The appellant was by a letter dated 27th, December, 1991, appointed the Pro-Chancellor and Chairman of the Governing Council of Edo State University, Ekpoma (now Ambrose Ali University). The appointment was for four years.

On 30th, June 1992, at a discussion between the appellant and the 1st, Respondent, the 1st Respondent expressed his intention to dissolve and reconstitute the Governing Council of the 3rd Respondent as a result of political pressures on him. The appellant counselled the 1st Respondent that the affairs of the University should be kept away from politics. The 1st Respondent however, evinced a settled intention to dissolve and reconstitute the Council of the 3rd Respondent.

The 1st Respondent was nevertheless reluctant to dissolve the Council with the appellant still as the Pro-Chancellor. The 1st Respondent therefore advised the appellant to resign his (appellant's) appointment before the dissolution. The appellant on 2nd July 1992 wrote a letter to the 1st Respondent resigning his appointment. He further requested the 1st Respondent to waive the six months notice, which he should have given. On the same day i.e. 2nd July 1992, the 1st Respondent wrote to the appellant conveying to him the dissolution of the Governing Council of the 3rd Respondent.

On 8th July, the appellant issued a writ of Summons challenging the dissolution of the 3rd Respondent's council by the 1st Respondent and contending that the dissolution was ultra vires the powers of the 1st Respondent and therefore null void and of no effect whatsoever. He also sought an injunction to restrain the Respondents from reconstituting, recognising or having and dealing with any Governing Council except that council which he is the Pro-Chancellor and Chairman until the expiration of his four year term of office or until he is removed from office in accordance with the provisions of the Edo State University Law of 1991.

The appellant filed with his Writ of Summons a Motion Ex-Parte praying for an Interim injunction. He also filed a Motion on Notice for Order of Interlocutorv Injunction against the Respondents. The two Motions were accompanied by supporting Affidavits. To the Affidavits in Support of each Motion was exhibited, the appellant's letter of 2nd July 1992 through which he resigned his appointment as the Pro-Chancellor and Chairman of the University's Governing Council.

On being served with both the Motion on Notice and the Statement of Claim, the respondents filed a notice of Preliminary Objection to both the Motion on Notice and the substantive suit. The respondents contended that the appellant lacked the Locus Standi to Institute the action. The respondents further contended that the whole action was incompetent and should be struck out.

The Respondents' Preliminary Objection was vigorously argued by both sides. In a reserved ruling, learned trial Judge found that the appellant had no Locus Standi to institute the suit. Accordingly, he struck out the motion on notice and statement of claim. He thereafter proceeded to dismiss the substantive suit.

The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal. His appeal was dismissed. The Court of Appeal however varied the order of dismissal of the action to one of striking out the action.

The appellant being still dissatisfied with the Court of Appeal's decision, further appealed to the Supreme Court.