not the correctness of the decision, citing the case of Military Governor of Lagos State V Adeyipa (2012) All FWLR Pt. 616 page 396 at part 414. Though throughout his pleadings and evidence the claimant never stated how he was denied fair hearing but rather the argument of his counsel tended to suggest so in his address and can be found in the formulation of his issue No Ill which is speculative, i.e., “If the issues No i & ii are decided in favour…..”. Address of counsel cannot take the place of evidence. During the trial evidence both oral and documentary were led by both sides that the claimant did not only submit a written memorandum but appeared before the panel severally. So what is fair hearing then, counsel asked? That it was argued on the part of the claimant that complaints of misconduct against a principal officer of the 1st defendant should be in writing. That prior to the proceedings of the visitation panel such a complaint should be served on the claimant (paragraph 2 page 9 of claimant’s written address). The claimant while making the above argument failed to advert his mind to the fact that the visitation panel was set up to inquire into the affairs of the first defendant and not Mr. D.O Egbujor (the claimant). It was in the process of carrying out her assigned duties that the panel invited many members of staff of the first defendant and not Mr. Egbujor alone. If in the process of inquiring into the affairs of the 1st defendant some wrong doings our (sic) discovered amongst the staff, should that be swept under the carpet? Counsel’s answer to this question is in the negative and this is at least in the public interest, according to him. The claimant is not the only person, indicted in the inquiry, and he referred to the white paper and other correspondences front loaded by the claimant and relied on by all the parties. According to counsel, fair hearing is the denial of a person the right of audience and he referred to ADEDEJ1 V P.S.C. (1967) 1ALL NLR 67 at 74-76. In the present case the claimant was heard in writing and orally severally and was (given) every opportunity he need(sic) to defend himself and in his pleadings and in his deposition on oath no evidence of denial of audience was led nor proved. The burden is always on the party alleging a breach of fair hearing to prove same, referring to ONAGORUWA V LG.P. (1991) 5 NWLR (Pt 193) 593 at 641. He urged the court the resolve this issue against the claimant. On issue 3, whether the claimant is entitled to his reliefs against the 1st defendant, counsel stated that the reliefs sought in the claim as affects the 1st defendant is the payment of the Claimant’s gratuity and damages. On the issue of damages the wrongs done to the claimant by the 1st defendant to warrant the award of damages against her was neither stated in the claim nor proved in any manner. The claimant was a staff of the 1st defendant and the visitation panel investigated the affairs of the 1st defendant and in the process the claimant was indicted. In other words both the claimant and the defendant were at the receiving end as a result of the panel’s visitation. In counsel’s view it is difficult to see any wrong occasioned by the 1st defendant against the claimant more so when none of the recommendations made in the panel’s report as contained in the white paper before the court has been implemented. On the issue of payment of gratuity the 1st defendant maintained from the onset that the claimant as a retired principal officer is entitled to gratuity like every other staff of the first defendant many of whom retired before the claimant several years ago to the knowledge of the claimant who was the Registrar of the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant made it categorically clear that it is an institution established and funded by the government of Imo State and that the fund for payment of gratuity of retired staff is provided by the government but that no such funds had been provided because the funds are not available now and that when the funds are available the claimant amongst others would be paid his gratuity. The 1st defendant manages to pay pension to her retired staff and the claimant admitted that since after his retirement in 2009 he has been receiving his monthly pensions like other retired staff of the first defendant. That during the trial of this case the claimant did not show that any retired staff has been paid gratuity by the 1st defendant. The claimant has not proved that the 1st defendant has committed any act of wrong doing targeted at him in any form to warrant the award of his claims against her. On the issue of award of special and general damages against the 1st defendant, counsel submitted that a court is not a father Christmas and does not embark on award of damages which are not proved. A claimant who sustained no loss cannot be awarded damages, referring to F.R.N PLC V ASSOCIATED MOTORS CP LTD (1998) 10 NWLR (Part 570) 441 at 467. At the trial no special damages were pleaded nor proved by the claimant. A special damage must be proved with credible and un-contradicted evidence, referring to SALAKO v WILLIAMS (1998)11 NWLR (part 574) 505 at.522; GANIYU BADMUS & ANOTH V A.O. ABEGUNDE (1999) LRCN 2912 at 2925. The award of general damages is at the discretion of the trial court, referring to OBI ORUDO V IGP & Ors (1998) 1 NWLR (Part 533) 336, Aniekan Peters V IGP (2001) FWLR (Part 49) P. 1449. However, counsel continued, it is also the law that such discretionary powers are exercised judicially and judiciously, referring to SALAU V ARABA (2004) All FWLR (Part 2041 88. That before the exercise of discretion it is also the law that a claim for general damages should be pleaded and evidence led on it but in the present case such was not done. He referred again to GANIYU BADMUS V ABEGU (Supra), SHELL BP PRTROLEUM DEV. CO. LTD V HIS HIGHNESS PER-COLE (1978) 13 SC 183 at 192. Counsel stated that the claimant had argued in his written address that he had suffered cost of litigation including out of pocket expenses, travel and accommodation costs etc. Counsel submitted that the 1st defendant also suffered such costs. He urged the court to resolve this issue against the claimant. For the under listed reasons the learned counsel urged the court to dismiss this suit with substantial cost against the claimant: (1) The Imo State Government headed by the Governor is the proprietor of Imo State Polytechnic, it also funds the institution therefore it has the powers to institute a visitation panel to look into the affairs of the institution, and that is what the governor did in this case as to hold otherwise will work against public policy. (2) That the visitation panel was not targeted against the claimant but an inquiry into how the affairs of the 1st defendant is being run including the management of public funds provided by the government to the institution. (3) That it was in the cause(sic) of its inquiring that the panel invited all the principal officers of the institution and more to clarify issues (see the white paper) the claimant is only one of them. He submitted a written memorandum and testified severally in the cause of the inquiring in defence of the allegations made against him, so he was not denied any fair hearing. (4) The 1st defendant is making effort to get some funds from the government of Imo State to pay the gratuity of her retired staff including the claimant who like others receives his pension from the 1st defendant every month. (5) The claimant neither pleaded nor proved any form of damages against the defendant and therefore is not entitled to any award. (6) The decisions contained in the White Paper are sound and proper and should be implemented. In his own final written address, the learned SAN, counsel for the Claimant, formulated the following issues for determination, namely: (i) Whether or not the Governor of Imo State is empowered as Governor of Imo State by the State Polytechnic Law, 2007 to set up or inaugurate the visitation panel complained of in this suit and if not then whether or not the White Paper complained of in this suit (as it affects the claimant) which arose from the recommendations of the visitation panel is void? (ii) Whether the findings and recommendations of the panel and the decisions in the White Paper against the claimant are ultra vires the panel? (iii) If the issues No. (i) and (ii) herein above are decided in favour of the defendants then whether the Claimant was given a fair hearing in the proceedings of that panel? And then (iv) Whether the claimant is entitled to his reliefs against the defendants? Arguing issue no. I the learned SAN, stated that the Imo State Polytechnic Law, 2007 is front loaded in this suit. Section 2 of that Law defines “Governor” to mean the Governor of Imo State and the “Principal Law” to mean – Imo State College of Agriculture Edict, 1979 as amended. By the amendment of the Principal Law as set out in the current law of 2007, the Principal Officers of the 1st defendant are — the Rector, Deputy Rector, Registrar, Bursar, and the Polytechnic Librarian. The Principal Edict of 1979 is also frontloaded with this suit. Section 2 of the Edict (now law) defines the offices of the 1st defendant. There is no provision at all in the Edict (Law) relating to Visitation Panel. In effect the law never donated any Power at all to any person to set up any Visitation Panel on, for or upon the 1st defendant. The various amendments to the law are pleaded in paragraph 3 of the Statement of Claim which each of the defendants admitted. Each of the amendments is front loaded with this suit for ease of reference. No provision of any of the Edicts (now law) empowers the Governor of Imo State to set up the Visitation Panel complained of in this suit. All official acts of a Governor which affect citizens are acts of governance. The Supreme Court has firmly held that any act of governance which is not enabled by statute is void. The learned SAN referred to the case of A–G BENDEL STATE VS. AIDEYAN [1989) 4 NWLR (Pt. 118) 646 AT 671 – 672 H—A. On the effect when an act is void he referred to MCFOY VS. U.A.C. [1961] 3 ALL E. R. 1169 or [1962) AC 152 at 160; MADUKOLU VS. NKEMDILIM [1962] Vol. 2 NSCC 374 or [1962) SCNLR 341. That the White Paper complained of in this suit is pleaded and front loaded, and it is entitled: “IMO STATE OF NIGERIA GOVERNMENT WHITE PAPER ON THE VISITATION PANEL INTO THE AFFAIRS OF IMO STATE POLYTECHNIC UMUAGWO FROM MAY 2005—MAY 2009”. Page 3 of that While Paper states that His Excellency, the Governor of Imo State Chief (Dr.) Ikedi Ohakim, set up a nine — man Visitation Panel into the Affairs of Imo State Polytechnic Umuagwo, from May 2005 to May 2009 vide a letter (Ref No. SCI/S.0021/S.2/T.2/66 of 4th June 2009. When the competence of an action is challenged the burden is on the person asserting its competence to prove it. Reference was made to paragraph 5 of the 2nd defendant’s Statement of Defence and then to the case of AJAO VS. SONOLA [1973) 3 SC. or [1973] Vol. 8 NSCC Vol. 304 t 307. The learned SAN continued that the defendants admitted the averment in paragraph 3 of the Statement of Claim that the employment of the claimant by the 1st defendant is regulated by statute and in paragraph 2 that the 1st defendant is a tertiary institution duly incorporated with perpetual succession. To this extent the 1st defendant is not a Ministry or a Department in the Public Service of Imo state. On the distinction between the offices of the Chief Executives of States and the Federal Government vis-a-vis tertiary institutions owned by such governments, he referred to the cases of See APARA VS NDILI [1989] 4 NWLR (Pt 118) 700 at 716 A – B, ANYA VS. IYAYI [1993] 7 NWLR (Pt 305) 290 at 315, and EMUZE VS. V. C. UNIBEN [2003] 10 NWLR (Pt 828) 398 at 397—399 F— D. To the learned SAN, there is no room for interchange between the office of Governor as Governor and the activities of the institutions except those empowered expressly by the enabling statutes. That no such statutory enablement exists to justify the setting up of the Visitation Panel and the White Paper and the White Paper complained of in this suit. Continuing, learned SAN stated that the employer/employee relationship between the claimant and the 1st defendant is regulated by statute. The Governor of Imo State is a stranger to that relationship. In express terms, provisions for the gratuity of the claimant are made in Section 28 of the Principal Law (as amended) and the duty to pay the gratuity is imposed by statute on the 1st defendant. As a matter of fact the 1st defendant pleaded in paragraph 9 of their statement of defence that despite the decision made against the claimant the 1st defendant still pays the claimant’s pension till date. In effect the 1st defendant understands at least to that extent that the decision of the Governor is not binding on the 1st defendant. That paragraph 10 of the 1st defendant’s statement of defence and the evidence of their DW1 to the same effect is contrary to the provisions of Section 28 of the Amended Law Governing the 1st defendant. Learned SAN therefore urged that the 1st issue be decided against the defendants. On the second issue which is whether the findings and recommendations of the panel and the decisions in the White Paper against the claimant are ultra vires the panel, learned SAN adopted all the arguments made under issue No (i) in this Address. He then added that the panel embarked upon the investigations of acts which constitute allegations of crime against the claimant, i.e., defrauding the 1st defendant of its funds for which he was condemned to refund N4,490,000.OO (Four Million Four Hundred and Ninety Thousand Naira). The claimant pleaded that the EFCC cleared him of all allegation of financial crime. That averment according to counsel was not traversed by the defendants. They simply relied on the Visitation Panel to indict the claimant. Reference was made to paragraphs 5 to 7 of the 1st defendant’s statement of defence. The 2nd defendant clearly avoided that fact in their own pleadings. That investigation of crime is within the province of bodies and agencies empowered by statute to do so. Again, learned SAN added, the White Paper went so far as to ban the claimant from holding any public office in Imo State again. The power to so ban the claimant is not donated by any statute having regard to the claimant’s constitutional right of enterprise and employment which right he also enjoys under the African Charter on Human Rights. He again urged that this second issue be decided against the defendants. On the third issue, the learned SAN adopted all the arguments already set out in this Address. He then continued that the claimant pleaded and gave evidence that he was not given a fair hearing in the proceedings of the panel. The defendants denied this fact. The DW2 admitted that complaints of misconduct against a principal officer of the 1st defendant should be in writing and that prior to the proceedings of the visitation panel such a complaint should be served on the claimant (the Principal Officer). He also admitted that the record of the proceedings of the panel should reflect the complaint and the re-action of the officer who is being investigated. This witness also admitted that the Polytechnic should pay the gratuity of the claimant. He contradicted the DWI on this point which shows that the DW1 is not a reliable witness. Reference was then made to the case of EZEMBA VS. IBENEME [2000] 10 NWLR (Pt, 674) 61 at 748. Furthermore, that the DW2 admitted that decisions of the 1st defendant about the award of contracts is, taken by the Governing Council of the Polytechnic and that the 1st defendant had a Governing Council at the material time which is not the Governor. He testified that all the proceedings of the panel were recorded in writing. The burden was on the defendants to produce the record of the proceeding of the panel which is in their custody to justify their actions complained of. The DW2 admitted that it was not to his knowledge that any written complaint, against the claimant was tendered during the proceedings of the panel. The learned SAN, counsel for the Claimant then submitted that a fair hearing within the context of this case must consist of: (i) The written complaint against the claimant; (ii) Evidence of service of the complaint on the claimant within due time to enable him react to it before the sitting of the panel; (iii) Due opportunity for him to cross — examine his accusers; and (iv) Opportunity for him to defend himself either by himself or with the assistance of Counsel of his choice. He referred to the case of GARBA VS. UNIVERSITY OF MAIDUGURI (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt18) 550 at 618D, OBOT VS. B.N. [1993] 8 NWLR (Pt 310) 140 at 161 C — H and 165 C. To counsel these safeguards do not exist in this case. The failure by the defendants to tender the record of the proceedings constitutes withholding of evidence because if the evidence had been tendered, it would have weighed against them. Learned SAN cited the case of AWOSILE VS. SOTUMBO [1986] 3 NWLR (Pt 29) 471. A denial of fair hearing renders the proceedings in which it occurred void, referring to OKAFOR VS. A-G ANAMBRA, STATE [1991] 6 NWLR (Pt. 200) 59 at 678 F—G, ENIGWE VS. AKAIGWE [1992] 2 NWLR (Pt. 225) 505 or [1992] Vol. 1 NSCC 303. He thus submitted that the proceedings of the Visitation Panel as it affects the claimant is void and urged the Court to decide this issue against the defendants. On issue number four the learned SAN adopted all the submissions already made in this Address for this issue. He added that the reliefs claimed by the claimant in this suit are set out in paragraph 25 of his statement of claim. The power to exercise disciplinary control over the staff of the 1st defendant is statutorily vested in the Council of the defendant. The power was never vested in the Governor. The action complained of in this suit is the action of the Governor and his Visitation Panel. It constitutes an infraction upon the affairs of the 1st defendant which has violated the rights of the claimant under Section 36 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and the African Charter on Human Rights. Reference was me to KNIGHT FRANK & RUTLEY NIG) VS. A-G KANO STATE [1998] 7 NWLR (Pt. 556) 1 at 19. Counsel stated that paragraphs 25(1) & (2) of the statement of claim seek a declaration which protects these rights of the claimant. That paragraphs 25(3) & (4) of the Statement of Claim seeks reliefs which are consequential upon the declarations in paragraph 25(1). On the power of the Court to declare contested rights learned SAN referred to OLORUNTOBA — OJU VS. DOPAMU [2008] 7 NWLR (Pt.1085) 1 at 36. That the relief sought in paragraph 25(5), is injunctive and it is necessary to enforce and to protect the reliefs sought in paragraph 25(1) to (4). The claimant has suffered damage arising from the unlawful actions of the defendants. He has been subjected to disgrace, odium and emotional stress arising from the indictment and condemnation conveyed in the White Paper to the public. The only means by which the Court compensates such suffering is by award of damages which in this case is general in nature. The claimant has suffered the cost of this litigation including out of pocket expenses, travel and accommodation cost for himself and his Counsel from Owerri to Enugu. The Learned SAN submitted that the amount claimed by the claimant is most modest and fair. He therefore prayed that the sum claimed be decreed and awarded. He also urged that this last issue be decided in favour of the claimant. Concluding his submissions, the learned SAN submitted that the defendants be condemned terms of the reliefs sought. The reasons for so urging are that: (a) The setting up of the Visitation Panel against the claimant by the Governor of Imo State is void because it is not enabled by statute; (b) The decisions set out in the White Paper complained of in this suit resulted from the proceedings of that panel; (c) The Claimant was not accorded a fair hearing in the proceedings of that Panel; (d) The decisions set out in the White Paper against the claimant are ultra vires the defendants. While going over the case after the conclusion of trial, the court felt the need for the parties to address it on whether or not it has the jurisdiction to hear and determine this matter as it is presently constituted. The Claimant and 1st Defendant each filed written addresses accordingly. The parties adopted their respective written addresses. In the written address, the learned SAN, counsel for the Claimant stated that this Suit was instituted by the claimant vide a Complaint dated 27th September, 2011. The reliefs sought are set out in paragraph 25(1) to (6) of the statement of claim. At the end of exchange of pleadings the issues that were distilled and set out for determination between the parties are that: (i) The employment of the claimant by the 1st defendant as the Registrar is regulated by statute and is pensionable. The statutes relied upon by the claimant are variously set out in paragraph 3(i) to (v) and of the statement of claim but the current statute being the Imo State Polytechnic Law, 2007. (ii) The Governor of Imo State inaugurated a visitation panel into the affairs of the 1st defendant from May, 2005 to May 2009. (iii) As a result of the recommendation of the panel the government of Imo State issued a white paper which in its pages 23 and 27 pronounced decision against the claimant to the effect that: (a) The claimant should refund the sum of N4,490,000.00 (Four Million, Four Hundred and Ninety Thousand Naira) being the cost of grading access road to new site and Otamiri River which was Purported to have been paid twice. (b) The claimant should not be allowed to hold any public office in the state again. Learned counsel then formulated a sole issue for determination which is whether this court has jurisdiction to entertain this Suit. Arguing this issue he submitted that this Court is fully clothed with jurisdiction to look into this matter and determine same. That by the provisions of Section 245A (i) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended):- 254A (i) There shall be a National Industrial Court of Nigeria. The National Industrial Court shall consist of: (a) President of the National Industrial Court as may be prescribed by an Act of the National Assembly. (b) Such number of Judges of National Industrial Court as may be Prescribed by an Act of the National Assembly. That the Constitution goes to clearly enunciate and define the limits of the Court. Thus Section 254C of the same 1999 constitution as amended says thus: 254(i) Notwithstanding the provisions of Sections 251, 252 and 257 and anything contained in this constitution and in addition to such other jurisdictions as may be conferred upon it by an Act of the National Assembly, the National Industrial Court shall have and exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other court in civil causes and matters:- (a) Relating to or connected with any labour, employment, trade Unions, Industrial relations and matters arising from WORKPLACE (emphasis counsel’s), the conditions of service, including health, safety, welfare of labour, employee, worker and matters incidental thereto or connected therewith; 254D (i) for the purpose of exercising any jurisdiction conferred upon it by this constitution or as may be conferred by an Act of the National Assembly, the National Industrial Court shall have all the powers of a High Court. Counsel then posited that from the above cited provisions it is very clear that the main object of the Court is to address labour and related issues. As it is in the instant case, every other issue or question of law in this Suit has its very foundations steeped in a labour issue. The fact that the claimant has a dispute with the employer, the 1st defendant on record and the fact that the 2nd defendant on record is a necessary and interested party, the National Industrial Court has been vested with all the powers of High Court. It is a well known fact that the High Court has the powers to make declarations, injunction, orders restrictions and ancillary and incidental reliefs. It is a necessary implication that once it touches on a matter that the National Industrial Court has jurisdiction of a High Court pursuant to the exercise of that jurisdiction, it can exercise all the powers. Every other issue flowing therefrom is necessarily incidental to the employer/employee relationship that existed between the claimant and the 1st defendant on record. Concluding he submitted that the Court is eminently vested with jurisdiction from the constitutional provisions cited above and therefore proper to assume same and he urged the court to so hold. On his own part learned counsel for the 1st Respondent submitted in his written address dated 15th January 2013 but filed on 28th of January 2013 that the Court has the jurisdiction to hear and determine this suit. The 2nd defendant did not file any written address. Learned counsel to the parties adopted their respective written addresses. In considering this case for judgment the court must first of all consider the issue of jurisdiction which it asked the parties to address it upon before proceeding to consider the main judgment if indeed it has the jurisdiction to hear and determine the suit as it is presently constituted. The only question for determination is whether or not this Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the subject matter of this suit. One of the established guidelines for determining a court’s jurisdiction is that the subject matter of the suit falls within the jurisdiction of the court. See C.B.N. vs S.A.P. Nig Ltd (2005) 3 NWLR (Pt. 911) p. 152 Ratio 2; Madukolu vs Nkemdilim (1962) 2 SCNLR 341; Ajao vs Obele (2005) 5 NWLR (Pt. 918) 400 at pp. 414-415 paras H-C Ratio 11 and Sken Consult vs Ukey (1981) 1 SC 6. Furthermore, in determining the said subject matter jurisdiction, the Court is enjoined to only consider the writ of summons and statement of claim of the claimant. See Governor of Kwara State vs Lafiagi (2005) 5 NWLR (Pt. 917) 139 at 151. In the instant case, the claimant has set out his claims and reliefs in his statement of claim. In his principal claim the Claimant is challenging the power of the Imo State Governor to set up a Visitation Panel to the 1st Defendant, in consequence of which he is asking the court to nullify the decisions of the said Visitation Panel concerning the Claimant. In a nutshell that summarizes the main claim and reliefs of the Claimant. There is also an ancillary claim and relief which relates to the payment by the defendants to the Claimant of all his retirement benefits, entitlements and allowances due to him as a retired Registrar of Imo State Polytechnic, the 1st Defendant. See paragraph 25 sub-paragraph 4 of the Statement of claim. From the submissions of the learned Claimant’s counsel this court has the jurisdiction to entertain the subject matter of this suit by virtue of sections 254C (1) (a) and Section 254D(i) of the Constitution of the Federal republic of Nigeria, 1999, which provide as follows: 254C (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 251, 257, 272 and anything contained in this Constitution and in addition to such other jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by an Act of the National Assembly, the National Industrial Court shall have and exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other court in civil causes and matters- (a) relating to or connected with any labour, employment, trade Unions, Industrial relations and matters arising from WORKPLACE (emphasis counsel’s), the conditions of service, including health, safety, welfare of labour, employee, worker and matters incidental thereto or connected therewith; 254D (i) for the purpose of exercising any jurisdiction conferred upon it by this constitution or as may be conferred by an Act of the National Assembly, the National Industrial Court shall have all the powers of a High Court. From the provisions of section 254C (1) (a) cited above, the learned SAN, counsel for the Claimant laid emphasis on matters arising from ‘workplace’ to submit that the subject matter of this suit falls within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court. He added the powers of the Court in relation to the powers of a High to submit further that this Court can entertain the suit and determine same just like a High Court. What the learned SAN, counsel for the Claimant has not done in my humble view is to show the Court how the issue of determining the power of the Imo State Governor to constitute a Visitation Panel to a tertiary institution set up by the state to enquire into the affairs of the said institution is indeed about a labour, employment or industrial relations and a matter arising out of work place. This becomes more particularly critical because the claimant as an individual who sued the 1st defendant is not anywhere in his claims challenging any decision relating to his employment which arose as a result of the Visitation Panel Report. From my humble understanding of the reliefs sought by the claimant and also the issues as distilled for consideration according to the claimant, he is complaining against the decisions arrived at by the Visitation Panel that said he should refund monies and also not to be appointed into any public office in the state again. Furthermore, the employment relationship in existence is between the Claimant and the 1st Defendant and between the Claimant and the Governor who instituted the alleged visitation panel. Therefore what the claimant is asking the Court to do is do determine the powers of the Governor of Imo State in relation to the 1st defendant in terms of how it is run or governed, irrespective of the employment relationship between it and the claimant. There is also no question for determination on the existing employment rights of the claimant which have been affected by the Visitation Panel’s report upon which he has made any claims before the court which directly flow from the results of the Visitation exercise which the claimant wants this court to hear and determine. A careful perusal of the reliefs shows that it is sub-relief 4 of paragraph 25 of the Statement of Claim that relates to the payment of claimant’s retirement benefits, entitlements and allowances due to him as a retired Registrar of Imo State Polytechnic, the 1st defendant. However, even this relief stands on its own as it is not tied to any of the other reliefs being sought by the claimant. The Court, being a creature of statute must satisfy itself that the statute, the 1999 Constitution in this case, has expressly and without any doubt given it the jurisdiction to entertain the dispute before it, prior to proceeding to hear and determine the suit. See the case of African Newspapers & Ors vs Federal Republic of Nigeria (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 6) p. 137. Eghareva vs Eribo (2010) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1199) 411 SC. Therefore, from my consideration of the circumstances of this case, especially the statement of claim, the reliefs and the provisions of the jurisdiction of the Court in the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended, I hereby hold that this court does not have the jurisdiction to entertain this suit as it is presently constituted, except relief 4 of the paragraph 25 of the Statement of claim. The court shall accordingly consider this relief. The said relief is for an order on the defendants to pay the claimant all his retirement benefits, entitlements and allowances due to him as a Retired Registrar of Imo State Polytechnic, the 1st defendant. In his pleading, the claimant has stated that ‘ the acts of the defendants complained of have withheld the payment of claimant’s gratuity unlawfully’. See Paragragh24 of the statement of claim. Also, in his evidence as contained in his written statement on oath, the claimants stated that the defendant have withheld the payment of his gratuity unlawfully. In their evidence, both the 1st and 2nd defendants through their respective witnesses, DW1 and DW2, admitted the non-payment of the gratuity of the claimant, placing the responsibility on the Imo State Government to provide for the funds first, before the said gratuity is paid. From the evidence of both sides of the scale, it does seem clear that there is no dispute over the non-payment of the gratuity to the claimant and the defendants have accepted the liability to pay, for which this Court must make the appropriate order for each payment. The defendants, having admitted that they have a duty to pay same but are only waiting for funds, no further proof is required, as facts admitted need not be proofed again. See OLOFU V ITODO (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1225) 545 SC.; EHINIAWO V OKE (2008) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1113) 357; AKANINWO V NSIRM & ORS (2008) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1093) 439, (2008) 1 SC Pt. III 151. Thus, the claimant is entitled to the payment of his gratuity and all the allowance due to him. The Court hereby orders the defendants to jointly and severally pay to the claimant all his retirement benefits, entitlements and allowances due to him as a Retired Registrar of Imo State Polytechnic. In the circumstance therefore, the suit of the claimant succeeds in part in respect of the claim and relief for retirement benefits and entitlements while it fails in respect of the other claims and reliefs for lack of jurisdiction. In consequence therefore, the claims and reliefs not respecting the retirement benefits are all hereby struck out. I make no order as to costs. Judgment is entered accordingly. Hon. Justice A. Ibrahim Presiding Judge