UI v. BASSEY

CITATION: (2016) LPELR-41117(CA)

In the Court of AppealIn the Ibadan Judicial Division

Holden at Ibadan

ON FRIDAY, 20TH MAY, 2016Suit No: CA/I/81/2012

Before Their Lordships:

ALI ABUBAKAR BABANDI GUMEL Justice, Court of AppealHARUNA SIMON TSAMMANI Justice, Court of AppealOBIETONBARA O. DANIEL-KALIO Justice, Court of Appeal

BetweenUNIVERSITY OF IBADAN - Appellant(s)

AndCLEMENT EDEM BASSEY - Respondent(s)

RATIO DECIDENDI

(201

6) LP

ELR-41

117(

CA)

1. LABOUR LAW - DISCIPLINARY ACTION: Need for compliance if any disciplinary actionis to be taken pursuant to any statute"Now, it is well settled that if any disciplinary action is to be taken pursuant to anystatute, law or rule, there must be full compliance with such statute, law or rule beforesuch disciplinary action can be justified. See Iderima v. Rivers State Civil ServiceCommission (2006) 7 WRN P.1 at p.37, See also United Bank of Nigeria v. Ogboh (1995) 2NWLR part 38O p.647 at 669. Disciplinary action in this case was taken against aUniversity Lecturer (Dr Clement Edem Bassey) in the employment of the University ofIbadan, the Appellant. The University of Ibadan was established by law, i.e the Universityof Ibadan Act. Therefore the University of Ibadan Act and the rules made by theUniversity of Ibadan on the discipline of its Senior Staff must be fully complied with beforeany disciplinary action against a Senior Staff of that University such as the Respondent,can be said to be proper or justified.Section 9(3) of the University of Ibadan Act Cap. 454Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990 which was the applicable law at the time thecause of action arose, deals with the removal of the Deputy Vice-Chancellor and anyother person employed as a member of staff of the University. The relevant provision ofthe said Section 9 (3) states:???If it appears to the council that there are reasons to believe that the Deputy Vice-Chancellor or any other person employed as a member of the staff of the Universityshould be removed from his employment on either of the grounds aforesaid, the Councilshall(a) give notice of those reasons to the person(b) Afford him an opportunity of making representations in person on the matter to thecouncil.(c) ---------------------------------------------------------''Now, "the grounds aforesaid" in the provision cited above refers to the grounds ofmisconduct or inability to perform the functions of his office (See Section 9 (2) of the Act).???A perspicacious look at the above quoted provision shows that the responsibility togive a query to a member of staff of the University that the University considers shouldbe removed from its employment is reserved for the Council (It is the council that cangive such a member of staff the notice of the reasons mentioned in Subsection (a) ofSection 9). There is no gainsaying the fact that the council is not the Vice-chancellor.A close look at the query issued to the Respondent shows that it was issued at theinstance of the Vice-Chancellor and not the Council. The query dated 13/1/2005 wassigned by Omotayo O. Ikotun (Mrs.) Deputy Registrar (Establishment). It reads in the firstparagraph thereof as follows:-"The Vice-Chancellor has received a report against you and he has accordingly directedthat you be queried on same as follows...???The vice-chancellor by issuing the query as indicated above, sought to supplant thecouncil whose responsibility it is to issue the query. That the Vice-chancellor cannot do sounder Section 9 (3) of the University of Ibadan Act. There is no delegation of the power ofthe Council to the Vice-Chancellor under that Section. In the case of Iderima v. RiversState Civil Service Commission (Supra) the Appellant, a Principal Accountant in theMinistry of Works and Transport of Rivers State, was summarily dismissed by theRespondent after the Accountant - General of the State set up a board of enquiry todetermine loss suffered when the Appellant's office was burgled. The Supreme Court heldin that case that the Respondent was wrong to have dismissed the Appellant withoutcomplying with the mandatory provision of Sub-rule 04107 of the Civil Service Rules. Inthis case, the provision of Section 9 (3) of the University of Ibadan Act is specific and non-compliance with it means that the Respondent was not properly dismissed from theemployment of the University of Ibadan. See Iderima v. RSCSC (supra) at p.30 lines 5 ???35."Per DANIEL-KALIO, J.C.A. (Pp. 15-18, Paras. C-D) - read in context

(201

6) LP

ELR-41

117(

CA)

(201

6) LP

ELR-41

117(

CA)

OBIETONBARA DANIEL-KALIO, J.C.A.(Delivering the

Leading Judgment): This appeal is against the judgment

of the Federal High Court holden in Ibadan (the Lower

Court) in a case of dismissal from employment. The

Appellant, the University of Ibadan was the employer of the

Respondent Dr. Clement Edem Bassey, a lecturer in the

Geology Department of the Appellant University. The

Respondent was alleged to have been involved in

examination malpractices involving one of his students, one

Miss Ojijiagwu. He was alleged to have written an

examination conducted by the Geology Department for the

said student. The Respondent faced several investigation

panels and was eventually dismissed from the employment

of the Appellant. He appealed against his dismissal to the

Appellant. His appeal was also dismissed by the Appellant.

Aggrieved, the Respondent sued the Appellant at the Lower

Court. In his Amended Statement of Claim in that Court,

the Respondent prayed the Court for –

1. A declaration that:

(a) The Plaintiff is still a Lecturer in the Geology

Department of the University of Ibadan.

(b) The purported dismissal of the plaintiff as per the letter

1

(201

6) LP

ELR-41

117(

CA)

dated 8th September, 2005 and the procedure adopted by

the Defendant were irregular, invalid, null and void and

contrary to the principles of natural justice.

2. An injunction restraining the Defendant, its servants

and/or agents from preventing the plaintiff from performing

the functions and duties of his office or interfering with the

enjoyment of the rights, privileges and benefits attached to

the said office.

3. An Order of Court restoring the plaintiff to his post and

office and to all rights and privileges attaching thereto.

After hearing the Appellant and the Respondent who both

called a witness each (the Respondent testified for himself)

and examining several documents tendered, the Lower

Court in its judgment delivered on 19/3/10 was of the

opinion that the Respondent had proved his case against

the Appellant on a balance of probabilities. The Court

therefore granted all the reliefs claimed.

Dissatisfied with the judgment, the Appellant filed a Notice

of Appeal which was later regularized having been filed out

of time. The Notice of Appeal indicated 5 grounds of

dissatisfaction with the judgment of the Lower Court. The

grounds

2

(201

6) LP

ELR-41

117(

CA)

and the particulars of the grounds, save for ground 5 which

had no particulars, are as follows:-

GROUND ONE

The Learned Trial Judge misdirected himself when he held

that "I entirely agree with the submission of the learned

counsel for the plaintiff that the Defendant is being an

accuser and the judge in their own cause expressed in the

maxim nemo judex in causa sua”.

PARTICULARS

(a) It is not in contention that query was issued by the

Office of the Registrar of the Appellant.

(b) Also it is not in contention that the senior staff

Disciplinary Committee of the Governing Council is

empowered to investigate, consider and determine all

disciplinary matters against erring senior members of staff

of the Appellant except the Vice-chancellor, the Deputy

Vice-chancellor and other principal Officers.

(c) To exercise on behalf of Council those functions of

Council specified in Section 9(3)(a) and (b) of the

University of Ibadan Act.

(d) That the Senior Staff Disciplinary Committee has the

mandate to recommend its decision to the Governing

Council as the final arbiter for final ratification in line with

the University of Ibadan Act

3

(201

6) LP

ELR-41

117(

CA)

Staff Information Handbook.

GROUND TWO

The Learned Trial Judge misdirected himself when he held

that failure to issue a query on the Respondent before

inviting him to appear before all the investigating panels

led to a complete failure of natural justice.

PARTICULARS

(a) Exhibit CE3 clearly stated the exact point at which a

query should be issued and it is only when a prima facie

case has been established by the Senior Staff Disciplinary

Committee of the Council.

(b) The Respondent admits that he was issued with a query

after a prima facie case was established against him.

(c) The Respondent also admitted the fact that he

responded to the query.

(d) The Respondent admitted kick-starting the investigation

which led subsequently to the issuance of the query against

him and the subsequent investigation by the panels before

the final recommendation of his dismissal by the Senior

Staff Disciplinary Committee to the Council.

(e) The Respondent also admitted the fact that he was

given the right of appeal against the recommendation of

the Senior Staff Disciplinary Committee of the Council.

GROUND THREE

The Learned

4

(201

6) LP

ELR-41

117(

CA)

Trial Judge misdirected himself when he failed to make

findings in respect of the admissions of the Respondent in

line with Exhibits CE4 and CE5.

PARTICULARS

(a) The Respondent never denied breaching the provisions

of Exhibits CE4 as evidenced by Exhibit CE5.

GROUND FOUR

The Learned Trial Judge misdirected himself when he held

that the Appellant's failure to show compliance with

provisions of Exhibit CE6 is in itself an admission on non-

compliance.

PARTICULARS

(a) From the evidence before the Court, it is wrong to come

to the conclusion that the provisions of Exhibit CE3 were

not complied with.

(b) It is on record before the Court that the disciplinary

procedure as provided for in Exhibit CE3 in conjunction

with the University of Ibadan Act was fully complied with.

GROUND FIVE

The judgment is against the weight of evidence.

The Appellant's Brief of Argument was filed on 27/1/16,

after an extension of time was granted to enable the

Appellant file it out of time. The Brief was prepared by Ayo

Arowosafe Esq. The Appellant formulated four issues for

determination, viz:-

1. Whether the learned judge was right

5

(201

6) LP

ELR-41

117(

CA)

to have found for the Respondent with respect to the

purported non-compliance by the Appellant with the

disciplinary procedure as provided for in Exhibits CE3,

CE4 and CE5 even in the face of the admission by the

Respondent himself.

2. Whether there was sufficient legal evidence after

disregarding the evidence of compliance by the Appellant

(to wit, Exhibits CE3, CE4 and CE5) with the admission

made in evidence by the Respondent to sustain the learned

judge's conclusion that the procedure adopted by the

Appellant in dismissing the Respondent from the

Appellant’s institution were irregular, invalid and void and

contrary to the principles of natural justice.

Let me observe here that I find prayer 2 above difficult to

understand.

The Respondent’s Brief of Argument was filed on 4/2/16. It

was prepared by Simeon O. Oni Esq. The Respondent also

formulated, two issues for determination. The issues

formulated by him are:-

1. Whether the dismissal of the Respondent complied with

the rules of fair hearing and natural justice as well as with

the procedure for the discipline of senior staff in the

Appellant’s Institution.

2.

6

(201

6) LP

ELR-41

117(

CA)

Whether there was any failure by the trial judge to properly

direct himself in the evidence before him either orally or

documentarily.

It seems to me that the issues formulated by both parties

essentially have to do with the resolution of this question:

whether the dismissal of the Respondent from the

employment of the Appellant complied with the relevant

law and rules and regulations of the Appellant University as

well as with the tenets of fair hearing. I find the Appellant’s

issues as stated above to be rather circumlocutory. The

Respondent’s issues as formulated are more articulately

stated though needlessly split into two issues. I think that

the issue I have formulated above is long enough to cover

the subject matter and short enough as to prevent any loss

of focus on the issues.

Appellant's Learned Counsel submitted that the Appellant

has a right to discipline erring members of staff under the

University of Ibadan Act and the Rules and Regulations of

Senior Staff of the Appellant University. We were referred

to Section 9 (3) (a) and (b) of the University of Ibadan Act

and Paragraphs 8.1.4 and 8.1.5 of the Staff Information

7

(201

6) LP

ELR-41

117(

CA)

Handbook. The said Handbook contains the Appellant's

Rules and Regulations governing the conditions of service.

It was submitted that according to the Handbook, the

procedure for the discipline of senior staff requires that the

staff concerned shall first be reported to the Registrar who

will invite comments from members of staff concerned.

Subsequently, a committee will receive reports and

comments from those concerned and if satisfied that the

offence has been committed by a member of staff, the

committee will set up an investigation panel which panel

shall consider representations by all concerned and report

to the Senior Staff Disciplinary Committee for appropriate

action. Where the committee is of the view that a prima

facie case has been established, it will notify the staff

member concerned about the nature of the offence and

request him to show cause why disciplinary action should

not be taken against him. Learned Counsel submitted that

having regard to the procedure as enunciated, it was after

a prima facie case had been made against the Respondent

that he was issued a query and later dismissed. He was also

dismissed after he had been given an

8

(201

6) LP

ELR-41

117(

CA)

opportunity to appeal against the dismissal. It was

submitted that in view of the steps taken by the Appellant

before the dismissal of the Respondent, it was wrong for

the learned trial judge to have held as follows:

“In the light of the above principle of law, I concur

with the submission of the Plaintiff's Counsel to the

effect that the failure of the Defendant to issue query

on the Plaintiff before inviting him to appear before

all the investigating panels led to a complete failure

of natural justice”

It was submitted that unlike the case of Adeniran v. NEPA

(2001) 47 WRN p.145 at p.158 – 159 the Respondent

did not appear before the disciplinary committee as a

witness. It was also submitted that the Lower Court

erroneously concluded that the Senior Staff Disciplinary

Committee acted as both the accuser and the judge. It was

submitted that the Respondent did not prove before the

Lower Court how the terms of his contract of employment

were breached. The trial Court, learned counsel contended,

should have held that the Respondent did not discharge the

burden of proof placed on him.

In his submission in response, Respondent's

9

(201

6) LP

ELR-41

117(

CA)

Learned counsel argued that prior to Exhibits CB6 and

CB7, the Respondent had not received any query from the

Appellant alleging any wrong doing by him and that it is

wrong and against the rule of fair hearing and natural

justice to have invited the Respondent to appear before an

investigating panel without first issuing him a query.

Learned Counsel submitted that the Appellant admitted in

the letter of its Senior Staff Disciplinary Committee dated

16/12/2004 (Exhibit CE6) that a query was never given to

the Respondent by its Establishment Division and that it

was the normal thing for a query to precede any

investigation. It was submitted that the admission in

Exhibit CE6 is an admission against interest and as such

must be upheld by the Court.

Learned Counsel further contended that the finding of the

Lower Court that the statement in Exhibit CE6 is an

admission against interest was not appealed against and

therefore remains binding on the parties and the Court and

should not be disturbed. We were referred to the case of

Bhojsons Plc v. Daniel-Kalio (2006) 5 NWLR (Part 973)

p.330, Nwuke v. CBN Plc (2009) 10 NWLR Part 1148 p.1

at p.126. We were urged to

10

(201

6) LP

ELR-41

117(

CA)

affirm the decision of the Lower Court that the failure of

the Appellant to issue the Respondent with a query before

inviting him to appear before all the investigating panels

led to a complete denial of the Respondent’s right to fair

hearing. The cases of Iderima v. RSCSC (2006) 7 WRN 1

at 23 and Olaniyan v. Unilag (2004) 15 WRN 44 P. 72 – 73

were cited in support.

Learned counsel contended that the appearance of the

Respondent before all the panels of investigation was as a

witness. We were referred to Exhibits CB 13, CB 14, CB

15 and CB 16. It was contended that where an individual

is only invited to give evidence, he cannot be said to be an

accused person. The case of Adeniran v. NEPA (2001) 47

WRN 145 at 158 - 159 was cited in support.

Giving a chronological account of the events that led to the

dismissal of the Respondent, Respondent's learned counsel

contended that at the outset, the Respondent was alleged

to have written an examination for one Miss Ojijiagwu. The

Respondent it was submitted was exonerated of that

allegation by Exhibit CB 11. Later, another panel of

investigation was set up. That panel learned counsel

contended, also did not find the Respondent

11

(201

6) LP

ELR-41

117(

CA)

guilty of writing the examination for Miss Ojijiagwu. Later

still, another panel, this one headed by Prof. Adesomoju,

was set up. Again, that panel according to the Respondent's

learned counsel' could not establish the allegation against

the Respondent. Instead of Prof Adesomoju's panel

disposing of the matter, it was submitted that the panel

recommended that the Respondent should appear before

the Senior Staff Disciplinary committee (SSDC) on a new

allegation of swapping answer booklets, an allegation for

which the Respondent was not being investigated. The

Respondent, learned counsel noted, was invited to appear

before a SSDC panel, which panel he referred to as panel

A, without a prior query. That SSDC panel A according to

learned counsel, did not established that the Respondent

wrote the examination for Miss Ojijiagwu and yet

recommended him to appear before yet another panel of

the SSDC which panel also invited the Respondent to

appear before it without first issuing him a query. The

Respondent's learned counsel contended that the

Respondent appeared before that panel on 16/12/2004 only

to be invited to again appear before the panel on 25/1/05 to

further

12

(201

6) LP

ELR-41

117(

CA)

answer to the allegation of aiding examination misconduct.

It was contended that it was while the Respondent was

waiting to appear before the SSDC on that occasion that he

was for the first time issued a query, Exhibit CB 17. It was

contended that the said query set aside the findings of

all the previous panels. Learned Counsel submitted that the

actions of the Appellant as shown in the chronicle of events

indicated that the Appellant was fishing for evidence and

also searching for charges to be made against the

Respondent.

Learned Counsel submitted that the invitation to the

Respondent to appear before the SSDC Panel A without

being first issued with a query by the Appellant was a

violation of Paragraph 8.1.5 (a) and (d) of Exhibit CE3 and

of Section 9 (3) of the University of Ibadan Act. We were

referred to the case of Olaniyan v. Unilag (2004) 15

WRN 44 at 89 – 90. It was submitted that there is no

provision in either the University of Ibadan Act or the Rules

and Regulations governing the conditions of service of

Senior Staff of the University of Ibadan (Exhibit CE 3)

which allow the Senior Staff Disciplinary Committee

(SSDC) to set aside the

13

(201

6) LP

ELR-41

117(

CA)

report of a previous investigation panel, more so when the

said SSDC was inviting the Respondent to appear before it

to answer fresh allegations. In the circumstances it was

argued that the panel had shown bias against the

Respondent. Learned counsel submitted that the Lower

Court was right when it held that the Appellant was acting

as both an accuser and a judge thereby violating the maxim

nemo judex in causa sua . Section 36 of the 1999

Constitution was also cited in support of this submission.

Also cited were the cases of Udo v. C.R.E. Newspaper

Corporation (2001) 22 WRN 52 at 79 – 80, University

of Calabar v. Esiaga (1997) 4 NWLR Part 502 p.719 at

745.

Learned Counsel submitted that even if all the allegations

against the Respondent were established, once the

required procedure was not complied with, a decision of

dismissal as in this case, will be held to be null and void.

The case of UBA Ltd v. Achoru (1990) 6 NWLR part

156 P.254 was cited in support. It was submitted that the

Lower Court properly considered all the evidence before it

before making its various findings. It was also submitted

that the Respondent discharged the burden of proof

14

(201

6) LP

ELR-41

117(

CA)

placed on him.

As can be seen from the account of what transpired

between the Appellant and the Respondent from the

perspective of both learned counsel, the only issue before

us as earlier identified by me calls for a close look at the

provisions of the Act and the Rules and Regulations

governing the Senior Staff of the University of Ibadan.

Now, it is well settled that if any disciplinary action is to be

taken pursuant to any statute, law or rule, there must be

full compliance with such statute, law or rule before such

disciplinary action can be justified. See Iderima v. Rivers

State Civil Service Commission (2006) 7 WRN P.1 at

p.37, See also United Bank of Nigeria v. Ogboh (1995)

2 NWLR part 38O p.647 at 669. Disciplinary action in

this case was taken against a University Lecturer (Dr

Clement Edem Bassey) in the employment of the University

of Ibadan, the Appellant. The University of Ibadan was

established by law, i.e the University of Ibadan Act.

Therefore the University of Ibadan Act and the rules made

by the University of Ibadan on the discipline of its Senior

Staff must be fully complied with before any disciplinary

action against a Senior

15

(201

6) LP

ELR-41

117(

CA)

Staff of that University such as the Respondent, can be said

to be proper or justified.

Section 9(3) of the University of Ibadan Act Cap. 454 Laws

of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990 which was the applicable

law at the time the cause of action arose, deals with the

removal of the Deputy Vice-Chancellor and any other

person employed as a member of staff of the University.

The relevant provision of the said Section 9 (3) states:

“If it appears to the council that there are reasons to

believe that the Deputy Vice-Chancellor or any other

person employed as a member of the staff of the

University should be removed from his employment

on either of the grounds aforesaid, the Council shall

(a) give notice of those reasons to the person

(b) Af ford him an opportunity of making

representations in person on the matter to the

council.

(c) ---------------------------------------------------------''

Now, "the grounds aforesaid" in the provision cited

above refers to the grounds of misconduct or inability to

perform the functions of his office (See Section 9 (2) of the

Act).

A perspicacious look at the above quoted provision shows

that

16

(201

6) LP

ELR-41

117(

CA)

the responsibility to give a query to a member of staff of

the University that the University considers should be

removed from its employment is reserved for the Council (It

is the council that can give such a member of staff the

notice of the reasons mentioned in Subsection (a) of

Section 9). There is no gainsaying the fact that the council

is not the Vice-chancellor.

A close look at the query issued to the Respondent shows

that it was issued at the instance of the Vice-Chancellor and

not the Council. The query dated 13/1/2005 was signed by

Omotayo O . Iko tun (Mrs . ) Deputy Reg is t rar

(Establishment). It reads in the first paragraph thereof as

follows:-

"The Vice-Chancellor has received a report against

you and he has accordingly directed that you be

queried on same as follows...”

The vice-chancellor by issuing the query as indicated

above, sought to supplant the council whose responsibility

it is to issue the query. That the Vice-chancellor cannot do

so under Section 9 (3) of the University of Ibadan Act.

There is no delegation of the power of the Council to the

Vice-Chancellor under that Section. In the case of Iderima

v. Rivers State

17

(201

6) LP

ELR-41

117(

CA)

Civil Service Commission (Supra) the Appellant, a

Principal Accountant in the Ministry of Works and

Transport of Rivers State, was summarily dismissed by the

Respondent after the Accountant - General of the State set

up a board of enquiry to determine loss suffered when the

Appellant's office was burgled. The Supreme Court held in

that case that the Respondent was wrong to have dismissed

the Appellant without complying with the mandatory

provision of Sub-rule 04107 of the Civil Service Rules. In

this case, the provision of Section 9 (3) of the University of

Ibadan Act is specific and non-compliance with it means

that the Respondent was not properly dismissed from the

employment of the University of Ibadan. See Iderima v.

RSCSC (supra) at p.30 lines 5 – 35.

I now turn to the staff information Handbook which

contains the Rules and Regulations which govern the

Conditions of Service of Senior Staff. Under Paragraph

8.1.5 of the said Rules and Regulations, the “modus

operandi" of the Senior Staff Disciplinary Committee was

set out. The modus operandi set out in the paragraph in

summary shows the following sequence of actions to be

taken: a report

18

(201

6) LP

ELR-41

117(

CA)

on a disciplinary matter is first made to the Registrar; the

Registrar invites all concerned to make comments on the

complaint, the Registrar makes a report to the Vice-

Chancellor; the Vice-Chancellor refers the matter if

necessary to the Senior Staff Disciplinary Committee; the

Senior Staff Disciplinary committee asks for representation

from all concerned and considers the matter; if the Senior

Staff Disciplinary Committee comes to the opinion that a

prima facie case has been established, it will notify the

person concerned of the nature of the offence alleged and

require him to show cause why disciplinary action should

not be taken against him.

The provision of Paragraph 8.1.5 of the Rules and

Regulations summarized above was not followed by

the Appellant. Instead, there were a variety of panels of

investigation set up against the Respondent without any

adherence to the laid down procedure in the modus

operandi. Indeed the actions taken by the Appellant led to

an aberration. I say so because the respondent was issued

with a letter of dismissal by a directive of the Council vide

the letter of 8th September, 2005 (See p. 193 of the Record

of Appeal). In

19

(201

6) LP

ELR-41

117(

CA)

the letter, the Respondent was given 21 days to appeal

against the decision of the Council to the very Council that

had dismissed him. The Council apparently saw nothing

wrong in sitting on appeal over its own decision to dismiss

the Respondent. One of the twin pillars of natural justice is

nemo judex in causa sua - no one should be a judge in his

own cause. This is a rule against bias.

All said, I am satisfied that the learned trial judge came to a

correct and just decision when he held thus:

"The dismissal of the Plaintiff (i.e the Respondent

here) and the procedure adopted by the Defendant

(i.e the Appellant in the appeal) were irregular,

invalid and void and also contrary to the principles of

natural justice".

I have no cause or reason to disturb that decision.

Consequently, I find no merit in this appeal. I dismiss it.

The judgment of the Lower Court is affirmed. I award

N50,000 costs in favour of the Respondent and against the

Appellant.

ALI ABUBAKAR BABANDI GUMEL, J.C.A.: I have had

the privilege of a preview of the lead judgment of my

learned brother Daniel-Kalio, JCA. I fully agree with the

reasonings and conclusions so

20

(201

6) LP

ELR-41

117(

CA)

ably made by him to dismiss this appeal. I too would adopt

them to dismiss the appeal for being devoid of any merit. I

abide by all the consequential orders of my learned

brother, including the order for costs.

HARUNA SIMON TSAMMANI, J.C.A.: My learned

brother, Obietonbara Daniel Kalio, JCA gave me in advance

a draft of the judgment just delivered.

It is very clear by Section 9(3) of the University of Ibadan

Act, Cap. 454, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990 that

the power to exact disciplinary action on a Senior Staff of

the University is vested in the University Council. The

Disciplinary procedure to be followed have been stated in

Paragraph 8.1.5 of the Rules and Regulations as contained

in the Staff Information Handbook. Under the Act (supra)

and the Rules and Regulations, when it comes to discipline

of a Senior Staff of the University, the role only ascribed to

the Vice-Chancellor, is to refer the matter to the Senior

Staff Disciplinary Committee, The Vice-Chancellor

therefore has no power to issue any query to a Senior Staff

who is under investigation. Consequently, I agree with my

learned brother that, the query issued the

21

(201

6) LP

ELR-41

117(

CA)

Respondent on the instruction of the Vice-Chancellor is

ultra-vires the powers of the Vice-Chancellor and therefore

invalid and null. The ultimate result is that, the council did

not issue any query to the Respondent before the

disciplinary measure meted on him was carried out.

It is for the above reason and the other reasons adroitly

presented in the lead judgment, that I agreed that this

appeal has no merit. It is accordingly dismissed. I abide by

the order on costs.

22

(201

6) LP

ELR-41

117(

CA)