H.M.G. Ezenwaji V. University of Nigeria (Unn) & Ors (2005)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

ADEKEYE, J.C.A.

This is an appeal against the ruling of the Federal High Court, Enugu, delivered on the 20/11/2000, in suit No. FHC/EN/CP/201/2000. The court by that decision discharged the interim order of injunction it earlier granted on 23/1012000 and also struck out the substantive action, an application/originating motion for judicial review filed on 24/10/2000. The applicant Dr. Ezenwaji for himself and on behalf of the Academic Staff Union of the University of Nigeria, Nsukka Branch (ASUU-UNN) being aggrieved by this order filed an appeal in this Court.

It is however imperative to state the brief facts leading to the decision of the Federal High Court made in respect of suit. No. FHC/EN/CP/201/2000 now subject of this appeal. The violent students’ demonstration in the Nsukka Campus of the University of Nigeria on the 12/7/2000, led to the closure of the University. The Governing Council promptly set up an ad hoc committee to look into the crisis. It gave the committee four terms of reference which in summary cover –

1. Ascertainment of the immediate and remote causes of the demonstration.
2. Assessment of damage done to University and personal property.
3. Identification of groups of persons involved in the demonstration.
4. Recommendation of appropriate measures that will forestall a reoccurrence of such violent protests.

The applicant went to the Federal High Court, Enugu where he sought and obtained leave to apply for judicial review against the University Authorities represented by five respondents namely –

1. University of Nigeria (UNN)
2. Professor F.N.C. Osuji (for himself and on behalf of the Council of UNN)
3. Dr. S. Abdulrahman (for himself and on behalf of ad-hoc committee on Violent Students Demonstration of 12th July 2000.
4. Professor G. F Mbanefoh Vice Chancellor UNN.
5. Mrs. G. I. Adichie (Ag. Registrar UNN)

In the suit No. FHC/EN/CP/149/2000, the court granted the leave sought and other prayers particularly the order to restrain the University authorities from further action on the demonstration of the 12/7/2000.

The respondent also filed an application on 3/8/2000 asking for either a variation or discharge of the order made by court on the 25/7/2000. The applicant however found that the University authorities were flouting the order for restrain made by court. The respondent in their memorandum to Senate dated 4/9/2000 raised a Joint Council/ Senate Committee of Investigation into the alleged roles played by some staff of the University during the violent students’ demonstration of 12/7/2000. This arose from the recommendation of the ad hoc committee whose activities were equally restrained for the purpose of the pending judicial review in suit No. FHC/EN/CP/149/2000. In reaction, the applicant/appellant instituted committal and disciplinary proceedings on 11/9/2000 against Prof. F.N.C. Osuji and others. As the joint committee also continued to discharge their duties in the face of the court order, the applicant/appellant went to court on 19/10/2000 to seek leave by an ex-parte application for restraint on the joint council/senate committee which then replaced the ad hoc committee as a party in the suit. The court granted the order for restraint on 23/10/2000. On 24/10/2000 the appellant filed a substantive motion on notice for judicial review in suit No. FHC/EN/CP/201/2000.

The respondents filed a counter affidavit and a motion on notice on 2/11/2000. The main grouse of the respondent being that:

“The ex-parte motion and the order is incompetent and an abuse of the process of this court and this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.”

In his ruling, the learned trial Judge discharged the interim order made ex-parte on 23/10/2000 as being no more than a surplusage and unnecessary, while that of 25/7/2000 is still operative. The action FHC/EN/CP/201/2000 was subsequently struck out.

Both parties complied with the processes of appeal as stipulated in the Court of Appeal Rules 2002. Briefs were exchanged. At the hearing of the appeal, the applicant/appellant adopted and relied on the appellant’s brief filed on 7/12/02, and the reply brief filed on 18/3/2003. The applicant/appellant distilled four issues for determination from his five grounds of appeal as follows:

“(a) Whether failure to hear the applicant constitutes a breach of fair hearing and/or deprived the honourable court of its jurisdiction to make decision.

(b) In view of the facts and especially the law against contemptuous litigants had the learned trial Judge not occasioned a grave miscarriage of justice by his failure to appreciate the factual and legal soundness of the applicants distinct later proceedings.

(c) In view of all the circumstances of this case was the honourable trial court right to discharge the interim order of 23/10/2000 as surplusage and for being unnecessary.

(d) Having regard to the quantity and quality of evidence advanced on either side, was it proper for the honourable court to decide as it did in favour of the respondents?”