Professor F. N. Ndili V. Mr. J. M. Akinsumade & Ors.(2000)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

OLAGUNJU, J.C.A.

The chequered history of this appeal is bespoken by 1st labyrinthian journey to this Court for the second time on the same issue with an ill-fated excursion in between to the Supreme Court to test out the question of whether this Court was right in holding that the jurisdiction of the trial Court to entertain the action on appeal was not ousted by the public officers (special provisions) Act, Cap. 381 of 1990 Edition of the Laws of Federation of Nigeria. For an appreciation of the ramifications of the facts of the matter, it is essential to give a bird’s eye view of the events leading to the action that was filed at Enugu Registry of the old Anambra State High Court over 13 years ago, for an insight into the hustle and bustle at the trial Court that translated into a spiral of appeals on the same issue which is fostered by the technical leeway that became the delight of the Respondents and their Counsel who in relays are exploiting it with gusto.

The Appellant was up to 3/10/85 when he was suspended from office the Vice Chancellor of the University of Nigeria Nsukka, hereinafter called the University and a professor of physics. During the tenure of his office the Head of State as Visitor of the University set up on 22/6/84 a Visitation panel, to be called hereinafter as the panel to investigate the affairs of the University from 1st January, 1978 to the present time with the late Hon. Justice P.R.G. Okara as the chairman and the 1st and 2nd Respondents in this appeal as members. The suspension of the Appellant from office as the Vice Chancellor on 3/10/85 was followed on 18/11/85 by his removal from office as the Vice Chancellor of the University and his retirement from the services of the University as a result of the findings of the visitation panel to the university’.

The suspension, removal from office and retirement of the Appellant were made by the Head of State acting in his capacity as the Visitor of the University operating under the powers of the visitor in sub-section 13(2) of the University of Nigeria Act. No.1 of 1978. The Report of the panel was submitted on 15/4/85, as per the covering letter of the chairman of the panel at page 47 of the record, and the decision of the Head of State on the report was published sometime in February, 1986 under the title “views of the President, Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, Major General I. B. Babangida, CFR., on the Report of the visitation panel into the Afrairs of the University of Nigerian, Nsukka, from January 1978 to the present time”, to be contracted in succeeding references to ‘The Visitor’s implementation of the Panel’s Report’.

Against this background the appellant seeking a redress for his removal from office as the Vice Chancellor and his retirement from the service of the University as a professor instituted on 31/10/86 at the High Court of the Anambra State, Enugu, an action against the Chairman of the Visitation Panel, the late Hon. Justice P.R.G. Okara, in which he joined as co-defendants, the Visitor of the University, the university and the other two members of the Visitation Panel. In the suit, the Appellant in his statement of claims asked for sundry reliefs which can be summarized as follows:

(1) declaration that:

(a) the findings, conclusions and recommendations of the visitation panel into the affairs of the University of Nigeria Nsukka that led to his removal as the Vice Chancellor is null and void and of no effect whatsoever because:

(i) there are patent errors of law therein;

(ii) in the conduct of the proceedings the panel breached the rules of natural justice; and

(iii) the panel acted without authority and in contravention of sections6and 33 and paragraph 3 of part one of the 5th schedule (code of conduct for public officers) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1979;

(b) the acceptance of the Report of the visitation panel by the Visitor of the University and the decision to remove the plaintiff from office based on that Report is null and void because:

(i) the president and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces had no authority to act or take decisions on the Report of the panel which, itself, is a nullity; and

(ii) the removal of the Plaintiff from office was not based on the view of the visitor who did not decide the issue within his statutory competence;

(c) The order made by the visitor in paragraph 110 of the visitor’s implementation of the panel’s Report for immediate removal of the plaintiff from office and his retirement from the service of the University is ultra vires the Visitor’s powers and is null and void and of no effect whatsoever because: