The Council Of Federal Polytechnic, Ede & Ors. V. Johnson K. Olowookere (2012)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

MOORE A. A. ADUMEIN, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

The respondent, as plaintiff, took out an action in the Federal High Court, Osogbo Judicial Division, sitting at Osogbo. In paragraph 26 of his amended statement of claim spanning pages 51-55, the respondent claimed thus:

“26. WHEREOF the plaintiff claims as follows:

(a) A declaration that the termination of the plaintiff’s appointment is “ultra vires”, unlawful, wrongful, illegal, unfair, unjust, malicious, unreasonable and/blatant breach of the rules of natural justice and the constitution.

(b) An order re-instating the plaintiff to his due position as a lecturer without any loss of remuneration, promotional benefits and or advantages of any kind whatsoever.”

The 1st and 2nd appellants, as defendants in the court below, filed a further amended statement of defence spanning pages 151 – 155 of the record of appeal in which they asked the court to dismiss the respondent’s claim.

The parties were heard and in a reserved judgment delivered on the 28th day of February, 2008, the learned trial Judge, Saliu Saidu, J. granted the respondent’s prayers. Being dissatisfied, the appellants filed a notice of appeal containing 5 grounds. With leave of court, an amended notice of appeal containing 6 grounds was filed on the 12th day of July, 2011.

Briefs were filed and exchanged. At the hearing of the appeal, Awoniyi Alabi, Esq., learned counsel for the appellants adopted and relied on the appellants’ further amended brief dated 12/07/2011 and filed on the same day and the appellants’ amended reply brief dated 12/12/2011 and filed on the same day. Learned counsel for appellants urged the court to allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the lower court. On his part, M. O. Agboola, Esq., learned counsel for respondent adopted the further amended respondent’s brief dated 19/09/2011 but filed on 17/10/2011.

The appellants formulated three issues for determination, namely:

(1) Whether the termination of the respondent’s appointment was unlawful and wrongful?

(2) Whether, in view of the evidence before the court, the trial Judge was wrong to have held that this suit stands undefended by the 3rd defendant/appellant.

(This issue derives from grounds II and III of the grounds of appeal)

(3) Whether in the circumstances of this case and on the preponderance of evidence, the trial Judge ought to have awarded judgment to the respondent?

(This issue derives from ground VI of the grounds of appeal).