Dr. Tunde Bamgboye V. University Of Ilorin & Anor (1999)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

ONU, J.S.C.

This appeal which emanates from the Court of Appeal, Kaduna Division (Coram: Aikawa, Ogundere and Okunola, J.J.C.A.) revolves, in the main, around the interpretation of Section 15 of the University of Ilorin Act, 1979 (now Cap. 455, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1900). The plaintiff, now appellant, who was a Reader in the 1st defendant/respondent’s Department of Chemistry, had by a writ of summons on January 27, 1989 commenced an action against both defendants/respondents in the High Court of Kwara State (Coram: Oyeyipo, C.J.), challenging the legality and validity of his dismissal from 1st respondent’s establishment. The appellant sought in the alternative an order for re-instatement.

Pleadings were ordered, delivered and exchanged and the learned Chief Judge, after considering the evidence and appraising the facts, found for the respondents and dismissed the appellant’s case. Being dissatisfied with the said decision the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, holden in Kaduna. The Court of Appeal (hereinafter referred to as the court below) after considering all the issues raised in the parties’ Briefs and in the oral arguments before the court, also dismissed the appellant’s appeal by affirming the decision of the trial court. The appellant being further aggrieved with the said decision has now further appealed to this Court upon a Notice of Appeal containing twenty-three grounds dated 20th June, 1991 and from which thirteen prolix issues were proffered as arising for determination.

The facts of the case, as made out on appellant’s behalf are briefly as follows:-

The appellant had entered the employment of the 1st respondent in 1976 as a Lecturer Grade II and his appointment was confirmed with effect from May, 1981. In February, 1987, whilst the appellant was on Sabbatical Leave in the United Kingdom, the 1st Semester examination of the 1st respondent was conducted in his absence. In March, 1987, the appellant whilst enjoying a brief Easter Vacation in Nigeria, was invited to appear before a three-man Departmental Investigation Panel headed by Professor M. Adeniran Mesubi to probe irregularities observed in the 1987 February examination. At the conclusion of its investigation, the Mesubi Panel submitted its Report to the Dean of the Faculty of Science, the latter who proceeded to set up a Faculty Panel to investigate the alleged examination malpractices. This Panel which was headed by Professor D. K. Bamgboye, for its part took evidence from students and Staff alike at a time the appellant was away in the United Kingdom. The Bamgboye Panel was later re-constituted under the Chairmanship of Professor S. O. Oyewole to which the appellant, on invitation, made a written submission. As a result of the Report of the Investigation Panels, by a letter dated June 22, 1988, the appellant was invited by a letter – Exhibit P1 to appear before the Senior Staff Disciplinary and Appeals Committee (referred to shortly as SSD & AC) to defend himself against specific charges of examination malpractices. By another letter of the same date vide Exhibit P2, the appellant was suspended from duty pending the disposal of the charges against him. Although the appellant alleged he was denied the services of a counsel, he nevertheless asserted that he appeared and defended himself before the SSD & AC chaired by the Vice Chancellor Professor Adeoye Adeniyi. Consequent upon the findings of the SSD & AC the 2nd respondent by a letter dated August 17, 1988 (vide Exhibit P3) informed the appellant that he had found not guilty on charges of examination malpractices and accordingly his suspension was revoked and his full emoluments were restored.

Thereafter, on September 5, 1988 the appellant wrote a letter vide Exhibit P4, to the 1st respondent seeking a transfer of his services to Ondo State University, Ado Ekiti where he had been offered the post of Professor in the Department of Chemistry. However, on November 18, 1988 by a letter of the same date, namely Exhibit P6, the 2nd respondent wrote to the appellant asking him to appear before the Governing council of the 1st respondent to defend himself ostensibly over the same charges from which he had been exonerated by the SSD & AC and that this he did on November 21, 1988.

The Governing Council according to the appellant, consisted of:-

1. Prof. Adeoye Adeniyi – Vice Chancellor and Chairman of

the SSD & AC.

2. Prof. Mesubi – Chairman of the Mesubi Panel
3. Prof. Bamgboye – Chairman of Bamgboye Panel
4. Prof. Abiri – Member of the SSD & AC
5. Alhaji Bukar – Member of the SSD & AC
6. Alhaji Kigo – Member of the SSD & AC.

The presence of Prof. Mesubi and Alhaji Bukar was denied by the respondents. So also was the allegation that the appellant made that he was made to face a hostile Governing Council with his appearance lasting between 20 to 25 minutes. The appellant further alleged that he was shouted down when he objected to the presence of Professors Mesubi and Bamgboye at the Governing Council proceedings. A few hours later on November 22, 1988, the appellant alleged that he was dismissed by a letter of the same date i.e. Exhibit P7, from the services of the 1st respondent and signed by the 2nd respondent.

For the respondents, the facts of the case were stated as follows:-

The appellant was a Reader in Chemistry in the Faculty of Science in 1st respondent’s establishment. He had a close friend, one Professor Yoloye, then the Dean of the Faculty prior to his going away on the year sabbatical leave. In 1988, Professor Mesubi who was appointed a new Reader during the appellant’s sabbatical leave was looking for the Chemistry examination scripts of two female students. Miss Maduneme and Miss Kuye and he had to break open the door of the office of the appellant as the key to the office was not found. In the appellant’s office, two Chemistry examination scripts belonging to Miss Maduneme were found, one written under examination conditions and the other written at leisure. While on the first script several markings from low to high marks appeared, on the second script high marks appeared. The script of Miss Kuye was also discovered in appellant’s office with alteration of examination marks from low to high marks. Miss Kuye had in her custody a key to the appellant’s office.

Following the discovery of the said examination scripts from the appellant’s office, charges of examination malpractices herein before alluded to, were laid against the appellant first before the Departmental Investigation Panel and second, before the Faculty Investigating Panel, which issued the Reports tendered as Exhibit D1 and D2 respectively. On receipt of Exhibit D2, a third Panel was instituted to investigate an aspect requiring further investigation, and Exhibit D3 is its Report. The appellant personally appeared before these three Panels and made representations and of all three Panels two exonerated him on two charges, one found him blamable on the third charge. It is worthy of note, however, that these three Investigation Panels did not see the examination scripts Nos. 81/2731 and 84/7595 of the two female candidates mentioned above as they were not produced before them.

Upon receipt of Exhibit D3, the 2nd respondent wrote the appellant Exhibit P1 inviting him to appear before the SSD & AC chaired by the Vice-Chancellor, Professor Adeoye Adeniyi, to defend himself against the three charges of examination malpractices. On the same date, the 2nd respondent wrote another letter (Exhibit P2), suspending the appellant from duty pending the determination or the charges against him. The appellant appeared before the SSD & AC and defended himself, following which the 2nd respondent wrote Exhibit P3 revoking the suspension in Exhibit P2 and re-instating him.

By Exhibit P6 dated 18th November, 1988 the appellant was requested to appear before 1st respondent’s Governing Council to defend himself against the three charges of examination malpractices. He appeared before the Council on 21st November, 1988, made representations and submitted a document in his defence. The Council had a short adjournment and asked the Dean to make the two examination scripts available to the appellant. The two scripts were made available to the appellant and after studying: them he defends himself on them i.e. over the other charges when the Council resumed sitting.