Dr. Inih A. Ebong V. Mr. Peter Jerome Effiong (2006)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

NGWUTA, J.C.A.

The appellant was an associate Professor in the Department of Theatre Arts, University of Uyo, Uyo, Akwa Ibom State. The University terminated the appointment of the appellant who then filed Suit No FHC/CA/CS/58/2002 in the Federal High Court Holden at Uyo challenging the termination of his said appointment. It was originally filed as Suit No FHC/CA/CS/58/2002 in the Federal High Court, Calabar and later transferred to Uyo and re-numbered. The defendants in the suit were the respondent herein as the 2nd defendant and University of Uyo and the Governing Council University of Uyo as the 1st and 3rd defendants respectively. The respondent was sued as the Registrar and Secretary to the 1st defendant. The defendants in the lower court were duly served the processes in the suit and while the suit was pending the respondent published in the Punch Newspaper of Friday 26th July 2002 the following disclaimer, exhibiting the photograph of the appellant:

“The authorities of the University of Uyo wish to inform the entire public that the person whose photograph appears below is no longer in the employ of the University of Uyo. Any person who deals with him on behalf of the University of Uyo does so at his or her own risk.”

Below the passport size photograph of the appellant was written his name: “Dr. Inih A. Ebong”.

Aggrieved by the said publication the appellant commenced committal for contempt proceeding against the respondent, having filed and served on the respondent forms 48 and 49: Notice of consequences of interference with the administration of justice and notice to snow cause why order of attachment should not be made respectively.

The respondent by way of preliminary objection impugned the committal proceeding as incompetent” for failure to comply with the Judgment (Enforcement) Rules. It was also argued that forms 48 and 49 were not issued and served on the contemnor/respondent. As ordered by the trial court the parties filed written addresses and adopted and relied on same at the hearing of the preliminary objection.

In a reserved ruling dated 26th June, 2003 the court below upheld the objection, holding that the committal proceeding was incompetent.

Against the ruling of the trial court the appellant appealed on 4 grounds herein reproduced, shorn of their particulars.

“GROUND ONE: Misdirection.

The learned trial Judge misdirected herself when she held that the Forms 48 and 49 filed by the appellant do not relate to the instant committal proceeding and are therefore irrelevant…

GROUND TWO: ERROR IN LAW

The learned trial judge erred in law when she reopened and/or revisit the issue of filing/issuance and service of forms 48 and 49 after she had earlier ruled on the issue while considering the preliminary objection of the contemnor.

GROUND THREE: ERROR IN LAW

The learned trial Judge erred in law in dismissing the motion for committal after holding that same was incompetent for non-issuance and service of forms 48 and 49 on the contemnor.