Arch Victor S. Daudu & Ors. V. University of Agriculture, Makurdi & Ors. (2002)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE, J.C.A.

The appellants claimed in their originating summons against the respondents as follows:

(i) A declaration that there is no provision in Decree No. 48 of 1992 as amended by Decree No. 11 of 1993, that permits or allows the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants, their servants or agents to perform or do all or any of the functions/duties of the 4th defendant specified in sections 3 (2), 6, 10, 11, 15 and 16 or any other section of Decree No. 48 of 1992, in the absence of the 4th defendant being duly constituted and or without the approval/delegation of the 4th defendant; and consequently every action or decision taken by the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants which ought to have been taken by the 4th defendant and which were taken by the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants in the absence of the 4th defendant or without the approval or sanction of the 4th defendant between January 1979 – 11th July, 2000 A.D.; were ultra vires null and void and of no effect whatsoever.

(ii) A declaration that there is no provision in Decree No. 48 of the 1992, as amended by Decree No. 11 of 1993, that permits or allows the 5th defendant herein to step into the shoes and assume the role, functions and duties of the 4th defendant as specified in sections 3(2), 6, 10, 11, 15 and 16 or any other section of Decree No. 48 of 1992 when the said 4th defendant is not constituted and in place and consequently every approval purportedly given to the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants the 5th defendant from January 1997 – 11th July, 2000 A.D., on behalf of and or in place of the 4th defendant is ultra vires null, and void and a breach of Decree No. 48 of 1992 as amended.

(iii) An order quashing the warning letters issued to the 1st and 3rd plaintiffs, letters of suspension of the 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs from supervision of the postgraduate students, letters of termination of the appointments of the 4th, 5th, and 6th plaintiffs and the dismissal letters of the 7th – 14th plaintiffs on the grounds that the said warnings, suspension, termination and dismissal were done contrary to and in breach of the provisions of Decree No. 48 of 1992.

(iv) A declaration that the 4th -14th plaintiffs are still in employment of the 1st defendant and are entitled to their salaries, wages, allowances and other benefits accruing thereto from the dates of their purported termination and dismissal until they leave office or removed from office in accordance with the provisions of Decree No. 48 of 1992 as amended.

(v) A declaration that the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants herein cannot create in the 1st defendant, new offices, schools, colleges, departments, units, posts, divisions and redesignating the office of the 1st plaintiff and split same into two, without the approval and sanction of the 4th defendant and consequently every such schools, colleges, departments, unit, offices, post divisions and redesignation of the office of the 1st plaintiff by the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants between January, 1997 11th July, 2000 A.D. is null and void and of no effect whatsoever.

(vi) An order restraining every member of the 4th defendant from ratifying or approving every action done or decision taken by ratifying or approving every action done or decision taken by the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 5th defendants on behalf of or in place of the 4th defendant between January, 1997 – 11th July, 2000 A.D.

The defendants/respondents were served with the originating summons in respect to which motion on notice dated the 19th November, 2000 was filed praying the lower court for the following orders:

(a) An order striking out the names of the 7th -14th plaintiffs from the summons as they have not authorised nor consented to its issuance and are not interested parties;

(b) An order striking out the plaintiffs’ claim on the grounds that the claims are abuse of the process of the court and do not disclose reasonable cause of action as the facts and matters relied upon occurred in all cases more than 3 months before the originating summons was taken out which is statute barred by virtue of section 2(a) Public Officers Protection Act, Cap. 379.

(c) An order striking out the 4th, 7th, 9th, 11th, 13th and 14th plaintiffs from the suit on the ground that the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the matter by virtue of the provisions of section 3(3) Public Officers Protection Act, Cap. 381, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990.

An order that the reliefs sought under the circumstances will be an academic exercise.

(d) And for any other order or further orders as the court may deem fit to make in the circumstances.