CaseLaw
Olufeagba V. Abdulraheem (2009) CLR 12(f) (SC)
Judgement delivered on 11TH December, 2009
Brief
Facts
This is an appeal against the majority judgment of the Court of Appeal, Ilorin Division handed out on 12th July, 2006 in which it reversed and set aside the judgment of Olayiwola, J. of the Federal High Court, Ilorin delivered on 16th. July, 2005.
In paragraph 21 of the statement of claim, the Appellants herein, as Plaintiffs at the trial Court, claimed against the Respondents herein as Defendants thereat as follows:-
The Defendants filed a joint statement of defence in which they joined issues with the Plaintiffs. At the trial, each side of the divide called two witnesses.
P.W.1 was Prof. B.J. Olufeagba. He testified that all the Plaintiffs were lecturers of University of Ilorin who were sacked for embarking on strike action as members of Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU). Through him. Exhibits 1-261 were tendered and admitted in evidence. He denied that the Plaintiffs received letters of ultimatum asking, them to resume work. He maintained that they were not queried and taken through any disciplinary procedure, before 'Cessation of Appointment' letters were issued to the Plaintiffs. He said that the national negotiating learn had agreed that no one should be victimized as a result of the strike action. He said that the Federal Government directed the National universities Commission (NUC) to request the recall of the sacked lecturers vide Exhibit 122 but the Defendants disobeyed the directive. He stressed that the letters of Cessation of Appointment' were based on misconduct. He maintained that neither he nor any other Plaintiff was a party to the case between the Federal Government and Academic Staff Union of Universities at the Industrial Arbitration Panel.
P.W.2 was Prof. Taiwo Oloruntoba-Oju. Through him, Exhibits 262-265 were admitted in evidence. He testified that lecturers were prevented from entering the University premises during the period of strike. He admitted that a few of the Plaintiffs had secured employment 'to keep body and soul together'.
D.W.1 was Mr. Marcel Eya Ogbonna, a Chief Executive Officer in charge of Administration at the University. Through him, Exhibits D3 - D42 were admitted in evidence. He maintained that the appointments of the Plaintiffs were properly terminated for failure to discharge their duties. He said the Federal Government did not sanction the Defendants for disobeying the directives contained in Exhibits 122. He said the Federal Government took National Academic Staff Union of Universities to the Industrial Arbitration Panel (IAP) for threatening another strike if the lecturers were not reinstated. He conceded that the 'Cessation of Appointment' was based on allegation of misconduct.
D.W.2 was Mr. Titus Agboola Adeyemi. Through him, Exhibits D45a and D45b were tendered in evidence. He was a Principal Assistant Register who maintained that the vacancies created after the termination of Plaintiffs' appointment had been filled by the University in the interest of the students.
The learned trial Judge was properly addressed by learned Counsel on both sides. He applied the relevant laws to the facts garnered by him and in his considered judgment delivered on 16th July, 2005, he found in favour of the Plaintiffs.
The Defendants appealed to the Court of Appeal which, by a majority decision, allowed the appeal and dismissed the plaintiffs' case. The Plaintiffs felt aggrieved by the majority decision and filed, with the leave of that Court, a Notice of Appeal containing eight grounds of appeal. The Respondents raised a preliminary objection to grounds of appeal raised and argued that the Court could only assume jurisdiction over juristic persons and that since the 3rd. 9th and 29th Appellants were dead, the appeal became incompetent and should be struck out..
He also asserted that the grounds of appeal were vague, argumentative and general in terms and did not disclose reasonable grounds on which the Supreme Court could adjudicate.