md←→ previous / next
Before Their Lordships
OLABODE RHODES-VIVOUR Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
MARY UKAEGO PETER-ODILI Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
JOHN INYANG OKORO Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
AMIRU SANUSI Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
SIDI DAUDA BAGE Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
MARY UKAEGO PETER-ODILI Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
JOHN INYANG OKORO Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
AMIRU SANUSI Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
SIDI DAUDA BAGE Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
Between
DR. AJEWUMI BILI RAJI –Appellant
AND
1. UNIVERSITY OF ILORIN
2. THE GOVERNING COUNCIL, UNIVERSITY OF ILORIN
3. STAFF AND APPEALS COMMITTEE, UNIVERSITY OF ILORIN
4. PROFESSOR SHUAIB OBA ABDULKAREEM (VICE CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF ILORIN)
5. MR. MURTALA TUNDE BALOGUN (REGISTRAR AND SECRETARY GOVERNING COUNCIL, UNIVERSITY OF ILORIN) –Respondents
…………………….A…………………….
MARY UKAEGO PETER-ODILI, J.S.C. (Delivering the Leading Judgement): This appeal is against the decision of the Court of Appeal, sitting at Ilorin, Coram: Aboyi John Ikongbeh, Tijjani Abdullahi and Helen Moronkeji, Ogunwumiju JJCA on 31st May, 2006.
In the said judgment the Court of Appeal, or Lower Court or Court below upheld the decision of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal to the effect that the employment of the appellant was rightly terminated by the respondents.
BACKGROUND FACTS:
The appellant joined the service of the 1st respondent University on 7th January, 1991 and by the year 2000 he had become a Senior Lecturer in English in the department of Modern European Languages, Faculty of Arts of the University.
In February, 2000, the appellant was awarded the Alexander Von Humboldt Research Fellowship tenable in the Federal Republic of Germany. The appellant thereupon applied for leave to utilize the external award from the Administration of the University. His application in this regard was expressly supported by his Head of Department and the Dean of the Faculty of Arts.
When, by 13th March, 2000, it dawned on the appellant that the Appointments and Promotions Committee of the University, which is the body invested with such power, would not be convened before March 29th, 2000, the scheduled date for his departure for the award, the appellant forwarded an application directly to the Vice-Chancellor, the 4th respondent, for executive approval of his application for leave to utilize the scholarship award.
The appellant left for the Federal Republic of Germany on the 29th March, 2000 to utilize the award at which time the 4th respondent had not made any response to the application of the appellant, despite the urgency.
Immediately after the appellant had left the Country, the 4th respondent ordered the Bursary Department to stop the salary of the appellant. The appellant was eventually accused of absconding from the University. At the end of some disciplinary proceedings on this allegation, the appellant was directed by the 2nd respondent to return to the University on December 21, 2000. The letter conveying this directive was received by the appellant in Germany on December 19, 2000, id est, two days before the expiry of the ultimatum.
The employment of the appellant with the University was terminated on the premise of his failure to return to the University on the December 21, 2000 without the benefit of any hearing as to why he could not comply with the directive.
It was sequel to this that the appellant filed this action at the trial Court claiming the reliefs contained in the Originating Summons which spans pages 1 and 2 of the Record in this appeal. As indicated above, the learned trial judge dismissed the case of the appellant. The appellant appealed to the Court below which dismissed his appeal and further aggrieved has appealed to the Supreme Court.
On the 5th day of March, 2018, the learned counsel for the appellant, Dayo Akinlaja SAN adopted the brief of argument filed on 25/6/2007 and a Reply brief titled Consequentially Further Amended Reply Brief filed on 12/8/13 and deemed filed on 22/1/14. In the appellant’s brief of argument was crafted a sole issue for determination which is thus: –
Whether the lower Court was not wrong in dismissing the appeal of the appellant herein having regard to the relevant provisions of the University of Ilorin Act and the Constitutional provision on fair hearing.
Learned counsel for the respondent, Yakubu Dauda Esq. adopted the Amended respondents’ brief of argument settled by K. K. Ekeja and filed on 13/5/2011. They raised and argued a Notice of Preliminary Objection but in the event the Objection was not upheld by the Court, a single issue was identified for the determination of the appeal as follows: –
Whether the Court of Appeal was not right in dismissing the appellant’s appeal having regard to the materials at her disposal and the provisions of 1999 Constitution and the University of Ilorin Act applicable to the case.
It is stating the obvious that the Preliminary Objection would be handled and determined first before the Court can venture into the appeal as the Court has to be sure it has the vires to go beyond that Objection.
NOTICE OF PRELIMINARY OBJECTION:
The respondents filed a Notice of preliminary objection by which they challenged the competence of the appellant’s appeal on the ground that the Notice of Appeal was not signed by a legal practitioner known to law i.e. the Legal Practitioners Act. For purposes of clarity the Notice of
BACKGROUND FACTS:
The appellant joined the service of the 1st respondent University on 7th January, 1991 and by the year 2000 he had become a Senior Lecturer in English in the department of Modern European Languages, Faculty of Arts of the University.
In February, 2000, the appellant was awarded the Alexander Von Humboldt Research Fellowship tenable in the Federal Republic of Germany. The appellant thereupon applied for leave to utilize the external award from the Administration of the University. His application in this regard was expressly supported by his Head of Department and the Dean of the Faculty of Arts.
When, by 13th March, 2000, it dawned on the appellant that the Appointments and Promotions Committee of the University, which is the body invested with such power, would not be convened before March 29th, 2000, the scheduled date for his departure for the award, the appellant forwarded an application directly to the Vice-Chancellor, the 4th respondent, for executive approval of his application for leave to utilize the scholarship award.
The appellant left for the Federal Republic of Germany on the 29th March, 2000 to utilize the award at which time the 4th respondent had not made any response to the application of the appellant, despite the urgency.
Immediately after the appellant had left the Country, the 4th respondent ordered the Bursary Department to stop the salary of the appellant. The appellant was eventually accused of absconding from the University. At the end of some disciplinary proceedings on this allegation, the appellant was directed by the 2nd respondent to return to the University on December 21, 2000. The letter conveying this directive was received by the appellant in Germany on December 19, 2000, id est, two days before the expiry of the ultimatum.
The employment of the appellant with the University was terminated on the premise of his failure to return to the University on the December 21, 2000 without the benefit of any hearing as to why he could not comply with the directive.
It was sequel to this that the appellant filed this action at the trial Court claiming the reliefs contained in the Originating Summons which spans pages 1 and 2 of the Record in this appeal. As indicated above, the learned trial judge dismissed the case of the appellant. The appellant appealed to the Court below which dismissed his appeal and further aggrieved has appealed to the Supreme Court.
On the 5th day of March, 2018, the learned counsel for the appellant, Dayo Akinlaja SAN adopted the brief of argument filed on 25/6/2007 and a Reply brief titled Consequentially Further Amended Reply Brief filed on 12/8/13 and deemed filed on 22/1/14. In the appellant’s brief of argument was crafted a sole issue for determination which is thus: –
Whether the lower Court was not wrong in dismissing the appeal of the appellant herein having regard to the relevant provisions of the University of Ilorin Act and the Constitutional provision on fair hearing.
Learned counsel for the respondent, Yakubu Dauda Esq. adopted the Amended respondents’ brief of argument settled by K. K. Ekeja and filed on 13/5/2011. They raised and argued a Notice of Preliminary Objection but in the event the Objection was not upheld by the Court, a single issue was identified for the determination of the appeal as follows: –
Whether the Court of Appeal was not right in dismissing the appellant’s appeal having regard to the materials at her disposal and the provisions of 1999 Constitution and the University of Ilorin Act applicable to the case.
It is stating the obvious that the Preliminary Objection would be handled and determined first before the Court can venture into the appeal as the Court has to be sure it has the vires to go beyond that Objection.
NOTICE OF PRELIMINARY OBJECTION:
The respondents filed a Notice of preliminary objection by which they challenged the competence of the appellant’s appeal on the ground that the Notice of Appeal was not signed by a legal practitioner known to law i.e. the Legal Practitioners Act. For purposes of clarity the Notice of
…………………….B…………………….
Continue reading RAJI v. UNIVERSITY OF ILORIN & ORS
You have read the opening. Unlock the full library once and it stays unlocked - one payment, no subscription, the same library as the app.
- All 725 Laws of the Federation, A to Z
- 916 full judgments and 269 case collections
- 8,046 legal principles and 124 rules of court
- 343 drafts, with the Draft Builder
- The Law Dictionary - 31,442 terms
- Law School notes and 2,082 MCQs
Every Act, case collection and principle beginning with A, B or C is free to read in full, without unlocking - the same boundary as the Android app.