Download PDF
By an Originating Summons dated the 7th day of January 2013 and filed on the 18th day of March 2013, the Claimant seeks the determination of the following questions of law and undisputed facts: 1. Whether upon the construction of Section 169 of the Evidence Act, 2011, and exhibits 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20, being documents exhibited to the Claimant’s affidavit in support of the originating summons, the Defendant are not estopped from dismissing the Claimant from his employment as Senior Technologist II, Department of Microbiology in the 3rd Defendant University, the Defendants having by their act(s) and conduct caused the Claimant to believe in a state of affairs to wit that he (the Claimant) has been re-instated to his position as Senior Technologist II, Department of Microbiology in the 3rd Defendant University, consequent upon which he (the Claimant) withdrew his Suit No. HOW/181/2010, filed against the Defendants in the High Court of Imo State. 2. Whether upon the construction of section 17(3) of the Imo State University Law No. 5 of 2004, Regulations 14 and 27 of the Imo State University, Owerri, Regulations Governing The Conditions of Service of Senior Staff, 1995 and section 36(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), the 7th Defendant or any of the Defendants has powers to dismiss the Claimant from his employment as Senior Technologist II, Department of Microbiology in the 3rd Defendant University without due compliance with the statutory provisions guiding the Claimant’s employment with the 3rd Defendant University. Upon the determination of the above stated questions, the Claimant seeks the following reliefs from the Honourable Court, to wit: a. A Declaration by the Honourable Court that the Defendants cannot renege from their agreement with the Claimant as contained in the letter dated the 28th day of May, 2012, the Defendants having by their act(s) and conduct caused the Claimant to believe in a state of affairs created by the said agreement to wit: that he (the Claimant) having discontinued his action in Suit No. HOW/181/2010, filed against the defendants in the High Court of Imo State, has been reinstated to his position as Senior Technologist II, Department of Microbiology in the Imo State University, Owerri. b. A Declaration by the Honourable Court that the purported dismissal of the Claimant from his employment as Senior Technologist II in the Department of Microbiology in the 3rd Defendant University, as contained in the purported letter of dismissal of the Claimant’s employment dated the 8th day of October, 2012, and signed by the 7th Defendant (Barr. Ifeanyi G. Aniche, Registrar of Imo State University), is unlawful, illegal, irresponsible, void and in utter violation of the statute(s) and regulation(s) guiding the Claimant’s contract of employment with the 3rd Defendant University. c. A Declaration by the Honourable Court that the purported dismissal of the Claimant from the employment as Senior Technologist II in the Department of Microbiology in the 3rd Defendant University, as contained in the purported letter of dismissal dated the 8th day of October, 2012, and signed by the 7th Defendant (Barr. Ifeanyi G. Aniche, Registrar of the 3rd Defendant University), is unlawful , illegal, irresponsible, void and in utter violation of the Claimant’s constitutional right to fair hearing, the Claimant having been purportedly dismissed from his employment as Senior Technologist II in the Department of Microbiology in the 3rd Defendant University without giving him an opportunity to be heard. d. A Declaration by the Honourable Court that the Claimant’s employment as Senior Technologist II in the Department of Microbiology in the 3rd Defendant University, subsists. e. An order of the Honourable Court setting aside the purported dismissal of the Claimant from his employment as Senior Technologist II in the Department of Microbiology in the 3rd Defendant University as contained in the purported letter of dismissal of the Claimant from his employment, which letter is dated the 8th day of October 2012, and signed by the 7th Defendant (Barr. Ifeanyi G. Aniche, Registrar of the 3rd Defendant University). f. An order of the Honourable Court compelling the Defendants to re-instate the Claimant forthwith to his position as Senior Technologist II in the Department of Microbiology in the 3rd Defendant University. g. An order of the Honourable Court compelling the Defendants to pay to the Claimant all outstanding wages, salaries, allowances and other emoluments accruing to the Claimant from the month of June, 2009, until the determination of the suit. h. An order of injunction restraining the Defendants from further removing the Claimant from his employment as Senior Technologist II in the Department of Microbiology in the 3rd Defendant University, and/or dealing, and/or interfering with the Claimant’s employment as Senior Technologist II in the Department of Microbiology in the 3rd Defendant University in any manner inconsistent with the Statute(s) and other Conditions of Service regulating the Claimant’s employment with the said 3rd Defendant University. i. An order of the Honourable Court compelling the Defendants to promote and place the Claimant on the same grade level with his colleagues who have been in service and on which grade level he (the Claimant) would have been but for the purported termination of his appointment. The Originating Summons is supported by a 36 paragraph affidavit deposed to by the Claimant himself. Also accompanying it is a written address and 22 exhibits. In reaction, the defendants have filed a 24 paragraph counter affidavit and a written address. In his written Address, Counsel to the Claimant, relying on all the paragraphs of the affidavit, called upon the court to look into the questions of law and undisputed facts calling for determination in this originating summons. He relied on all the 22 documents exhibited to the affidavit as items of evidence (See Owoi vs. Wilson (2006) All FWLR (Pt. 320) Pg. 1155 @ 1170, paragraphs C-D) in support of the originating summons. Counsel to the Claimant in his written address, gave a summary of facts as follows: The Claimant was first offered temporary employment as a Laboratory Technologist the 20th day of December 2005, which appointment was confirmed on the 5th day of May, 2009. The claimant was Senior Technologist II in the Department of Microbiology in the 3rd Defendant University as at the time of his purported dismissal from his employment with the 3rd defendant university. The 1st Defendant, on the 16th day of April, 2008, set up a ten-man visitation panel to look into the affairs of the 3rd Defendant University from the year 2004. The panel called for memoranda, and several persons, particularly past and present members of the 3rd Defendant University community, submitted memoranda to the panel who published a Government white paper at the conclusion of its assignment. Shortly afterwards, by a letter dated 15th July 2009 and signed by one A. N. Igbojekwe on behalf of the Secretary to Council, the Claimant was dismissed from the service of the 3rd defendant. The Claimant challenged his dismissal by filing an action against the Defendants in the High Court of Imo State in Suit No. HOW/181/2010. Whilst proceedings were pending in the High Court, a meeting was convened between the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants and principal officers of the 3rd defendant, including the Claimant and others who had filed similar suits in the High Court challenging their dismissal. The said meeting and subsequent ones held, had to do with the recommendations as contained in the White Paper. After series of meetings, the 2nd Defendant, acting for the Government of Imo State, directed the Secretary to the Government of Imo State to rescind the implementation of the White Paper. Consequently, the secretary to the Imo State Government wrote a letter to the 4th Defendant, informing him that the Government of Imo State directed that he (the 4th Defendant) recall the Claimant and other members of staff of the 3rd Defendant whose appointments were terminated and those dismissed from service following the publication of the white paper. The Claimant was recalled and re-instated to his position as Senior Technologist II in the Department of Microbiology of the 3rd Defendant University, and the Claimant’s purported dismissal from the services of the 3rd Defendant University rescinded. On account of his recall, the Claimant discontinued the suit he had filed against the Defendants in the High Court. He resumed duties as Senior Technologist II in the 3rd Defendant University, and even earned his salaries for four months. Surprisingly, on the 8th day of October, 2012, the 3rd Defendant University through the 7th Defendant wrote another letter to the Claimant informing him that the Government of Imo State had again dismissed him from service. Throughout the Claimant’s career as Senior Technologist II in the 3rd Defendant University, he was never reprimanded or subjected to any disciplinary action neither was he given any notice of any misconduct on his part, or any failure or inability to perform his duties as Senior Technologist II. The Claimant was neither heard nor given any opportunity to be heard before his purported dismissal on the 8th day of October, 2012 which he avers did not follow due process. This prompted him to instruct his counsel, Naths Epelle Esq. to issue for service on the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and the 7th Defendants, one calendar month’s notice of his intention to sue the Defendants, and thereafter filed this suit on the 18th day of March 2013. In asking the court to determine the two questions of law and undisputed facts earlier stated, the Claimant’s Counsel formulated two (2) issues for determination. In arguing ISSUE ONE, it is the contention of the Claimant that none of the defendants can dismiss him from his position as Senior Technologist II, having regard to Exhibits 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 and the provisions of Section 169 of the Evidence Act 2011 which provides as follows: 169. When one person has either by virtue of an existing court judgment, deed or agreement, or by his declaration, act or omission, intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon such belief, neither he or his representative in interest shall be allowed, in any proceedings between himself and such person or such person’s representative in interest, to deny the truth of that thing. It is his submission that the defendants had by exhibit 13 reinstated the Claimant to his position as Senior Technologist II on the 28th day of May 2012, thereby causing him to alter his position by discontinuing his suit No HOW/181/2010 from the Owerri High Court on the 18th day of May 2012. By exhibits 10 to 20, the Defendants caused the Claimant to believe that he had been reinstated to his position in 3rd Defendant University. The Claimant thus discontinued the suit he had instituted against the Defendants in the High Court of Imo State, in the belief that he had been reinstated to his position. The question Claimant raised was whether the Defendants can turn around to dismiss the Claimant from his employment, having led him to alter his position by discontinuing his suit against the Defendants. He said it is not disputed that the Defendants, in their relationship with the Claimant, acted intentionally in such a manner that the Claimant accepted their representation to be true and believed that the representation was meant to be acted upon and he (the Claimant) did act upon the representation as true, when he discontinued his Suit No. HOW/181/2010 as directed by the Defendants. When there is an intentional representation that had been acted upon by the other party, the first party will be estopped from denying the existence of the state of affairs. He said in situations like this, the doctrine of estoppel will not only frown at such act or conduct proceeding from the Defendants, but will also resist any act or conduct by the Defendants to contest the truth of such representation, having regard to the fact that the Defendants led the Claimant to alter his position. He relied on the case of UDE vs. OSUJI (1998) 10 SCNJ 75, 82, ONAMADE vs. ACB (1997) 1 SCNJ 65@ 83. See also BANK OF THE NORTH LTD vs. NA’BATURE (1994) 1 NWLR Pt. 319, 235. See also FORTUNE INT’L BANK PLC vs. CITY EXP. BANK LTD (2012) 14 NWLR Pt. 13, 19, 86, 114-115 G-H, and submitted that the doctrine of estoppel prevents one party from taking unfair advantage of another, when by his act or conduct, the person to be estopped has induced another person to act in a certain way with the result that that other person has been injured. AG RIVERS STATE vs. AG AKWA IBOM STATE (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1248) 31. He relied further on the case of AG NASSARAWA STATE vs. AG PLATEAU STATE (2012) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1309) Pg. 419@470. Para. C-E, where the Supreme Court in considering the doctrine of estoppel by conduct stated thus: “The doctrine of estoppel by conduct, though a common law principle has been enacted into Nigeria body of laws particularly the law of evidence. By virtue of section 151 of the Evidence Act, where one person has by his declaration, act or omission intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon such belief, neither he nor his representative in interest shall be allowed in any proceedings between himself and such person or such person’s representative in interest to deny the truth of that thing. Estoppel by conduct, a common law principle has gained statutory acceptance in Nigeria. It forbids a person from leading his opponent from believing in and acting upon a state of affairs only for the former to turn around and disclaim his act or omission.” (It is noted that Section 151 of the Evidence Act, 2004, is in pari materia with the provision of section 169 of the Evidence Act 2011). In urging the court to resolve issue one in favour of the Claimant, Counsel concluded by stating that the doctrine of estoppel forbids the Defendants from leading the Claimant from believing in, and acting upon a state of affairs to wit: that he has been reinstated to his position as Senior Technologist II in the Department of Microbiology in the 3rd Defendant University only for the Defendants to turn around and disclaim their act or omission. See ODU’A INVESTMENT CO. LTD. vs. TALABI (1991) 1 NWLR (Pt. 170) 761. In arguing ISSUE TWO, Counsel to the Claimant submitted that Public employment or any employment clothed with statutory flavor being protected by statute is clearly outside the scope of master and servant relationship. The employee in such employment (public employment or an employment with statutory flavor) does not hold his office at the pleasure of the government (State or Federal) or any other person(s) such as the Defendant(s). The 3rd and 5th Defendants being creatures of statue can only act within the scope or ambits of the relevant statutory provisions creating them such as Imo State University Law No.5 of 2004 (exhibit 19) and Imo State University, Owerri, Regulations Governing the Conditions of Service of Senior Staff (exhibit 20), the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and other relevant statutes. Emphasizing on the duty placed on statutory institutions to comply with statutory provisions in relation to the interest of their employees, counsel cited the case of AKINYANJU vs. UNIVERSITY OF ILORIN (2011) ALL FWLR Pt. 569, 1080, 1147-1148, A-G, where it was held that: “Any procedure for removal of an employee outside the scope of the Act will be illegal, null and void. In all the institutions set up by statute, it is incumbent that the statutory provisions be adhered to when it comes to removal of its officers from office because the institutions owe their existence to their statute and must abide by the statutory provisions governing them.” Section 17(3) of the Imo State University Law, No. 5 of 2004, Regulations 14 and 27 of the Imo State University, Owerri Regulations, Counsel stated, are the statutory provisions germane to the Claimant’s case, and they were not considered by the 3rd Defendant University and/or the Government of Imo State before purportedly dismissing the Claimant from his employment; and that these provisions derive their force from section 36(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) which provides thus: “(1) In the determination of his civil rights and obligations including any question or determination by or against any government or authority, a person shall be entitled to a fair hearing within a reasonable time by a court or other tribunal established by law and constituted in such manner as to secure its independence and impartiality.” Counsel submitted that the Claimant has every right to be heard before being dismissed from the services of the 3rd Defendant University but he was neither heard nor given any opportunity to be heard. He further submitted that any procedure adopted in purportedly dismissing the Claimant from the 3rd Defendant University, outside the scope of exhibits 19 and 20 herein, will be illegal, null and void. The 3rd Defendant University having been set up by statute, it is mandatory that the statutory provisions be adhered to, when it comes to removing/dismissing its officers from office because the 3rd Defendant University owes its existence to the statute creating it, and must abide by the statutory provisions governing it. See A-G KWARA STATE vs. ABOLAJI (2009) 7 NWLR Pt. 1139, 199, 220 F-H. See also the case of OGUNDOYIN vs. ADEYEMI (2001) FWLR Pt. 71, 1741, 1754, where the Supreme Court of Nigeria stated that the rule of fair hearing is not a technical doctrine. The question is not whether injustice has been done because of lack of fair hearing. It is whether a party entitled to be heard before deciding the case against him, has in fact been given an opportunity to be heard. At paragraph 29A of the affidavit in support of the originating summons, the Claimant stated that he was neither heard nor given an opportunity to be heard before he was dismissed from service. Counsel concluded by urging the court to grant the Claimant’s reliefs, and referred the court to the case of OLANIYAN vs. THE UNIVERSITY OF LAGOS (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 9) Pg. 599, wherein the Appellants, University Professors, had their appointments terminated without due consideration given to the provision of Section 17(1) of the University of Lagos Act, 1967, which provision is in pari material with the provision of Section 17(3) of the Imo State University Law, No. 5 of 2004. The Supreme Court of Nigeria in considering the appeal emanating therefrom held that the Respondents therein (University of Lagos) had no powers to remove the said Professors from their respective positions without due compliance with the provision of Section 17(1) of the University of Lagos Act, 1967. In opposition to the originating summons, the defence filed a 24 paragraph counter affidavit deposed to by one Anthony Mbadinuju, a civil servant. Attached are two exhibits and a written address wherein Counsel to the defendants argued that the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the suit. He contended that the Claimant in this suit had earlier on filed the same action at the Imo State High Court Owerri in suit No HOW/181/2010, which was struck out based on terms of settlement of the parties predicated on reinstatement of the plaintiff. That the order of the High Court in the consent judgment so delivered, is binding on the parties like any other lawful judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction. To the defence, the striking out of the suit at the High Court case amounted to a decision or a judgment of the High Court which can only be set aside on appeal. That filing this Originating summons amounts to re-litigating the same suit which he said is the same with this case in all material content, therefore amounting to an abuse of court process. He said the Defendants have already complied with the order of the High Court by re-instating the Claimant to his position as Senior Technologist II; and that any disobedience of the order of court would amount to contempt of court, warranting committal proceedings, and not re-litigating a fresh suit. On the issue of lack of fair hearing or departure from the Imo State University Law No 5 of 2004 and the Imo State University Regulations governing the Conditions of service of senior staff as well as the constitutional right to fair hearing, it is the submission of the defence that the Claimant was availed sufficient opportunity to defend himself against the allegation bordering on various acts of gross misconduct. The Claimant was said to have submitted a memorandum to the visitation panel set up to sanitize or cleanse the University; that the Claimant appeared and duly testified before the visitation panel. He also answered questions put to him in the course of his testimony before the panel. In the light of the foregoing, it is Counsel’s submission that the Claimant was given fair hearing. His dismissal was therefore in accordance with the provisions of the Imo State University Law No 5 of 2004. The Claimant, in response to the 1st and 2nd Defendants’ counsel’s objection to the originating summons, filed a further affidavit of 13 paragraphs and a written address where it was argued that the order of the Honourable High Court of Imo State, made on Friday, the 18th day of May, 2012, is predicated on a discontinuance which the High Court rules clearly states that it shall not be a defence to any subsequent claim. Counsel stated that the said order of the High Court of Imo State, striking out the Claimant’s Suit No. HOW/181/2010 did not impose any terms on the Claimant as a condition before commencing any further proceeding; and that there is no consent judgment in Suit No. HOW/181/2010. That the parties in Suit No. HOW/181/2010, did not file any process tending to show that they (the parties) entered into any consent judgment, and the court did not adopt any materials purporting to be terms of any consent judgment. A major feature of consent judgment is that the terms of the said consent judgment which must be filed in court shall form the basis of the court’s judgment in the suit. See VULCAN GASES LTD. vs. OKUNOLA (1993) 2 NWLR Pt. 274, 139; TAIYE OSHOBOJA vs. AMUDA (1992) 6 NWLR Pt 250, 690. He further submitted that the order or the Honourable High Court of Imo State, made on Friday, the 18th day of May 2012 striking out Suit No. HOW/181/2010 is not and cannot be construed to be a consent judgment. The order of the High Court of Imo State made on Friday the 18th day of May 2012 did not decide the rights of the parties, and the Claimant is liberty to commence these proceedings. It is further submitted that an order striking out a suit without more, is an interlocutory order. This is so because the order having not decided the rights of the parties with finality, the suit which was struck out is capable of being re-instated/relisted. See ALOR vs. NGENE (2007) ALL FWLR Pt. 363, 183 S.C. In essence, he said, an order of court striking out a suit does not preclude a claimant from filing a fresh suit in the stead of the one struck out. He said where an action is discontinued with leave of court, if the order made is one striking out the suit, the action may be commenced afresh. If however the consequential order is dismissal of the action, there is a bar to bringing a fresh action. See Civil Procedure in Nigeria, Second Edition, by Fidelis Nwadialo at page 498. In Suit No. HOW/181/2010, the consequential order made by the Honourable Court on Friday, the 18th day of May, 2012, is an order striking out the action and not one dismissing it; therefore it was not a final order. Counsel in urging the court to dismiss the objection filed by the 1st and 2nd defendants, submitted, referring the court to the case of AMAEFULE vs. THE STATE (1988) NWLR Pt. 75, 156, 177, that no abuse of court process has been occasioned. I have heard Counsel on both sides and considered their arguments, averments and exhibits, and I have formulated only one issue for determination, that is: “Whether the facts of the case brings it within the ambit of cases triable under the Originating Summons procedure.” Onnoghen JSC has held in the case of Dapianlong & 5 Ors. v. Dariye & Anor. (2007) 4 S.C. (Pt. III) 118 at 167-168, Lines 30-20 (SC) that: "The Originating Summons procedure is a means of commencement of action adopted in cases where the facts are not in dispute or there is no likelihood of their being in dispute and when the sole or principal question in issue is or is likely to be one directed at the construction of a written law, Constitution or any instrument or of any deed, will, contract or other document or other question of law or in a circumstance where there is likely to be any dispute as to the facts. In general terms, it is used for non-contentious actions or matters i.e. those actions where facts are not likely to be in dispute.” Alagoa JCA has held in the case of DOCTOR AKINOLA E. OMOJOLA vs. DADA OYATE (2007) LPELR-8359(CA) that: “Allegations of criminality or illegality certainly do not fall under actions within the contemplation or purview of the originating summons procedure." In P.D.P. vs. Abubakar (2007) Vol. 41 WRN 61 at 94, lines. 20 - 30 (CA) the Court of Appeal held that “Originating summons procedure is appropriate where there is no substantial dispute of facts between the parties, or likelihood of such dispute. The respondents in his claim asked the court to determine whether there was a breach of fair hearing by the appellants and further prayed the court to make declaratory reliefs - based on conflicting affidavit evidence before the court, these cannot be resolved without settlement of pleadings - recourse to the use of originating summons is obviously inappropriate in the circumstance. Olumide v. Ajayi (1997) 9 NWLR (Pt. 517) page 433, Unilag v. Aigoro (1991) 3 NWLR (Pt. 179) page 376, Adeyemo v. Beyioku (1999) 13 NWLR (Pt. 635) page 472." Per Adekeye, JCA. Indeed, the case of ADEBAYO & ORS. v. PDP & ORS. (2012) LPELR-8430(CA) is instructive as regards the circumstances where originating summons should be applicable: "Originating Summons should only be applicable in such circumstances as where there is no dispute on questions of facts (even) the likelihood of such dispute. Originating Summons is reserved for issues like the determination of short questions of construction and not matters of such controversy that the justice of the case would demand the settling of pleadings." “It would therefore appear that where a claim is purely for interpretation of statutes, deeds, documents like the Constitution of the PDP; guidelines for primary election of the PDP and other documents as tendered by the parties; which do not entail hostile disputes as to facts, then the Originating Summons procedure is ideal." Per AGUBE J.C.A (P 71, Paras C-G). From the bundle of affidavit evidence before the court, it is clear that the reliefs sought by the claimants have raised disputes or indeed, real issues of fact that are determinable only when the totality of the case is placed before the court by way of pleadings of the parties. Where the disputed facts are substantial as in the present case, the proper mode of commencing such action is by writ of summons so that pleadings can be filed and exchanged to determine the issues in controversy between the parties. See P.D.P. vs. Abubakar (2007) Vol. 41 WRN 61 at 88, lines. 20 - 25 (CA). This court has a sacred duty to ascertain the historical truth of what transpired and eventually led to the dismissal of the Claimant from service. The brief facts of the case as gathered from the affidavit evidence before the court are as follows: The Claimant was first offered temporary employment as a Laboratory Technologist the 20th day of December 2005, which appointment was confirmed on the 5th day of May, 2009. The 1st Defendant, on the 16th day of April, 2008, set up a ten-man visitation panel to look into the affairs of the 3rd Defendant University from the year 2004. The panel called for memoranda, and several persons, particularly past and present members of the 3rd Defendant University community, submitted memoranda to the panel who published a Government white paper at the conclusion of its assignment. Shortly afterwards, by a letter dated 15th July 2009 and signed by one A. N. Igbojekwe on behalf of the Secretary to Council, the Claimant was dismissed from the service of the 3rd defendant. The Claimant challenged his dismissal by filing an action against the Defendants in the High Court of Imo State in Suit No. HOW/181/2010. Whilst proceedings were pending in the High Court, a meeting was convened between the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants and principal officers of the 3rd defendant, including the Claimant and others who had filed similar suits in the High Court challenging their dismissal. The said meeting and subsequent ones held, had to do with the recommendations as contained in the White Paper. After series of meetings, the 2nd Defendant, acting for the Government of Imo State, directed the Secretary to the Government of Imo State to rescind the implementation of the White Paper. Consequently, the secretary to the Imo State Government wrote a letter to the 4th Defendant, informing him that the Government of Imo State directed that he (the 4th Defendant) recall the Claimant and other members of staff of the 3rd Defendant whose appointments were terminated and those dismissed from service following the publication of the white paper. The Claimant was recalled and re-instated to his position as Senior Technologist II in the Department of Microbiology of the 3rd Defendant University, and the Claimant’s purported dismissal from the services of the 3rd Defendant University rescinded. On account of his recall, the Claimant discontinued the suit he had filed the Defendants in the High Court. He resumed duties as Senior Technologist II in the 3rd Defendant University, and even earned his salaries for four months. Surprisingly, on the 8th day of October, 2012, the 3rd Defendant University through the 7th Defendant wrote another letter to the Claimant informing him that the Government of Imo State had again dismissed him from service. The Claimant was neither heard nor given any opportunity to be heard before his purported dismissal on the 8th day of October, 2012 which he avers did not follow due process. This prompted him to instruct his counsel, Naths Epelle Esq. to issue for service on the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and the 7th Defendants, one calendar month’s notice of his intention to sue the Defendants, and thereafter filed this suit on the 18th day of March 2013. It is easily discernable from the various affidavits and counter-affidavits that while the affidavit in support of the originating summons is full of assertion of facts as deposed to by the claimant, the counter affidavits are replete with denials of those state of affairs asserted by the claimant. I am of the view that the contentious issues thrown up by the various affidavits are not immaterial or inconsequential. They are relevant to a just determination of the issues in this case. I am constrained to disagree with the reference to the facts of this case as undisputed facts. The facts contained in the Claimant’s affidavit raise serious issues relating to violation of the Claimant’s right to fair hearing among other serious issues. Worthy of determination is the question as to what exactly was the procedure adopted in dismissing the Claimant? Was the procedure such that guaranteed the Claimant’s right to fair hearing? What was the effect of the discontinuance of the High Court suit? Were there fresh facts warranting the second dismissal? These and many more questions need to be answered, and a proper procedure that will answer these questions to my mind, is one that does not rely solely on affidavit evidence. I do not see how these areas of factual disputations or disagreements can be adequately resolved so as to unearth the truth in the absence of a procedure that allows for pleadings to be filed and exchanged and for witnesses to adduce oral evidence and be cross-examined. It follows that once it is clear or envisaged that there would be substantial or contentious issues of facts as in the case at hand, it would be improper to commence the action by means of originating summons. See Dagazau vs. Bokir Int'l co. Ltd (2011) 14 NWLR (pt. 1267) 126 CA. On the contrary, such proceedings should be initiated by way of ordinary writ of summons, especially as the reliefs sought in the Claimant’s claim will require further facts by way of pleadings; else they would be ordinarily ungrantable under this procedure. Order 3 Rule 5A of the Practice Direction 2012 which provides for the commencement of processes by way of originating summons includes in it a proviso to the effect that “Provided that a suit which raises substantial dispute of facts or where substantial dispute of facts is likely to be involved shall not be commenced by an originating summons, but by complaint as provided for in Rule 4 of this order.” In the case of NIGERIAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS LTD vs. SIMON UGBE (2003) FWLR (Pt. 148) Pg. 1309 @1324, it was held that an action bothering on unlawful dismissal should not be originated with an originating summons, particularly where there is likely to be substantial dispute as to facts as is the case at hand. On the contrary, such proceedings should be initiated by way of ordinary writ of summons. It is my holding therefore that this action was wrongly commenced by means of originating summons. The proper procedure for an action of this nature in this court ought to be by way of Complaint and not by Originating summons. In the case of OSUNBADE vs. OYEWUMI (2007) 18 FWLR (Pt. 368) 1004 @1015, the Supreme Court has given a useful guidance on the proper order to make in this circumstance when it stated thus: “the proper order a trial court should make where it finds that the action before it was wrongly commenced by way of originating summons, is to order pleadings and not to dismiss such action or pronounce on the merit of the case.” On the strength of the Supreme Court decision in OSUNBADE vs. OYEWUMI (Supra), and by virtue of the National Industrial Court Rules 2007, I hereby order the parties herein to file and serve their pleadings. The claimant shall file and serve his statement of facts and other relevant processes within two weeks from today in accordance with the relevant provisions of Order 3 of the Rules of this Court. The defendants shall file and serve their Statement of Defence within two weeks of receiving the Statement of Facts from the Claimant. The case will then proceed to hearing. Parties are to bear their costs. Ruling is entered accordingly. Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe Presiding Judge