Rev. Segun Ademola Alli V. National Universities Commission & Anor (2018)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

MARY UKAEGO PETER-ODILI, J.S.C.

The applicant, Rev. Segun Ademola Alli by motion on notice filed on 31/3/2016 praying the Court for the following orders: –

1. An order of this Court setting aside the Ruling delivered on Monday, 29th February, 2016 in this appeal.
2. An order of this Court directing this appeal to be relisted for hearing on the merits.
3. And for such further order or orders as this Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances.

The grounds upon which this application is based are set down hereunder, viz:-

1. This Honourable Court on Monday, 29th February, 2016 delivered a bench ruling in this appeal.
2. The 1st respondent’s motion upon which the ruling was based is incompetent and incurably defective on all facts and it is an abuse of the process of this Honourable Court.
3. The jurisdiction of this Honourable Court can only be activated by a competent process.
4. This Honourable Court relied and acted on the incompetent process filed by the 1st respondent on the 26th March, 2015 in arriving at its decision (now being sought to be set aside), hence a nullity.

The learned justice of the Supreme Court who read the leading bench ruling inadvertently adopted a wrong approach in relation to this matter by discountenancing appellant’s counter affidavit and written address.

6. The law is that the Court must take an overview of the entire case in the application brought before it to determine whether it has jurisdiction or not.
7. The ruling of this Honourable Court was based on a legally inadmissible document.
8. This Honourable Court possesses the power, ex debito justitiae, to set aside its ruling delivered in this matter and substitute thereof an order that meets the justice of the case.
9. An order of this Honourable Court without its jurisdiction being properly and antecedent (sic) activated is a nullity.
10. None of the Respondents herein will be prejudiced by the grant of this application.
11. It is in the interest of justice, fairness and the development of the law that this application be granted.The application is supported by a 31 paragraphs affidavit deposed to by the applicant himself. I shall recast some of the relevant paragraphs of the affidavit thus:-

I am the appellant in this appeal, by virtue of which I am conversant with the facts deposed to in this affidavit.

2. That on the 25th March, 2015, the 1st respondent filed an undated motion on notice accompanied by a 17 paragraph affidavit, with one exhibit attached (EXHIBIT KGA1), and a written address. A certified true copy of the said motion with the accompanying processes is hereby attached and marked as EXHIBIT A.
3. That the said motion mentioned in paragraph 2 of this affidavit prayed this Honourable Court to dismiss this appeal “in its entirety same having become academic as there are no live issues to be determined in the appeal” on the ground that “a fresh assessment of the 2nd respondent has been duly carried out with Council of Legal Education and a formal approval have been given to the 2nd respondent to establish a law faculty.”
4. That the said fresh approval mentioned in paragraphs 3 of this affidavit was given on subject matter of this appeal during the pendency of this appeal.
5. That the said motion mentioned in paragraph 2 of this affidavit was prepared and signed by Barrister

Peter Erivwode, of counsel, a legal practitioner in the law firm of Kanu G. Agabi (CON) SAN & Associates.

6. That the said affidavit mentioned in paragraph 2 of this affidavit was deposed to by Barrister Peter Erivwode, of Counsel, a legal practitioner in law firm of Kanu G. Agabi (CON) SAN & Associates, and the same Barrister Peter Erivwode signed as the deponent.
7. That the said written address mentioned in paragraph 2 of this affidavit was prepared and signed by Barrister Peter Erivwode, of Counsel, a legal practitioner in the law firm of Kanu G. Agabi (CON) SAN & Associates.
8. That the said EXHIBIT KGA1 mentioned in paragraph 2 of this affidavit is a photocopy of an uncertified public document.
9. That the Appellant/Applicant filed a 24 paragraph Counter-Affidavit with a written legal address filed on the 13th April, 2015 in opposition to the 1st Respondent’s said processes mentioned in paragraph 3 of this affidavit. A certified true copy of the said counter-affidavit is hereby attached and marked as EXHIBIT ‘B’.
10. That on the 4th June, 2015 the Appellant/Applicant filed Supplementary List of Authorities to the written

legal address mentioned in paragraph 9 of this affidavit. A Certified True Copy of the said Supplementary List of Authorities is hereby attached and marked as EXHIBIT ‘C’.

11. That the 1st Respondent filed a 7 paragraph further affidavit on the 6th October, 2015. A Certified True Copy of the said further Affidavit is hereby attached and marked as EXHIBIT ‘D’.
12. That on 12th October, 2015 when the 1st Respondent’s motion EXHIBIT ‘A’ was to be moved, this Honourable Court presided over by Hon. Justice I. T. Mohammed, JSC, discovered that EXHIBIT ‘B’ was not in the Court file and the files of other justices on the panel.
13. That upon enquiry by the Presiding Justice, Hon. Justice I. T. Muhammed, JSC, the said Exhibit ‘B’ was inadvertently kept by the Registrar of the Court.
14. That the said EXHIBIT ‘B’ was handed over by the Court Registrar to the justices on the panel in open Court at the sitting of 12th October, 2015.
15. That flowing from paragraphs 13 and 14 of this affidavit, this Honourable Court adjourned the hearing of all other motions in this appeal to 29th February, 2016 while the appeal was fixed for 21st March, 2016

5

consequent upon the gracious grant of the Appellant/Applicant’s application for accelerated hearing of this appeal.

16. That on Monday, 29th February, 2016 this Honourable Court adjudicated upon the said motion of the 1st Respondent EXHIBIT ‘A’.
17. That this Honourable Court on Monday, 29th February 2016 granted the prayers of the 1st Respondent as contained in its undated motion filed on 26th March, 2015 (EXHIBIT ‘A’) in a leading Ruling delivered by His Lordship, Hon. Justice W.S.N Onnoghen, JSC. A Certified True Copy of the said ruling is hereby attached and marked as Exhibit ‘E’.
18. That the said 1st Respondent’s motion (EXHIBIT ‘A’) upon which the said ruling (EXHIBIT ‘E’) mentioned in paragraph 17 of this affidavit was predicated is incompetent.

PARTICULARS

(i) Barrister Peter Erivwode, of Counsel, a legal practitioner in the law firm of Kanu G. Agabi (CON) SAN & Associates is the counsel who prepared and signed the motion; deposed to and signed as deponent in the affidavit in support; and, also signed the written address all at the same time.

19. That the 1st Respondent’s motion-Exhibit A constitutes an abuse of Court process-

PARTICULARS

(i) The 1st Respondent has incorporated and argued the issue of the appeal being academic at page 7, paragraphs 3.08-3.10 of its Respondent’s Brief of Argument dated 31st January, 2014 and filed on the 3rd February, 2014 in this appeal and to which a reply has been proffered at page 5, paragraph 1.10 of Appellant’s Reply Brief dated 18th February, 2014 and filed on the 19th February, 2014 in this appeal.

20. That the Appellant/Applicant brought to knowledge of the Honourable Court the incompetence of 1st Respondent’s motion filed on 26th March, 2015 (EXHIBIT ‘A’) in his counter – affidavit and written address filed on 13th April, 2015 (EXHIBIT ‘B’).
21. That this Honourable Court relied and acted only on EXHIBIT ‘A’ at the proceedings and its ruling on Monday, 29th February, 2016.
22. That this Honourable Court discountenanced the Appellant’s Counter-Affidavit and written Address (Exhibit ‘B’) in arriving at its ruling delivered on Monday, 29th February, 2016.
23. That this Honourable Court at its proceedings of 29th February, 2016 and its ruling of 29th February 2016 did not take an over view of the entire

application brought before it to determine whether it has jurisdiction or not to adjudicate on the 1st Respondent’s motion (EXHIBIT ‘A’).