Dr. Inih A. Ebong V. E. G. Ukana & Ors (2008)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

NWALI SYLVESTER NGWUTA, J.C.A. 

This appeal is against the ruling of the lower Court on a motion for an interlocutory order to restrain the Respondent from further infringement on the appellant’s right to fair hearing filed on 27/2/02 and a motion to compel the respondents to withdraw letters Nos. UU/REG/S/15/S.1/366 of 18/12/02 and UU/REG/76/Vol.l/52 of 28/8/02 and an order to restrain the respondents “from obstructing, harassing, threatening, intimidating and/or victimizing the applicant in any manner or form whatsoever and howsoever in the performance of his duties, pending the hearing and determination of this suit.

The parties filed written argument for the two motions together.

In its ruling of 4/4/07 the Court below expressed the view that granting the motion filed on 12/1/06 will have the effect of determining the substantive application filed on 9th October, 2001 and ordered that

“This application will be considered on the merit along side the motion on notice filed on 9th October, 2001.”

See page 297 of the records.

Aggrieved by the said ruling the appellant filed a notice of appeal on four grounds, from which he distilled the following four issues for resolution by the Court:

“ISSUE 1: Whether the trial Judge was right when he held that the fact constituting the applications of 9th October, 2001 and 12 December, 2006 is the suspension of the Appellant by the Respondents as Senior Lecturer in the Department of Theatre Arts, University of Uyo (Ground One).

“ISSUE 2: Whether the trial Judge was right in not deciding the interlocutory motion of 12th December, 2006, on its merit but adjourned same to be decided along with the substantive suit (Ground Two)

“ISSUE 3: Whether indeed the grant of the motion of 12th December, 2006 has the effect of granting the substantive application of 9th October, 2001 (Ground three).

“ISSUE 4: Whether the ruling of the lower Court made on 4th day of April, 2007 was not against the weight of affidavit evidence adduced at the hearing (Ground four).”

In his brief of argument learned Counsel for the Respondent contended that the lone central and/or cardinal issue for determination is:

“Whether the learned trial judge was right in holding that in so far as the granting of interlocutory motion on notice filed on 12th December, 2006 would in fact have the effect of granting the substantive application filed on 9th October, 2001, the Courts are not allowed to decide the substantive matter in an interlocutory application.”

In his argument in his brief learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that the facts of the two applications are not the same.