CaseLaw
Sylvanus Eze V. UniJos (2020) CLR 5(g) (SC)
Judgement delivered on May 15th, 2020
Brief
Facts
This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Jos Division, the lower court, delivered on the 17th of December 2012affirming the decision of the Federal High Court sitting at Jos, the trial court, dated 31st May 2007, dismissing the case commenced by the appellant against the respondent. The appeal is predicated on appellant’s notice filed on 13th March 2013 containing two grounds.
The brief facts of the case that brought about the appeal are hereinafter stated.
The appellant was a senior staff of the respondent working at the institution’s Continuing Education Centre. Further to the allegation levied against him of receiving money from newly admitted students at the university without authority, the appellant was queried and subsequently suspended by the Vice Chancellor vide a letter dated 21st July 2006. He appeared before the Council Senate Disciplinary Committee at the latter’s meeting held between the 8th and 11th August 2006 and defended himself against the allegation.
At its 5th regular meeting held between the 2nd and 4thNovember 2006, the University’s Council, having considered its Disciplinary Committee’s report, decided to dismiss the appellant. He did not appear in person before the Council. The appellant commenced the instant suit by an originating summons challenging his dismissal at the trial court. He sought the determination of a sole question thus: -“Whether the plaintiff having been placed on suspension on the 21st of July 2006, the Council of the university had subsisting/extant power to discipline him as they did vide the decision taken at the 5th regular meeting of November 2 - 4 2006 having regard to the provisions of section 15, particularly 15 (2)(3)(4) of University of Jos Act, Cap. 456, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria,1990.”
Appellant’s case is that since his dismissal by the University’s Council is outside the three months of his suspension envisaged by section 15(2) and of the University of Jos Act, the appellant lacks the power of disciplining him talk less of his dismissal conveyed by the Council’s letter of 3rd November 2006.
The trial court, at page 57 of the record of appeal, concluded its determination of the issue the appellant raised by his originating summons thus: -“I would tend to view that the stipulation of time in this instance as merely directory and not obligatory or absolute. Where it is evident that there was no unnecessary slippage of time where a time limit is breached, such as where there is a university council meeting intervening after a suspension of a staff, with no decision to extend such a suspension taken, no decision on further disciplinary action taken, and a final determination of the staff’s fate is left to several council meetings down the line thereafter. That would indeed offer (sic) the intendment of the legislature and constitute an unacceptable delay in the exercise of the council’s powers of final solution. Nothing here however would abridge the council’s right of action….
In the instant case the University Council did not act out of time. The plaintiff is not entitled to any reliefs and his suit is dismissed.”
In affirming the trial court’s decision, the lower court, at pages119 - 120 of the record of appeal, held as follows: -“Arguments have been canvassed on behalf of the appellant that because his suspension lasted beyond3 months it was in contravention of section 15(4) of the Act and therefore it rendered the disciplinary proceedings a nullity. I think this a complete misconception of that provision of the Act. I believe one can say that the purpose of giving a time limit in that provision is to ensure that a person on suspension during a disciplinary proceeding is not made to suffer undue hardship by an excessive length of suspension when he is placed only on half pay. I do not see how by exceeding 3 months the disciplinary proceeding is rendered a nullity.
In fact, the Council is empowered to exceed the initial 3 months period by not more than a further 3 months. From what happened in the present case, the suspension lasted some 5 months. Unless there is clear evidence to the contrary. I must assume that the Council took liberty under section 15(4) read as a whole to exceed the initial 3 months. In any event, I am of the view that if the period allowed, whether the initial 3 months or the further 3 months, is exceeded, that will not render the disciplinary proceedings a nullity.
I have nothing further to add. In the instant case the respondent came to a decision within 4 months of the appellant’s suspension. The appellant’s issues are hereby resolved against him. The appeal must fail, and it is hereby dismissed. N30,000.00 costs to the respondent.”
Appellant’s appeal to this court is predicated on his notice filed on the 13th of March 2013.
Issues
Whether the Council of the University of Jos can dismiss the appellant based on...