The Appellants were the Plaintiffs at the Federal High Court, Ilorin where they issued their originating summons against the Respondents as the Defendants. They sought for the determination of the following questions:
-
1
Whether the 4th Defendant has the power under the and by virtue of the provisions of University of Ilorin Act to unilaterally appoint the Dean of any Faculty of the University of Ilorin.
-
2
Whether the 4th Defendant has the powers to unilaterally appoint a Head of Department for any Department of the University of Ilorin under the University Act.
-
3
Whether the 4th Defendant has powers to appoint the 1st Defendant as the Acting Dean of Faculty of Arts, University of Ilorin.
-
4
Whether the 4th Defendant has the power to unilaterally remove the substantive Dean of Faculty of Arts, University of Ilorin Professor E.E. Adegbija and appoint 1st Defendant to act in that position.
-
5
Whether the appointment of the 1 st Defendant as the Acting Dean of Faculty of Arts University of Ilorin by the 4th Defendant is not ultra vires.
-
6
Whether the appointment of the 2nd and 3rd Defendants as Acting Heads of Departments of Linguistics and Performing Arts respectively in the faculty of Arts is not ultra vires the power of the 4th Defendant having regard to the provisions of the Unilorin Act.
-
7
Whether the purported replacement of the Dean Faculty of Arts. 2nd Plaintiff as Head of the Department of Performing Arts and 6th Plaintiff as Head of Department of Linguistics, with 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants respectively in acting capacity is not tantamount to victimization on political and other grounds and contrary to the laws and the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.
-
8
Whether the Defendants can conduct any valid and/or credible degree examination without the participation and/or moderation of appropriate examiners and whether the 4th Defendant can unilaterally remove and replace any examiner of the University.
-
9
Whether the 4th Defendant has the power to ban the Plaintiffs and/or instruct/order security officers and agents of the University of Ilorin to prevent the Plaintiffs and other members of ASUU from entering the premises of the University of Ilorin and whether such ban is not contrary to the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.
-
3
Whether the Defendants are entitled to victimize the Plaintiff by taking decisions that are adverse or prejudicial to their appointment with the 6th Defendant or participating in a National protest/strike action as directed by their National Executive Council and whether said Defendants are not in violation of the statute of the University and the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria by intimidating, harassing and threatening, compelling the Plaintiffs to abandon their legitimate struggle against oppression/suppression by the 4th Defendant."
They also sought consequential orders, and other reliefs, including a declaration that it is wrongful and unconstitutional for the Defendants at the instance and/or the instruction of the 4th Defendant to prevent the Plaintiffs and other members of their Union (ASUU) who they represent from entering the premises or campuses of the University (6th Defendant) or restricting and preventing the Plaintiffs from using, operating, meeting and generally carrying out their legitimate duties and functions in the ASUU Secretariat located within the Mini-campus of the 6th Defendant.
The Defendants (now Respondents) asked the court to strike out the suit for lack of jurisdiction. They also argued that the causes of action of the Plaintiffs were distinct and peculiar to each of them and could not be joined in one suit. The trial Court then struck out the Plaintiffs/Appellants' suit, holding that section 20 of the Trade Disputes Act (Cap. 432) and Section 1A of the Trade Disputes (Amendment) Decree No. 47 of 1992 gave exclusive jurisdiction to the National Industrial Court in matters of trade disputes.
Dissatisfied, the Plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeal, Ilorin, which dismissed the appeal and affirmed the trial Court's position. Still dissatisfied, the Plaintiffs/ Appellants appealed further to the Supreme Court.
-
1
Whether the Court of Appeal was right in holding that the Federal High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the Plaintiffs/Appellants' case having regard to the provisions of Section 251 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, grounds 1 and 4 of the grounds of appeal.
-
2
Whether the Court of Appeal was right in relying on the Plaintiffs/ Appellants' affidavit evidence instead of their claims/reliefs to hold that the Federal High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the case. (Grounds 2 & 5 of the grounds of appeal).
-
3
Whether the Plaintiffs/Appellants case was/is a trade dispute and if so, whether the Court of Appeal was right in holding that the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court was ousted by Trade Dispute Act 1976 and Trade Disputes (Amendment) Decree 47 of 1992 (Ground 3 of the Grounds of Appeal)".
Read More
