Federal University Of Technology, Yola V. Danjuma Maiwuya & Ors. (2010)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

UZO NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A.:(Delivering the Leading Judgment) This is an appeal against the judgment of the Federal High Court Yola. The Respondents in this appeal were the Plaintiffs in the Court below and they claimed the following reliefs jointly and severally:

(a) A declaration that the purported dismissal of he Plaintiffs by the Defendants was unconstitutional wrongful, illegal, null and void and of no legal effect whatsoever.

(b) A declaration that the Plaintiffs dismissal was done in gross violation of their right to fair hearing and the rules of Natural Justice as the Defendants were accusers, prosecutors and judges in their own cause.

(c) A declaration that the plaintiffs who are a permanent and pensionable staff of the Defendants in view of the obvious breach of the rules of natural justice and fairness are still in the service of the Defendants with unbroken record of service from the date of dismissal up to date.

(d) A declaration that the Plaintiffs are entitled to the payment of their outstanding salaries, allowances and benefits accruable to them as the result of their appointment and clean records from the date of the illegal dismissal up to the date of delivery of judgment and thereafter continue to enjoy their regular salaries.

Pleadings were exchanged by the parties and after the trial, a considered judgment was delivered on 27th July, 1999.

The Defendant/Appellant, being dissatisfied filed their notice and 5 grounds of appeal.

The learned counsel to the Appellants E.O. Odo settled their brief. In it he articulated 4 issues for determination as follows:

(1) Whether the dismissal of the Plaintiffs from the service of the first Defendant was not right in view of Exhibits A, F and H and the findings of the trial court.

(2) Whether the trial Judge was right in not considering the evidence of DW1 relating to the security report on the Non-Academic Staff Union (NASU) Congress of 12th June 1996.

(3) Whether the trial Judge was right in granting excessive monetary reliefs to the plaintiffs especially as the claims were not established by evidence before the court,,

(4) Whether the trial Judge was right in not stating categorically which of the Defendants will be responsible for paying the monetary reliefs granted to the plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs/Respondents in their brief settled by M.B. Sawa formulated 3 issues for determination as follows:

(i) Whether or not the learned trial Judge was right in holding for the plaintiffs (Respondents).