Dr. Taiwo Oloruntoba-oju & Ors V. Professor P. A. Dopamu & Ors (2008)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

A. OGUNTADE, J.S.C.

The appellants were the plaintiffs at the Federal high Court, Ilorin where on 07/05/2001, they issued their originating summons against the respondents as the defendants. They sought for the determination of the following questions:

“1. Whether the 4th defendant has the powers under the and by virtue of the provisions of University of Ilorin Act to unilaterally appoint the Dean of any faculty of the University of Ilorin.

2. Whether the 4th Defendant has the powers to unilaterally appoint a Head of Department for any Department ofthe University of Ilorin under the University Act.
3. Whether the 4th defendant has powers to appoint the 1st defendant as the Acting Dean of Faculty of Arts University of Ilorin.
4. Whether the 4th Defendant has the power to unilaterally remove the substantive Dean of Facuity of Arts University of Ilorin PROFESSOR E.E. ADEGBIJA and appoint 1st defendant to act in that position.
5. Whether the appointment of the 1st defendant as the Acting Dean of Faculty of Arts University

of Ilorin by the 4th defendant is not ultra vires.

6. Whether the appointment of the 2nd and 3rd defendants as Acting Heads of Departments of Linguistics and Performing Arts respectively in the faculty of Arts is not ultra vires the power of

the 4th defendant having regard to the provisions of the Unilorin Act.

7. Whether the purported replacement of the Dean Faculty of Arts, 2nd plaintiff as Head of the Department of Performing Arts and 6th plaintiff as Head of Department of Linguistics, with 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants respectively in acting capacity is not tantamount to victimization on political and other grounds and contrary to the laws and the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.
8. Whether the defendants can conduct any valid and/or credible degree examination without the participation and/or moderation of appropriate examiners and whether the 4th defendant can unilaterally remove and replace any examiner of the University.
9. Whether the 4th defendant has the power to ban the plaintiffs and/or instruct/order security officers and agents of the university of Ilorin to prevent the plaintiffs and other members of ASUU from entering the premises of the University ofIlorin and whether such ban is not contrary to the provisions of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.
10. Whether the defendants are entitled to victimize the plaintiff by taking decisions that are be adverse or prejudicial to their appointment with the 6th defendant or participating in a National protest/strike action as directed by their National Executive Council and whether said defendants are not in violation of the statute of the University and the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria by intimidating, harassing and threatening compelling the plaintiffs to abandon their legitimate struggle against oppression/suppression by the 4th defendant. ”

Depending on the answers given by the court to the above questions, the reliefs claimed against the respondents are:

“1. A declaration that the purported appointment of the 1st defendant as the Acting Dean of the Faculty of Arts of University of Ilorin by the 4th defendant by virtue of the letter to that effect addressed to the 1st defendant and signed by the 5th defendant is ultra vires, unconstitutional, illegal, unlawful, null and void and of no effect whatsoever having been made in flagrant violation of the provisions of University of Ilorin Act Cap 455 Laws of the Federation 1999.

2. An order nullifying and setting aside the said purported appointment of the 1st defendant as the Acting Dean of the Faculty of Arts University of Ilorin (6th defendant).
3. A declaration that –

(i) the purported appointment of the 2nd defendant as the Head of Department of Linguistics in the Faculty of Arts of the 6th defendant by the 4th defendant is ultra vires, unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect whatsoever having been in flagrant violation of procedure and provisions of the University of Ilorin Act.

(ii) the 6th plaintiff is at all material times the Head of the said Department.

3. An order setting aside and nullifying the purported appointment of 2nd defendant as the Head of Department of Linguistics in the Faculty of Arts of the 6th defendant.
4. An order compelling the 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th defendants to restore the 6th plaintiff to the position of Head of Department of Linguistics in the Faculty of Arts of the University of Ilorin (6th defendant).
5. A declaration that the purported appointment of the 3rd defendant as Acting Head of Department of the Performing Arts in the Faculty of Arts of the University of Ilorin (6th defendant) by the 4th defendant is ultra vires, null and void and of no effect whatsoever having been made in flagrant violation of the laid down procedure in the University and the provisions of the University of Ilorin Act.
6. An order setting aside and nullifying the purported appointment of the 2nd defendant as the Head of Department of Performing Arts in the Faculty of Arts of the 6th defendant.
7. An order compelling the 4th , 5th , 6th and 7th defendants to reinstate and restore the 2nd plaintiff to the position of the Head of Department of Performing Arts in the Faculty of Arts of the 6th defendant.
8. A declaration that the arrangement or purported conduct by the defendants of degree examination without moderation and/or participation of appropriate examiners (external & internal) as provided for in the statute of the University, that is Unilorin Act is ultra vires, illegal, unlawful, null and void and of no effect whatsoever.
9. A declaration that it is wrongful, unlawful and unconstitutional for the defendants at the instance and/or the instruction of the 4th defendant to prevent the plaintiffs and other members of their Union (ASUU) who they represent from entering the premises or campuses of the University (6th defendant) or restricting and preventing the plaintiffs from using, operating, meeting and generally carrying out their legitimate duties and functions in the ASUU secretariat located within the Mini-campus of the 6th defendant.
10. An order of injunction restraining the 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th defendants whether by themselves or through their agents, privies, officers/officials by whatsoever named called or by any description from disturbing or preventing the plaintiffs and other members of their Union (ASUU) Unilorin Branch from entering the premises (campuses) of the 6th defendant.

(ii) An order of injunction restraining the 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th defendants whether by themselves or through their agents, privies, officers/officials by whatsoever name called from preventing the plaintiff and other members of their Union from entering their offices in the University or from operating, meeting and generally associating and carrying out their duties and functions from the ASUU secretariat located in the mini-campus of the 6th defendant.

12. A declaration that it is wrongful, unlawful and unconstitutional for the defendants to prevent and disturb the plaintiffs and their Union members from entering or gaining access into the campuses of the 6th defendant or from entering their respective offices within the said campuses of the Universities or restricting their movements into and out of the said campuses of the university.
13. An order declaring as void all actions, decisions and steps taken by the 1st, 2nd and 3’d defendants while purported to Act in their respective positions since the time their purported acting appointments were made by the 4th defendant.
14. An order prohibiting/restraining the 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th defendants from taking any decisions or acting in any manner or doing any thing whatsoever that will adversely affect or prejudice the plaintiffs’ appointment/employment with the 6th defendant. ”

In compliance with the requisite procedure the appellants filed a 49 paragraph affidavit in support of their originating summons. They annexed to the said affidavit some documentary exhibits identified as

‘A’ to ‘R’.

The defendants (now respondents) in reaction to the plaintiffs/appellants’ originating summons filed an application wherein they prayed for the following:

“(i) An order of the Honourable Court striking out this suit on the ground of lack of jurisdiction to entertain same and/or