Professor Folarin Shyllon & Anor. V. University of Ibadan (2006)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

AUGIE, J.C.A.

The Appellants are a Professor of Law and a Lecturer respectively in the Respondent’s Faculty of Law. In the action they filed by way of Originating Motion at the Federal High Court, Ibadan, they sought and were granted an Ex-parte Application dated 26th October 2001, for leave to apply by way of judicial review for orders of Certiorari, declaration, and injunction in terms of the Statement filed pursuant to Order 47 Rule 3 (2) of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, wherein they claimed the following reliefs-

(a) A declaration that the decision of the Respondent as contained in the Respondent’s letters dated 14th August 2001, was made without jurisdiction and is null and void and of no legal effect;

(b) An order of Certiorari directed to the Respondent to remove into the Federal High Court for the purpose of being quashed the decision of the Respondent contained in the letters of 14th August 2001;

(c) An order of perpetual injunction restraining the Respondents whether by itself or through its servants, agents, officers or privies whomsoever or howsoever from doing any act or thing in furtherance of the decision of the Respondent contained August 2001.

The Grounds upon which the said Reliefs are sought are as follows –

(a) The decision complained of was made by a Committee set up by the Governing Council of the Defendant called the Senior Staff Disciplinary Committee (SSDC);

(b) Neither the said Committee nor the Governing Council which set it up is empowered under the appropriate legislation to make the decision complained of;

(c) The decision complained of border on the appointment and promotion of Teachers at the University which function is the preserve of the Senate of the Respondent

Other Grounds are as follows-

The decision complained of was made by a Committee – the Senior Staff Disciplinary Committee which did not hear or determine the allegations against the Applicants in that:

(a) The Applicants were made to appear before a special panel of the Senior Staff Disciplinary Committee which took evidence and heard the Applicants;

(b) The decision complained about was not made by the same Special Panel which heard the Applicants but by the Senior Staff Disciplinary Committee itself which is differently constituted in terms of membership.

The Appellants concluded as follows in the last paragraph of the Statement –