This is an appeal against the judgment of the court of Appeal, llorin Division, delivered on the 22nd January 2003, allowing the appeal of the respondents and dismissing the cross-appeal of the appellant. The facts of the case that brought about the appeal are summarized below.
The appellant, a professor, was on the 17th August 1994, appointed the Director of the Institute of Education of University of llorin, the 1st respondent, for an initial period of three years, The appointment was extended on 5th August 1997 for a further three year term. By Exhibit 3, 1st respondent's acting Registrar notified the appellant partly as follows:-
-
"Senate at its special meeting of Wednesday, 10th December 1997 decided to set-up a committee to investigate all the results of the 1995/96 graduating students of the Institute of Education, In order to give the Committee a free hand to do its work, the Vice Chancellor has directed that you be suspended forthwith as Director of the Institute of Education. You are therefore requested to handover the activities of the Institute to the Dean of Education immediately......"
Exhibit 5, a letter also addressed to the appellant by the 1st respondent inter-alia reads:-
Arising from the content of the two letters, the appellant as plaintiff took out a writ at the Federal High Court holden at llorin, hereinafter referred to as the trial court, claiming, apart from the ten million naira damages for libel, the declaratory and injuctive reliefs against the respondents as defendants thus:-
-
i
"A declaration that the reasonable and inferable conclusion based on the evidence before the Staff Disciplinary and Appeals Committee (SDAC) is that the plaintiffs conduct does not amount to misconduct as envisaged by the University Act and Regulations warranting a procedure for removal.
-
ii
A declaration that the trial of the plaintiff on the allegations made against the plaintiff are criminal in nature and cannot be tried by the defendants as doing so is a usurpation of the functions of the courts and is contrary to the 1979 Constitution of Nigeria.
-
iii
A declaration that the various panels that investigated or tried the plaintiff are incompetent as their composition is not free from bias.
-
iv
A declaration that vicarious liability have (sic) no place where criminal act is the subject matter, more so when in this case the plaintiff is not the employer of the other staff under him.
-
v
A declaration that the decision of the 1st Defendant not having been based on the report and recommendation of the Staff Disciplinary and Appeals Committee (SDAC) is a denial of fair hearing to the plaintiff and therefore unconstitutional, null & void.
-
vi
A declaration that the compulsory retirement of the plaintiff as conveyed by the defendants, letter of 9/2/99 Ref: UI/SSE/PF/1838 is predicated upon bias, malice, and hatred to get the plaintiff away at all cost to make way for a favoured candidate.
-
vii
A declaration that the trial of the plaintiff without informing him that he was facing a process of removal from office is illegal, wrongful & negates the provisions of the University of Ilorin Act and therefore null & void.
-
viii
A declaration that the trial of the Plaintiff and his conviction on allegations which do not disclose the rules and regulations or law breached is illegal, void and unconstitutional.
-
ix
A declaration that the procedure by which the plaintiff was tried and convicted or found culpable is void as the decision was statute barred.
-
x
An order for the defendants to refund to the plaintiff the sum of N100, 550.00 extorted from him.
-
xi
An order that the plaintiff is still in the service of the defendants.
-
xii
A permanent order of injunction restraining the defendants from stopping the plaintiff, from continuing his work in the University of llorin."
At the end of pleadings and eventual trial including address of counsel, the trial court in its considered judgment delivered on 17th of May 2001 concluded its findings as follows:-
"………..The overall effect of this judgment is that the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the defendants and the decision based on it having been nullified by this court, the plaintiff shall be reinstated in the service of the 1st defendant from the date of his purported compulsory retirement. I proceed to make specific orders as follows:-
-
1
That the disciplinary procedure adopted by the defendants herein against the plaintiff is declared null & void.
-
2
That following from No. I, the plaintiff is hereby declared as being still in the service of the defendants.
-
3
The defendants and their agents, servants and/or privies are restrained from stopping the plaintiff, or in any way howsoever disturbing the plaintiff from continuing his work in the University of llorin until he attains 35years of service.
These shall stand as the orders of this Court regarding this case."
Dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial court, the defendants now the appellant appealed to the llorin Division of the court of Appeal, hereinafter referred to as the court below, on an amended Notice dated 8th July 2002 containing five grounds. The respondent also cross appealed. The court concluded its judgment delivered on 22nd January 2003, by allowing the respondents' appeal and dismissing the appellant's Cross-appeal.
Aggrieved, the plaintiff at the trial court, respondent at the court below, has appealed to this court on an amended Notice of appeal containing ten grounds of appeal.
