Professor S. O. Abdulraheem & Ors. V. Professor B. J. Olufeagba & Ors. (2006)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE, J.C.A.

This is another appeal against the judgment of Hon. Justice P. F. Olayiwola of the Federal High Court, Ilorin delivered on 16/7/05 in favour of the 42 of the plaintiffs in respect of all the heads of their claim.

The plaintiffs/respondents claimed against the defendants/appellants as follows:-

“1. A declaration that the defendants’ letter dated 22nd May, 2001 to the plaintiffs titled “cessation of agreement”, purporting to terminate the plaintiffs’ appointment with the 3rd defendant is ultra-vires, null and void and of no effect whatsoever.

2. A declaration that the plaintiffs are still in the service of the 3rd defendant.
3. A declaration that the defendants are bound to comply with the directive of the Federal Government of Nigeria to re-instate the plaintiffs as contained in the letter of National Universities Commission dated 29th June, 2001 with reference NUC/ES/261 to the Pro-chancellor of the 4th defendant and the 1st defendant.
4. A declaration that the defendants are not entitled to, summarily terminate the plaintiffs’ appointment without complying with the provisions of the University of Ilorin Act, Cap. 455, Laws of the Federation and other related statutes.
5. A declaration that the purported termination of the plaintiffs’ appointment by the defendants under the guise of “cessation of appointment” or under any guise whatsoever is contrary to the provisions of the Pensions Act of Nigeria in that the plaintiffs are permanent am pensionable staffs of the University.
6. A declaration that the contents of any purported letter of appointment or memorandum purportedly signed by the plaintiffs cannot over-ride the provisions of the University of Ilorin Act, Cap. 455, Laws of the Federation, 1990 regarding the nature, tenure and discipline of staff of Unilorin and all other matters connected or pertaining thereto.
7. A declaration that the purported termination of the plaintiffs’ appointment is in the defendants negates the fundamental rights provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.
8. An order setting aside the purported termination of plaintiffs’ appointment and nullifying the defendants’ letters to the plaintiffs in this regard.
9. An order compelling the defendants to comply with directive of the Federal Government through the National University Commission dated 29th June, 2001 with reference NUC/ES/261 to the defendants to reinstate the plaintiffs.
10. An order compelling the defendants to re-instate the plaintiffs in their posts in University of Ilorin with all their rights entitlements and other prerequisites of their offices and an order compelling the defendants to pay to the plaintiffs all their salaries and allowances from February 2001 till the day of the judgment and thenceforth.”

Pleadings were filed by both parties. The defendants thereafter filed a notice of preliminary objection on the 7/7/2002 as follows:-

An order of the Honourable Court setting the preliminary objection contained in paragraph 1 of the statement of defence for hearing and dismissing and/or striking out the case on the said grounds viz:-

1. Other court lacks the vires and/or jurisdiction to entertain the plaintiffs’ claim.
2. The case of the plaintiffs is caught by mis-joinder of action.
3. The suit of the plaintiffs disclose no reasonable cause of action or any cause of action at all.
4. The action of the plaintiffs is statute barred and therefore has to be dismissed.
5. The suit is a trade dispute between the employees and employers.

This motion was not decided as the lower court ordered that the conflict as to when the letters of cessation of appointments were received only be decided at the hearing when both parties have called their respective witnesses. This never happened. At the hearing the plaintiffs called two witnesses – PW 1- Prof. Jimi Olufengbe testified and some documents were tendered and admitted through him. After his testimony he was thoroughly cross-examined.

The 2nd witness testified as PW2, he is Prof. Taiwo Oloruntoba academic staff of the University of Ilorin.

The witness admitted that the failure of the defendants to reinstate the said lecturers (plaintiffs) was one of the issues that got to I.A.P. The defendants called equally two witnesses, namely; DW1 DW2. One Marnwa Eya Ogbonna (DW1) identified the letters of cessation of appointment exhibits 83 – 119. He testified that the appointments were properly brought to an end. The termination is by notice or salary in lieu of notice. He identified exhibits 136 referred to their provisions he then denied the plaintiffs were sacked for participating in national strike. He further testified that the employments were brought to an end for the plaintiffs’ failure to discharge their duties. He said that the issue was taken to I.A.P. because the plaintiffs were not at work.

DW2 one Titus Agboola Adeyemi testified to the effect that the vacancies created as a result of the cessation of appointments of the plaintiffs have been filled. He said that after the termination of the plaintiffs’ appointment the National ASUU tool, the matter to IAP, the IAP confirmed tile termination – Exhibit 38.

In view of what had happened in the sister case CA/1L/64/05 where I extensively reviewed the facts and evidence, I will not go into all details in this appeal.

Learned counsel to both parties thereafter addressed the lower court.

It is to be noted however that the lower court in a considered ruling dismissed the preliminary objection filed by the appellants.

The lower court delivered its judgment wherein it granted the plaintiffs claims.