University Of Calabar & Ors. V. Dr. Inyang Peter Oduok (2007)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

M. A. OWOADE J.C.A.

On 8th December, 1987, the Respondent as Plaintiff before the lower court filed a Writ of Summons on 10th September, 1987 and Statement of Claim on 8th December, 1987 in which he claimed jointly and severally against the three (3) Appellants (then Defendants) as follows:

1. A Declaration that the said letter of expiration of appointment No. UC/R ….. 31/S …. 634 dated 10th June, 1987 is null and void.

2. A Declaration that the Plaintiff is still a staff/lecturer of the 1st Defendant.

3. An order restoring the Plaintiff to his former position in the 1st Defendant.

4. N500,000.00 for wrongful termination of appointment.

In reaction to the Plaintiff’s/Respondent’s Statement of Claim, it is on record that the Defendants/Appellants filed a motion on Notice dated 5th May, 1988 on 30th June, 1988 with a proposed Statement of Defence attached thereto as Exhibit ‘A’. There was nothing on record to show that the Defendants/Appellants eventually filed a Statement of Defence. The records however show that the case went to trial as the Defendants/Appellants indeed called one Emmanuel Samuel Ndoik as DW1. On 15th May, 1996 J. A. Binang J. delivered his judgment and granted the claims of the Plaintiff/Respondent except the N500,000.00 claim for damages for wrongful termination of employment. On 10th June, 1999, the Appellants as Defendants before the lower court filed a Motion on Notice praying for an order setting aside the judgment of His Lordship Honourable Justice J. A. Binang in Suit No. C/156/87 on the ground that the said judgment is a nullity having been delivered by the court at a time when it had been divested of jurisdiction to entertain the suit. This Motion was heard by R.I.E. Odu J, between 19th March, 2001 and 31st July 2001 and on 19th December, 2001, R.I.E. Odu J, delivered a ruling in which he refused to set aside the judgment of J. A. Binang J. The reasoning of Odu J. for refusing to set aside the judgment of Binang J. is contained at page 86 of the Record of proceedings as follows:

“It would seem to me that the law maker(s) did not intend that on the coming into force of Decree No. 107 of 1993 all matters filed in the State High Court shall abate. The law maker should have said so if that was their intention as they did in Decree No. 13 of 1993 which established the Federal Revenue Court: S.8(3) of that Decree.”

It is against this Ruling of R.I.E. Odu J. that the Defendants/Appellants filed a Notice of Appeal on 3rd January, 2002. The Appellants Notice of Appeal contains three (3) Grounds of Appeal. On 21st February, 2006, this Honourable Court granted an Order that this Appeal be heard on the Appellants’ brief alone, the Respondent having failed to file his brief of argument.

The only issue formulated in the Appellants’ brief dated and filed on 13th May, 2005 is:

“Whether the State High Court still has the jurisdiction to hear and determine pending matters concerning the Federal Government or its agencies soon after the promulgation of the 1979 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Suspension and Modification) Decree No. 107 of 1993 conferring exclusive jurisdiction on the Federal High Court in matters concerning the Federal Government or its agencies.”

In his submissions on the sole issue for determination, the learned Counsel for the Appellant acknowledged that there are two schools of thought on the controversy as to whether such an instant transfer of jurisdiction has not been waived or suspended in matters pending before the State High Court before the enactment of Decree No. 107 in November, 1993.

The school of thoughts said Appellants’ Counsel seems to have emerged in this controversy even at the apex court represented in two decisions: OHMS vs. Garba (2002) FWLR (Pt. 123) 200 and Olutola vs. University of lIorin (2004) NWLR (Pt. 905) 416. According to Appellants’ Counsel, their Lordships in OHMS vs. Garba (supra) have taken position tending to support the view that pending matters in the State High Courts concerning Federal Government or its agencies before the enactment of the Decree could still be heard and determined by the State High Court and the decision thereof shall not be invalidated by virtue of the law which has divested the State High Court of any jurisdiction in matters concerning the Federal Government or any of its agencies.

Appellants’ Counsel submitted in contrast that in the case of Olutola vs. University of Ilorin (supra), it was decided that Decree 107 of 1993 confers on the Federal High Court an exclusive jurisdiction over matters of administration, management and control concerning the Federal Government and its agencies to the exclusion of the State High Court and which, by the enactment, the unlimited jurisdiction of the State High Court in S. 236 of the 1979 Constitution was curtailed from the date the Decree was enacted.