IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA  

                                                                                  HOLDEN AT KANO                                   

   BEFORE HIS LORDHIP HON. JUSTICE E.D.E ISELE ( JUDGE)                 

   DATE: 24^TH MAY, 2022                             SUIT NO:NICN/KN/54/2019 BETWEEN                                

PROFESSOR HARUNA ABDU KAITA                          ………..CLAIMANT                       

 AND                                                                                                                               

1. THE GOVERNING COUNCIL, FEDERAL UNIVERSITY  DUTSINMA                                                                                          2. FEDERAL UNIVERSITY  DUTSINMA                                                                   

3. THE REGISTRAR FEDERAL UNIVERSITY DUTSINMA                                

4.  CAPTAIN  BALA JIBRIN                                                      DEFENDANTS                                   5.  PROFESSOR  RABIU SHATSARI                                                                               

6. MR. EMMANUEL OMAPH                                                                                    

7. PROFESSOR ABDULAHI USMAN SARKI                                                                  

 8 .  PROFESSOR RASHID HAMZAT.

REPRESENTATION :                                                                                                   

A.     Ad’au for the Claimant.                                                                                      

Fatima Abubakar for the Defendant

                                                              JUDGMENT                                                                     

 1.  The Claimant commenced this suit by the writ filed on the 24^th December, 2019. By the statement of material facts on the face of the writ the Claimant maintains that the contravention of the Claimant’s constitutional fundamental right to fair hearing in the determination of his civil right and obligation in the process of the unlawful suspension of the Claimant from his employment/appointment as Vice-Chancellor of Federal University Dutsin-ma as at 20^th of June, 2017 and the subsequent unlawful termination of the said employment/appointment through a letter dated September 13^th , 2017 and also terminated the said  employment/appointment as Vice-Chancellor for services no longer required on the same 13^th  September, 2017, all done in bad faith (mala fide) and in the  pendency of the Claimant’s then suit NICN/KN/29/2017, in clear violation of the Claimant’s right to fair hearing and right to fair hearing before the decision to suspend him and terminate his said appointment as Vice-Chancellor was made and against the legal principle of Lis Pendens.                                                           

2,  Whereupon he claimed as follows in the Statement of facts:

1.      A DECLARATION that the Defendants are bound in all its (their) actions, including the process of appointment or removal of the Vice Chancellor to observe and maintain strictly the principle of fair hearing in all the processes thereto relating to the suspension of the Claimant the Defendant, giving him a hearing, fair hearing through giving him a query over the allegation that he  committed a misconduct when he allegedly filed a suit against the Defendants on 26^th of May, 2017 (as claimed by the Defendants in the suspension letter of  June, 2017) without granting the Claimant Fair Hearing.                                                                                         2. A DECLARATION that the Defendants’ failure and refusal to issue the Claimant with a query and or grant him a hearing, fair hearing through giving him a query over the allegation that he committed a misconduct when he allegedly filed a suit against the Defendants on 26^th of May, 2017 (as claimed by the Defendant s the suspension letter of 20^th June, 2017) and the stoppage of his salaries and allowances on the 20^th of June, 2017 without granting the Claimant Fair Hearing, the Defendants violated the Claimant’s right to fair hearing in the determination his civil right and obligation including any question or determination by or against any government or authority, as Vice-Chancellor of Federal University, Dutsin-Ma.                                                                                                                         3. A DECLARATION that the Defendants’ failure and refusal to issue the Claimant with a query and or grant him a hearing, fair hearing through giving him a query over the allegation and the right to make representation before his appointment as Vice-Chancellor of Federal University, Dutsin-Ma was (sic) dually terminated through the Defendants’ letters of 13^th September, 2017, in the pendency of the Claimant’s Suit No. NICN/KN/29/2017, against the legal principles of Lis Pendis is null, void and of no effect.                                                                                               4. A DECLARATION that the Defendant (1^st Defendant’s) termination of appointment of the Claimant as Vice-Chancellor of Federal University, DutsinMa, through the Defendants’ letters of 13^th September, 2017, is null, void and of no effect.                                                                                                5. An Order setting aside the suspension of the Claimant made by the management of the 2^nd Defendants on the 20^th June, 2017 and the 2 terminations of his appointment as Vice Chancellor of the 2^nd Defendant  by the 1^st Defendant, on 13^th September, 2017 being null, void and of no effect.                                                                                                                              6. An Order of mandatory injunction restraining the Defendants, their Agents, Servants, Employees, Representatives and Privies from suspending the Claimant from his appointment as the Vice Chancellor of the Federal University Dutsin-Ma and restrain from terminating the said appointment or dismissing the Claimant from the said appointment and from doing anything whatsoever that will adversely affect the right of the Claimant and his appointment as the Vice- Chancellor.                                                                                             7. An Order that the Claimant is still the Vice Chancellor of the Federal University Dutsin-Ma effective from the date of his suspension till date and he is entitled to his salaries, allowances and all entitlements attached to his office for all the period lost due to the wrongful suspension and termination of his employment.                                                                                                                    8. An order holding that the Claimant is entitled to serve as Vice Chancellor of Federal University Dutsin-Ma for the equivalent duration of time in terms of the dates, days and duration of time he has been forced out of office by the Defendants, to continue serving as Vice Chancellor for all the time it takes to serve as replacement for the lost days and conclude his term of office in that capacity which was for a period of 5 years from 11^th February,2016 to 10^th 2021.                                                                                     9. Cost of this suit to be assessed by the Court.                                                                                                                                                            10. An Order that the Claimant is entitled to Four Hundred Million Naira (N400,000,000), payable by the Defendants, jointly and severally, to the Claimant, as general damages for the wrongful and unlawful suspension of the Claimant from his employment as Vice Chancellor, as from 20 June, 2017 and for Unlawful termination of the said appointment of the Claimant from his office as Vice Chancellor, Federal University Dustin-Ma as from 13^th September, 2017 till the determination of this suit.                                                                                                                     11. Cost of this suit to be assessed by the Court.

3 .              THE CASE OF THE CLAIMANT                                 

 According to the Claimant the cause of the suit is the contravention of  his constitutional Fundamental right to fair hearing in the determination of his civil right and obligation in the process of the unlawful suspension of the Claimant by exhibit E from his employment/appointment as Vice Chancellor of Federal University Dutsin-ma as at 20^th of June, 2017 and the subsequent unlawful termination of the said employment/appointment through exhibits F1 and F2 dated 13^th September, 2017 and also terminated the said employment/appointment as Vice-Chancellor for services no longer required on the same 13^th September, 2017, all done in bad faith (mala fide) and in the pendency of the Claimant’s then suit NICN/KN/29/2017, in clear violation of the Claimant’s right to a hearing and right to fair hearing before the decision to suspend him and terminate his said appointment as Vice- Chancellor was made and against the legal principle of Lis Pendens.                                                               

  4.    The Claimant states that as Vice-Chancellor, his appointment is not guided the condition of service of the Federal University Dutsin-ma pursuant to which the Defendants suspended him from his appointment, but the Defendants suspended him from his employment through their letter of 20^th June, 2017, admitted in evidence as exhibit E, pursuant to the condition of S.4.3.9 (i) &(ii) of the senior staff condition of the Federal University Dutsin-ma. As the appointment, disciplinary procedures and removal of the Vice-Chancellor is guided by the University (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1993 and Universities Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Act 2003 and the Claimant as Vice-Chancellor is not a staff within the meaning of the Senior Staff Condition of Service of the University and the said suspension from the Employment/Appointment as Vice Chancellor of Federal University by the 2^nd Defendant is null and void and of no effect.                                                                    

5.   The Claimant put the Defendants on notice to produce the certified true copies of the letters at the hearing of the case. The Claimant averred that even if the said senior staff condition of service of the University  and the provisions of S. 4.3.9 (i) & (ii) were applicable to him and his situation and appointment as Vice-Chancellor (without conceding same), he has exhausted the internal avenues for settling grievances National Industrial Court, Kano in suit no. NICN/KN/29/2017 and before filing this suit as he wrote the following :-                                                                                                                         i. Letter dated 1 April 2017 addressed to the Pro Chancellor Reference No. FUDMA/CM/073/27; signed by the Claimant with the heading Re:- Allegation of Financial Impropriety and-Mal-Administration, admitted in evidence as exhibit A to A6.                                                                                                                    

  ii. Letter dated 18^th April 2017 with caption:- THE NEED TO OBSERVE RULE OF LAW AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF SOME ACTIONS TAKEN AGAINST ME. Admitted in evidence as exhibit B.                                                                                                             iii .  Letter dated 19^th April 2017 addressed to the Hon. Minister of Education with caption: - A plea for intervention on the Actions of the Pro-Chancellor and Chairman of Council, Federal University Dutsinma (FUDMA) admitted in evidence as exhibit C-C2                                                                                                                   iv. Letter dated 12^th May 2017 addressed to the Hon. Minister of Education with caption: - RE: A plea for intervention on the Actions of the Pro-Chancellor and Chairman of Council, Federal University Dutsinma (FUDMA), admitted in evidence as exhibit D & D1.                                                                                                             V. The Defendants acknowledge same even in their Minutes of 9^th Regular Meeting of the 1^st Defendant held on 7^th, 9^th September, 9^th September, 2017 dated 14 October, 2017 (pages 43-50). The above letters and Minutes of Meeting are pleaded and the Defendants were put on notice produce the certified true copies of same, at the hearing of this case. Which the Defendants tendered as exhibit DA 2.

 6.  The Claimant stated that, in the said Minutes of Meeting of’ 9^th Regular   Meeting of the 1^st Defendant held on 7^th 9^th September, 2017, he relies on pages 43-50, the portion of the meeting which acknowledged the efforts he made to settle his grievances and the redress sought by the Claimant were not favourably considered by the Defendants, which led him to afterwards file the claim at the National Industrial Court, Kano. The Claimant states that, from 13^th April, 2017 the date of the first unlawful suspension, to 20^th June, 2017 and 13^th September, 2017 the dates of the d unlawful suspension and termination; throughout the dates and time to the date of filing this case, the processes employed by the Defendants against the Claimant and his appointment as Vice-Chancellor, were done Mala fide and is a continuous injury which is unabated because the Defendants claimed to have suspended him on 20^th June, 2017 for not complying with S.4.3.9 (i) & (ii) of the senior staff condition of service of the 1 University Dutsin-ma for resorting to litigation without first exhausting the internal avenues for settling grievances or seeking redress in the university even though the Defendants are fully aware that the process employed in the condition of service was not applicable to the Claimant, being a Vice-Chancellor whose appointment and disciplinary processes are guided by clear provisions of the applicable statutes; that they know that he has fully exhausted the internal avenues for settling grievances or seeking redress as per the processes pursued by him (the Claimant) in his following correspondences:                                               i. Letter dated 14^th April 2017 addressed to the Pro Chancellor with Reference No. FUDMA/CM/073/27; signed by the Claimant with the heading Re:  Allegation of Financial Impropriety and-Mal-Administration.Exhibit A-A6.                                                                               ii. Letter dated 18^th April 2017 with caption: - THE NEED TO OBSERVE RULE OF LAW AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF SOME ACTIONS TAKEN AGAINST ME. Exhibit B.                                                                 

   iii. Letter dated 19^th April 2017 addressed to the Hon. Minister of Education with caption: - A plea for intervention on the Actions of the Pro-Chancellor and Chairman of Council, Federal University Dutsinma (FUDMA). Exhibit C-C2.                                                                                                                   Vi. Letter dated 12^th May 2017 addressed to the Hon. Minister of Education with caption: - RE: A plea for intervention on the Actions of the Pro-Chancellor and Chairman of Council, Federal University Dutsinma (FUDMA).Exhibit D & D1.

 That the Defendants went on in bad faith to wrongly claim that the Claimant did not exhaust the internal grievance settling procedures (even though these do not apply to the Vice-Chancellor).

1.      The Claimant maintained that he was served on 13^th day of April, 2017 with a letter, entitled: “Allegation of Financial Impropriety and Mal-Administration”, containing thirteen (13) paragraphs allegation dated 13^th of April, 2017 signed by the Pro-Chancellor/Chairman of the 1^st  Defendant requesting the Claimant to respond to those allegation in writing within twenty four (24) hours and at the same time suspended him without due process and no hearing, quite unaware of the petition dated 22^nd day of  the Hon. Minister of Education. The Claimant maintained that this was pleaded only as a background fact that started the development which later brought about the facts leading to this claim.                                                                                       7. The Claimant avers that on the 24 hours ultimatum issued to him to submit his  response was to lapse on 18^th April 2017 (as 14^th & 17^th 2017 were public holidays of Good Friday and Easter Monday respectively while 15 – 16^th 1, were Saturday and Sunday which were none working days). This, he maintained was pleaded only as a background fact that started the development which later brought about the facts leading to this claim. The Claimant avers that in the morning of that 18^th April 2017 before he submitted his response to the Pro Chancellor’s letter of the 13^th April 2017, entitled: “Allegation of Financial Impropriety and Mal-Administration” he is barred from having access to his office. Prior to this he learnt that the directive was being anticipated to restrict his entry into the University Premises. The Claimant maintains that this was pleaded only as a background fact that started the development which later brought about the facts leading to this claim.                                                                                        

2.        8. The claimant also avers that on the 18^th April 2017 and even before the expiration of the 24 hours ultimatum issued to the Claimant to submit his response to the Pro Chancellor’s Letter of the 13^th April 201, a Senate ig was summoned and the Senate sat and selected replacement of the and the Senate also selected representatives to investigate the allegations against the Claimant as prelude to his removal.                                                                                              9. The Claimant avers that according to the combined provisions of the Section 9, (2) and Section 3, (2) of the Third Schedule of the Federal University Dutsinma (Establishment Act) 2015 only the Vice Chancellor is the Chairman of Senate and that the Claimant neither chaired the Senate meeting of the 18^th April, 2017 nor delegated any one to do so.The Claimant maintained this was pleaded as a background fact that started the development which later brought about the facts leading to this claim.               

10. The Claimant maintained that after the 1^st Defendant’s Meeting of 12^th – 13^th April,2017, the 1^st Defendant did not convene any meeting to receive and/or discuss the response of the Claimant, but recklessly abdicated its function delegated its responsibilities to the Pro Chancellor, to ‘nominate’ the 4^th - 6^th Defendants to the Joint Council/Senate Investigation Committee as contained in pp.38-41 of the Minutes of the 7^th Regular Meeting of the 1^st Defendant. According to the Claimant this was pleaded only as a back ground fact that started the development which later brought about the facts leading to this claim.                                                                                                     

  11.The Claimant averred that he drew the attention of the Pro Chancellor via Letters including exhibit A-A6, entitled: - Re: Allegation of Financial Impropriety and-Mal-Administration; dated 14^th April, 2017, addressed to the Pro Chancellor, that statutorily it is the FUDMA Senate that determines who should represent the Senate at the FUDMA Council and not the Pro Chancellor’s personal hand picks. That the Pro Chancellor capriciously invited persons other than the bona fide Congregation and Senate Representative to attend and participated in the 7^th Regular Council Meeting of 12^th- 13^th April 2017. Here the Claimant maintained he pleaded Page 2 of the 7^th Regular Council Meeting of 12 – 13^th April 2017 only as a background fact that started development which later brought about the facts leading to this claim.                     

 12. The Claimant also averred that he called the attention of the Pro Chancellor he was unjustifiably suspended and denied access to his office and the procedure being followed by the 1^st Defendant to investigate the allegations were undeniably wrong, inappropriate and flawed. The Claimant also avered that he called the attention of the Defendants that due process was not followed and he had not been granted any hearing and he had not been found guilty of  gross misconduct yet, as required by the Amendment Section 4,( c ) of the Universities ( Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment) Act, 2003; which was absolutely necessary before invoking sections 5, (9) (i) and (ii) of L the Universities (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Act 2003. That (this section can only be invoked for his removal of the Vice Chancellor after establishing case of gross misconduct). And that this was pleaded only as a background fact that started the development which later brought about the facts leading to this claim. 

13. The Claimant maintained that he also presented his grievances to the Pro Chancellor that the 7^th and 8^th Defendants were selected on the 18^th April 2017 Senate Meeting, that the particular Senate Meeting was not only flawed but void, and  the 7^th and 8^th Defendants were not legally selected. The Claimant stressed that his objections were recorded in pages 43-50 MINUTES OF THE 9 (REGULAR) MEETING OF THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF FEDERAL UNIVERSITY DUTSIN-MA HELD ON THURSDAY 7^TH, FRIDAY 8^TH AND SATURDAY 9^TH SEPTEMBER, 2017. The Claimant maintained that the  9^th Council Meeting was pleaded in part, the relevant portions which admitted the steps taken by the Claimant and the Defendants were put on notice to produce the certified true copies of the said 9^th Council Meeting Minutes.                              

 14. The Claimant stated that on 10^th May 2017, he was invited by the National Universities Commission Executive Secretary where the Pro Chancellor was also present and reiterated that investigation will proceed according to the flawed procedures resolved by the 1^st Defendant. The Claimant averred that up to the time of filing this suit he did not receive any reply to his letters, which confirms that the time within which to commence this suit/claim still subsist as the Claimant continuously awaits the Defendants over his requests that the Defendants must follow due process in addressing the grievances relating to the wrongful suspension of the Claimant but the Defendants remain silent and irresponsive.                                                                                                                         

   15. Claimant maintained that having followed all due internal processes to get the 1^st Defendant conduct the investigation according to laid down procedures but to no avail, he wrote letters, one dated 19^th April 2017 and the Other 12^th May 2017 to the Hon. Minister of Education to kindly intervene on the issue and in one Instance copied the National Universities Commission (NUC) Executive Secretary. Admitted as exhibits C-C2 and D&D1 respectively.                                                    16. The Claimant avers that having exhausted the internal processes to resolve the impasse and being unsatisfied with the flawed procedure to investigate the allegations against him and having been dissatisfied with the suspension the 1^st Defendant in clear breach of the principle of due process, he approached his Counsel who commenced SUIT NO: NICN/KN/29/2017 against the Defendants on 31^st May 2017. He averred further that he was already in Court as at 31^st May, 2017 he was suspended again by the University Management in a crude manner through exhibit E dated 20^th June,2017. He averred that as a Vice Chancellor, according to the provisions of Part1: Section 9(1), (2) of the Federal University Dutsin-ma Laws he has precedence over the University Management and he reports only to the 1^st Defendant. That the 20^th June 2017 suspension by the University Management Defendant is reprehensible, illegal and of no effect. in court as at 31^st May, 2019 having exhausted the internal processes of settling grievances, when he was suspended again in e most outlandish crudest manner by the University Management through a letter dated 20^th June 2017 from the 3^rd Defendant without affording him his right to fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights to his employment as Vice Chancellor.                                           

 17. The Claimant avers further that the 20^th June suspension was on the allegation that the Claimant filed a suit against the Defendants on the 26^th of May, 2017 that “the university management noted that you have taken the University to Federal High Court Katsina over your interdiction and the on-going investigation on the allegations labeled against you” without exhausting the internal processes of settling grievances, which confirmed the faith of the Defendants in their haste to get rid of the Claimant from hi employment as Vice Chancellor of Federal University, Dutsin-Ma as there was never a time the Claimant was interdicted and he did not file any suit against his “interdiction and the on-going investigation on the allegations labeled against you” and even if the Claimant did that, it was properly done having exhausted the internal processes of settling grievances and the process employed by the Defendants grossly contravened the Claimant’s constitutional right to fair hearing in the determination of his civil right and ligation including any question or determination by or against any government or authority, as vice-Chancellor of the 2^nd Defendant, which are superior rights granted and preserved by the Constitution of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) which are maintainable and enforceable for the guaranteed right to ir hearing within reasonable time as against the requirement for exhausting internal grievances settling processes of the Defendants.                                                                                                     

   18. The Claimant states also that as at the 20^th June 2017 when the Defendants alleged that the Claimant instituted a legal action against the Defendants, thereby allegedly committed misconduct and therefore he was suspended without pay which decision was not made by the Governing Council, which had the decision making powers, but the wrongful suspension was unlawfully made by the University Management, which has no authority to so issue the suspension and the Claimant had the Constitutional right to a fair given a hearing, a fair hearing or to be heard by the defendants through a query, to enable him make a representation and to confirm whether or not he committed the alleged misconduct before the Defendants could reach a conclusion and finding of guilt that the Claimant did commit a misconduct, before the Defendants applied the disciplinary action of suspending him without pay and subsequently terminating his employment on 13^th September, 2017.                                                                                                            19. Claimant also states that the Defendants reported the same allegations in Pro-Chancellor’s letter of 13^th April, 2017 (upon which the 1^st Defendants suspended the Claimant on the alleged principle of stepping aside) to the Police, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission ) and the Independent Corrupt Practices Commission (ICPC), and as multiple jeopardy, forced the Claimant to appear before the said Commissions for investigations on the said allegations. But before the Defendants could get the reports of the reports of the investigations from the Commissions, the Defendants quickly and unlawfully terminated the appointment of the Claimant as Vice-Chancellor, in bad faith., so as to frustrate the outcome of the said investigation, which the Defendants themselves caused same to be commenced against the Claimant; as the investigations is still continuous waiting the result and report of the said investigations from the investigatory Commissions, up till date.                                                                                                    20. The Claimant pleaded the injury of unlawful suspension and unlawful termination of employment/appointment of the Claimant as Vice-Chancellor by the Defendants still subsists, as the Claimant has not been issued with any report yet from the police, EFCC, and the ICPC over the allegations against him but left without salaries and allowances, with false allegations hanging over him, till date, even after exhausting the internal processes of settling grievances.                          21. The Claimant maintained also that instead of putting in place the proper procedure for investigation, the 1^st Defendant resolved to summarily remove by invoking Section 5, (9) (i) and (ii) of the Universities Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Act 2003, through the resolution (ii) recorded in page 39-41 of the minutes under AOB at the 7^th regular Meeting of 12^th – 13^th April 2017.                             22.  The Claimant pleads that in a bizarre manner he was wrongly issued with 2 letters both dated 13^th September, 2017, one stating his services as Vice Chancellor are no longer required, while the other terminating his appointment as Vice-Chancellor of the 2^nd Defendant due to the report of the flawed Investigation Committee of the Defendants, which letters were pleaded their content are as follows:-                              

     13^th September, 2017

 FUDMA/REG/PS 844/I.

Prof. Haruna Abdu Kaita,                                                                                       Department of Pharmaceutical Chemistry,                                                                     Faculty of Pharmacy,                                                                                         Ahmadu Bello University,                                                                                                  Zaria.

                                  TERMINATION OF APPOINTMENT                                        You will recall that following receipt of credible allegations against you of financial misappropriation and violation of due process, specifically in financial management and contract award, the Governing Council and the Senate of Federal University Dutsin-Ma appointed a joint committee to investigate the allegations in line with Section Subsection 9 and 10 of the Universities (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1993 as amended in 2003.                                                                             The committee investigating the allegations invited you severally to give you the opportunity to respond and clarify the allegations, but you failed to appear despite being duly served with the invitations to appear before the Committee. At the end of the Committee’s assignment, your conducts were found to be indictable.                                                                                                              

  The Governing Council received and considered the report of the investigation committee at its 9^th regular meeting held Thursday to Saturday 9^th September, 2017, and in line with Section Subsection 11 of the Universities (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1993, as amended in 2003, approved the termination of your appointment as Vice-Chancellor of the University with effect from 13^th September, 2017.                                                                                           

   I am therefore, to request you to immediately handover all University properties in your possession to the Acting Vice-Chancellor, and never to be seen in the University premises unless with the express approval of the university authorities.                                                                                                                

 By a copy of this letter, the Bursar is directed to immediately pay your passage back to your primary employer- the Ahmadu Bello University Zaria.

Aliyu Dalha Kankia,

Registrar and Secretary to Council.

FUDMA/REG/PS 844/1.

13^th September, 2017

 Prof. Haruna Abdu Kaita,                                                                                                       Department of Pharmaceutical Chemistry,                                                                    Faculty of Pharmacy,                                                                                                                               Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria.                                                                                                    Dear Sir,

                              UNIVERSITY RE-ORGANIZATION                                                

   I am directed to inform you that due that due to major reorganization going on in the University the Governing Council of Federal University Dutsin-Ma no longer requires your services as the Vice-Chancellor of the University. You are therefore, requested to immediately handover all University properties in your possession to the Acting Vice-Chancellor. By a copy of this letter, the Bursar is directed to immediately pay your passage back to your primary employer – the Ahmadu Bello University.

Aliyu Dalha Kankia

 Registrar and Secretary to Council.  

23.  The Claimant also pleaded the following as particulars of denial of any fair hearing:-                                                                                                                        

   i. The 1^st Defendants ought to have preliminarily issued a query to the Claimant and anticipate response to the query. If response to the query happens to be unsatisfactory, the 1^st Defendant shall then issue the Claimant with a directive for further explanation on the response to the query, thereafter report, as directed, back to the Minister accordingly id anticipate the Minister’s further directives.                                                                                                              ii. The1^st Defendant summarily suspended the Claimant from office on presumption of guilt before any investigation on a letter not directed to it, but to the EFCC.                                                                                                                 

iii. The Claimant contends that in taking its action, the 1^st Defendant did not provide the Claimant the right to any hearing and or the right to fair hearing accordingly by conducting preliminary investigations in to the allegations to establish evidence of gross misconduct as required by the Amendment Section 4, (c) of the Universities (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Act 2003.                           iv.  From the outset of the attack of the Defendants against the Claimant in their letter of 13^th September, 2017 they acted on unproved suspicion and allegation that “…following receipt of credible allegations of financial misappropriation and violation of due process, specifically in financial management and contract award…” and acted on mere suspicion or mere allegation without proof and held the Claimant as culpable of the allegations they labeled against him maliciously.

v. The Defendants, in the same letter of 13^th September, 2019 unlawfully resolved that ‘‘The  Governing Council received and considered the report of the investigation committee at its 9^th regular meeting held from Thursday 7^th to Saturday 9^th September, 2017, and 11 line with Section Subsection 11 of the Universities (Miscellaneous Provisions) 1993, as amended in 2003, approved the termination of your appointment as Vice-Chancellor of the University with effect from 13^th September, 2017”, without affording the Claimant any hearing and in disregard of the Claimant’s right to be heard by the committee before the report was produced and in disregard of the pending Suit No. NICN/KN/29/2017 which, on its own, lis pendis, which prevents the Defendants from taking any action against the Claimant over his appointment as Vice-Chancellor of  the 2^nd Defendant and created a fait accompli on the said Claimant’s Suit and rendered it nugatory.                                                                                                                        

   Vi. The Defendants wrongly resolved in their letter that “The committee investigating the allegations invited you severally to give you the opportunity to respond and clarify on the allegations, but you failed to appear despite being duly served with the invitations to appear before the Committee. At the end of the Committee’s assignment, your conducts were found to be indictable” while it is not a true claim as there has never been a time or anytime when the Defendants and its investigation committee served the Claimant with any invitation or   called investigation in clear denial of fair hearing to the Claimant; without affording him a hearing at all and he did not receive any invitation.                                                                                                              24. The Claimant pleaded that he cannot have his appointment to be terminated for services no longer required due to re-organization of University and to have the same appointment to exist, to be terminated again due to the report of the investigation committee of the University, and the Claimant further states that the 2 terminations of appointment by the Defendants are unlawful, null and void.                   25. The Defendants furthered their persecution, victimization, and malicious d against the Claimant by filing multiple Criminal Investigations at the  Corrupt Practices Commission (ICPC) and the office of the Assistant Inspector General of Police, Zone 1 Kano over the same allegations which has been the subject of Suit No. NICN/KN/29/2017 and which was referred in to by the Defendants in their letter of 13 September, 2019, thereby prolonging the unjustified official administrative and financial torture of the Claimant with injurious excruciating emotional pains on the Claimant and his employment/appointment as Vice-Chancellor of the 2^nd Defendant.                                                                                       

 26.  The Claimant states that he was invited to the EFCC through phone call over the complain of the Defendants while the ICPC and the Police issued documented invitations; some of the content of the invitation documents issued to him by the ICPC and the Police are:- 

ICPC/KDZO/IVT/TA/844/2017 22^ND November, 2017 Professor Haruna Kaita No. 18 Usman Dala Road Area BZ A.B.U Zaria Main Campus Kaduna State. INVESTIGATION ACTIVITIES: LETTER OF INVITATION This Commission is investigating a case on alleged violation of the provision of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2000.                                            

     2. In view of the above and pursuant to section 28 of the  the undersigned on Thursday 30 November, 2017 by 1100hours (11am) at Kaduna Zonal Office located                                                                                                                           

      3. Accept the assurances of the Honourable Chairman’s highest regards, please. Shehu Y. Commissioner, Kaduna Zonal Office.

AR: 3000/ZN.1/’X’-SQUAD/2/49 30/04/2018 Prof. Haruna Abdu Kaita, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria. Kaduna State. INVITATION LETTER Sequel to a petition addressed to the Assistant Inspector General of Police Zone One Headquarters, Kano dated 7^th February, 2018 from Federal University Dusinma Katsina State.                                                                                                                 

   . 2. You are kindly requested to report at ‘X’-squad office, Zone One Headquarters, Kano on 04/05/2018 at about 10:09am. 3. Your prompt response to this regard will be highly appreciated, ple DCP.BARTHALOMEW NTONYEKA, psc(+), DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF FOLICE, (DFA), R: A. I.G ZONE ONE HEADQURTERS, ΚΑΝΟ.

27.  The Claimant also averred that the EFCC, the ICPC and the Police have not issued him yet with their reports of their investigations over the complains of the Defendants and time is passing while the term and duration of his office as Vice-Chancellor, for a single term of five (5) years effective from 11™ day of February, 2016 which will expire on the 10^th of February, 2021 is being spent by each day and there is no end in sight. The Claimants put on hold without due regards to his rights to fair hearing reasonable time which applies within and during the criminal investigation against him commenced by the Defendants and his said rights to fair hearing within reasonable time has been grossly violated by the Defendants.                                                                                            

  28.  The Claimant pleads that he was appointed as the Vice-Chancellor of the 2^nd Defendant for a single term of five (5) Years effective from 11^th day of February, 2016 which will expire on the 10^th February, 2021, with payment of full salaries, allowances, housing accommodation, medical expenses of the Claimant and his family and other rights and privileges, with the certain prospect of salary increment and upward reviews.                                                                                                       29. The Claimant avers that as at the 20^th of June, 2017 when the Defendants stopped the payment of salaries and allowances to the Claimant and also stopped all other rights and privileges, the Claimant used to receive the sum of N 1,481,766.96 only as his monthly salary and allowances; but by the wrongful suspension of the Claimant’ and stoppage of his salaries, allowances, rights and privileges of unquantifiable monetary value, the Claimant is being unlawfully deprived by the Defendants the sum of 1,481,766.96 only every month and it continues until the case is determined } expiry date of the remaining term of office of the Claimant from  May 2017 to 10^th February, 2021.                                                                       disturbing the Claimant continuously.                                                                                   30.  The Claimant states further that his rights, privileges, salaries, allowances, medical services entitlements, accommodation, leave grants, and basic Travelling allowances, which he would have earned and enjoyed had the Defendants not removed him unlawfully as the Vice-Chancellor, besides the humiliation (nationally and internationally), social stigma, generalized trauma, hardship and sufferings in maintaining himself, his family and the Dependents, displeasures grieved, uncertainties caused by the Defendants’ wrongful suspension, cannot be compensated by a quantum of damages of Four Hundred Million Naira (N400,000,000) as the injurious sufferings are enormous, extremely hurting and disturbing the Claimant continuously. 

                         THE CASE OF THE DEFENDANTS                                                                            31.  In their joint statement of defence the dendants admitted that the      not set up to establish the guilt or criminality of the claimant, but rather to investigate all the said allegations against the claimant with a view to determine the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations and report  to Council of its findings. 3. The defendants denied paragraph 6 of the statement of facts and further averred that the suspension and subsequent termination of the claimant’s employment was not unlawful. The defendants averred in further reference to paragraph 6 of the statement of facts that the intention of the Governing Council in adhering with the laid down rules and procedure was clear when it gave the claimant the room to respond to the allegations in writing, which he days after he was served with the query. The defendants aver further that the joint Committee constituted by the Council was mandated to invite the claimant to put up his defense in person as well order to give the Claimant an opportunity of  fair hearing as required by the law. The terms of reference of the Committee as contained in the clearly buttressed this point. The minutes containing the terms; was admitted in evidence.                                                                                                                  32.  The defendants averred further to the above paragraph that they did not send any communication to the claimant during the pendency of the suit instituted by the claimant or any suit before any court of law. The defendants further aver that no any action was taken against the Claimant, so also all the communications were sent or delivered to the claimant when there was no case before any court.                                                                                                       

       33. The defendants in their denial averred that the claimant’s suspension was done in accordance with the good administrative practice, relevant laws and not the Senior Staff condition of service of the University and the suspension of the claimant is not null and void.                                                                                                                                              34.  The Defendants also maintained that the claimant did not exhaust the internal avenues for settling grievances or seeking redress in the University. The defendants maintained that there nowhere in the minutes of the meeting of  the 9^th regular meeting  of the 1^st Defendant it acknowledged that the Claimant has exhausted all the internal avenues of settling grievances or seeking redress as required by the law of the University. The minutes of the 9^th (regular) meeting of the 1^st defendant held on the 7^th, 8^th and 9^th September, 2017 was admitted in evidence as exhibit DA.                                                                               

    35.  The defendants denied paragraph 11 of the statement of  facts and state response that the processes employed by the defendants against the claimant were not done mala fide and the suspension of the claimant was done in compliance with the law as the 1^st defendant directed that the Joint Investigation Committee of Council and Senate be constituted which comprises of 3 members of the Council and 2 members from the  misconduct against the claimant which same was tabled before the 1^st defendant. The defendants further to the above paragraph averred  that the said committee conducted its investigation on the allegations made against the claimant and reported its findings to the council.  The defendants insisted that the provision of the relevant laws apply to the claimant the claimant has not exhausted fully the internal avenues for settling grievances or seeking redress in the University. The defendants denied paragraph 13 of the statement of facts and state in response that the decision of the 1^st defendant to suspend the claimant was consequent upon the directive of the Hon. Minister of Education to investigate the allegations leveled against the claimant.                                                                                                                        

 36.  The Defendants further averred that the suspension was not done without due process and the defendants were not obliged at that stage to first the Claimant before it could suspend him since no decision was taken either believing or disbelieving the allegations leveled against n, particularly, when the Claimant will have opportunity to defend himself and be accorded opportunity to answer to the allegations before the  JIC., which the Claimant persistently refused to honor its invitations despite several invitations and requests sent and delivered to him vide various means.                                                                                           37.  The defendants that the 24 hours given to the claimant to respond to the allegations was to lapse on the 15^th day of April, 2017 and not the 18^th 18^th day of April, 2017 as Saturday is a juridical day. The defendants denied paragraph 15 of the statement of facts and puts the claimant to the strictest proof.  The defendants stated in response that on the 18^th day of April 2017, the 24 hours ultimatum had already lapsed, and the senate meeting was summoned after the  the expiration of the 24 hours ultimatum given to the claimant.                                                                                                           38. The defendants further to the above paragraph aver that an Acting Vice Chancellor was appointed pending the outcome of the investigation because the Claimant could not be a judge in his own cause as the Joint investigation Committee was constituted to investigate the allegations leveled against the claimant in order to get the facts and make appropriate recommendations not as a prelude to his removal. And the investigation did not in any way breach the right to fair hearing of the claimant, but rather it was to enable the joint investigation committee to freely and fairly investigate the allegations against the claimant.                                                                                                                 

    39. The Defendants deny paragraph 17 of the statement of facts and state in response that the chairman being the subject of investigation, could not be allowed to Chair the meeting nor delegate any person as he É”t be a judge in his own cause (Nemo Judex in Causa Sua). The defendants further to the above paragraph averred that the claimant was only asked to step aside pending the determination of the allegations leveled against him.                                                    40.  The Defendants aver further to the above paragraph that the investigation requires financing of the activities of the committee, which the claimant was the chief executive officer of the 2^nd Defendant and the approving authority of any expenses expected to be carried out during the assignment, therefore required another person to take charge for  vital records, which must be accessed for utilization unhindered, hence, the need for an immediate stepping down of the claimant to avoid any likely incident of intimidating staff of the University, tampering or suppressing of any document or information for the purpose of doinga thorough and fair investigation.                                                                             41.  The defendants further to the above paragraphs aver that the decision of the 1^st defendant to direct the claimant to step aside pending the investigation of the allegations leveled against him did not in any way determine or make a decision concerning any of the allegations or rights of the claimant.   The defendants stated that the claimant did not submit his response to the query within the time stipulated. The defendants further aver that the claimant chose not to respond within the stipulated time as a result, there was no any need to convene any meeting for the fact that the purpose of the meeting is for the deliberations of his response.                                                                                                                    

 42. The defendants deny paragraph 19 of the statement of facts and state in response that it was not the Pro-chancellor that handpicked the persons that represented the senate at FUDMA Council and that the members that represented the Senate at the 7^th regular council meetings of 12^th & 13^th day of April, 2017 were bonafide congregation members and that it was the Senate of the 2^nd defendant that forwarded the names or the representatives,                              43. The defendants denied paragraph 20 of the statement of facts and further averred that the claimant was not unjustifiably suspended and the procedure followed was not undeniably wrong, inappropriate and flawed. The defendants further aver that the claimant was granted fair hearing as he was served with the copy of allegations leveled against him and he was as well given 24 hours to respond which he failed to do so within the 24 hours provided. The copy of the letter titled “allegation financial impropriety and maladministration” dated the 13^th day of April, 2017 and the copy of the claimant’s response to the allegations/query issued to him, which the claimant replied to.                                44.  The defendants further to the above paragraph, averred that all the actions of the defendants were in accordance with the provisions of the law, and in full compliance with due process of law and the claimant was given the opportunity to respond to the allegations and to appear before the investigation Committee to defend himself and there were enough avenues for the claimant to be given fair hearing and also the opportunity to exonerate himself against all the allegations.                                                                                                                  

  45. The defendants further to the above paragraphs averred that the claimant was sent various invitations by the joint investigation committee to appear before the committee to make his case. The defendants further averred that the committee sent invitations to the claimant in various ways  cell phone of the secretary to the committee (prof. Rashid Hamzat) to that of the claimant and hand delivery by staff of the University.                                                             

        46.  The defendants further to the above paragraphs aver that the claimant confirmed to the Chairman of the 1^st Defendant (Dr. Marliyya Zayyan) vide text message that he was in receipt of the invitations to appear before the investigation committee and assured her that he was going to appear before the committee. The notices, courier reports, invitation letters, copy of the telephone text message sent from the cell phone of the secretary to the committee (Prof. Rashid Hamzat) are hereby pleaded and same will be relied upon at the trial. The defendants further to the above paragraphs aver that after many invitations to the claimant to appear before the Joint investigation commission but to no avail, the Committee sat and examined as well as deliberated on the response of the Claimant, and which the committee indicted the claimant for gross misconduct warranting disciplinary action against him and the report of the committee was propound and forwarded to the Council for necessary action.                                           47.  The defendants aver that the 1^st defendant upon receipt of the joint investigation committee Report, deliberated and made decision, where it found and agreed with the recommendation of the committee and thereafter resolved to relieve the claimant of his appointment as Vice Chancellor. The defendants further aver that the investigation Committee was directed by the Council to ensure that the rule of natural Justice is fully observed during the conduct of the proceedings and ensure the right of all interested parties are duly protected.                                                                                                                    48. The defendants deny paragraph 21 of the statement of facts and further aver that the 7^th & 8^th defendants were legally selected as their names were forwarded by the senate of the 2^nd defendant and the said senate meeting was not flawed and void. The defendants admitted paragraph 22 of the statement of facts to the extent that the claimant was invited by the National Universities Commission Executive Secretary and furthermore the defendants denied there was never a time when any flawed procedure was followed to warrant reiterating before the executive secretary that the investigation ould proceed according to the alleged flawed procedure.                                                              

    49. The Defendants maintained that the 1^st defendant conducted its investigation according to laid down procedures and the defendants are not aware of any letter dated 19^th day of April, 2017 and another dated 12^th day of May, 2017. The defendants further to the above paragraph aver that the claimant instead of adhering to the laid down procedures, he instituted an action against the defendants.  The defendants deny paragraph 25 of the statement of facts and state in response that the claimant did not exhaust the internal mechanisms of resolving impasse, and the allegation was not investigated through a flawed procedure as laid down rules and procedure were followed and the Claimant was given the opportunity to respond to the allegations in writing, which he did, days after the 24 hours given for his response.                                                                                                                              50. The Defendants deny paragraph 26 of the statement of facts and in response aver that the university management takes precedence over the claimant where the claimant is the subject of investigation. The defendants further aver that the 20^th June, 2017 suspension of the claimant by the university management is not reprehensible and illegal as the claimant was served with a copy of the allegations and he chose t to respond to within the time stipulated. The defendants further aver that the claimant was accorded fair hearing as he was served with a copy of the allegations leveled against him and he was accordingly given time to respond which he failed to do so within the stipulated time. The defendants aver further that claimant was also sent various invitations by the joint investigation committee to appear before the committee to make his case. The defendants further aver that the committee sent invitations to the claimant in various ways namely; courier company (like Fed Ex), telephone text message from the cell phone of the secretary to thecommittee (Prof. Rashid Hamzat) to that of the claimant and hand delivery by staff of the University.                                                                                     51. The defendants deny paragraph 28 of the statement of facts and state in response that the claimant’s suspension was not only on the fact that the claimant instituted an action against the defendants that borders on some other criminal allegations and findings of the joint committee. The defendants further aver that the claimant did not exhaust the internal mechanisms of settling grievances and was accorded fair hearing.                                                                           52.  The defendants deny paragraph 29 of the statement of I state in response that the suspension was issued on behalf of the council by the registrar who is also the secretary to the council. The defendants further aver that all the processes, communication and documents/notices were duly issued with the full permission, and mandate of the 1^st defendant as it has been the practice of the 1^st defendant to mandate any of its members to undertake any  responsibility, write or sign any document on its behalf. 40. The defendants deny paragraph 30 of the statement of facts and state in response that the suspension of the claimant was made in order to give room for proper investigation as the claimant could not be a judge in his cause and the termination of the appointment of the claimant was not unlawful and was not made in bad faith.                                           

       52A.  The defendants further to the above paragraph aver that the joint investigation committee conducted their investigation and their finding was that the claimant’s appointment be terminated while thecomplaint before the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and Independent Corrupt Practices Commission (ICPC) was made as a result of the report of the joint investigation committee in order for the agencies to carry out their investigations.                                                                                                               

  53. The defendants deny paragraph 31 of the statement of facts and state that the claimant did not suffer any injury whatsoever in the course of suspension and rightful termination of the appointment of claimant as due process of law was adhered to. The defendants further averred that the investigations before the Police, EFCC and ICPC is for the 1^st defendant to allow for due process be followed with respect to the complaints against the claimant as the Council have no power to deal with criminal allegation. The defendants maintained further that the proper procedure was adhered to in that before any action was taken against the claimant, he was served with the allegations letter and was given 24 hours to respond to the allegations which he chose not to respond within the stipulated time.                                                                                                                               54. The defendants denied paragraph 33 of the statement of facts and state in response that both letters dated 13^th September, 2017 were rightly issued to the claimant following proper procedure and the reports of the investigation committee was not flawed.  The defendants also denied the particulars of denial of any hearing/fair hearing contained in paragraph 33 (I) (VII) of the claimant’s statement of facts and maintained that the Claimant was accorded fair hearing.                                          55.  The defendants deny paragraph 34 of the statement of facts and stated in response that the termination of appointment of the claimant is not nuIl and void. They denied paragraph 35 of the statement of facts and stated in response that the claimant was not persecuted, victimized and there was no any malicious hatred against the claimant and the allegations filed was as a result of the complaint received by the Council against the claimant and same were filed at the stated agencies for investigation and prosecution of the claimant.                                                                                                                        56. The defendants further to the above paragraph averred that all these agencies are empowered to deal with criminal allegations. They averred further that the agencies conducted the investigations and even recovered the 2^nd  Defendant’s vehicles from the claimant. They denied paragraph 37 of the statement of facts and state in response that, the claimant is not put on hold the fact that his employment was terminated and his right to fair hearing has not been grossly violated by the defendants. The defendants aver further that a · joint committee was constituted which investigated the matter and de their firwhich I aimant’s appointment on the 13^th September, 2017.                                                                                                                57.50. The defendants further aver that the allegations in paragraph 36 & 37 of the claimant’s statement of facts are against the Police, EFCC and ICPC and are not made parties in this suit. The defendants further aver that the said agencies made their investigations and even recovered the 2^nd defendant’s vehicles from the claimant The defendants deny paragraph 38 of the statement of facts and state in response that the term of office of the claimant is not automatic, it is subject to compliance with the terms of employment as well as regulations and other enabling laws. They further averred that, the appointment, termination, dismissal, discipline, and other related matters on the office of the Vice Chancellor of the 2^nd defendant are responsibilities under the powers and control of the 1^st defendant.                                                                                     

   58. The defendants averred that they have the power to take any disciplinary measure against the Claimant and notify the President who is the visitor through the appropriate channel of the Minister of Education and in which case of the Claimant followed all the required due process of law and which the Claimant refused to take advantage of.                                                                                 

       59. The Defendants averred further that the claimant was not unlawfully denied his salaries, allowances and all other entitlements as the stoppage of his salaries and termination of appointment were as a result of  resolutions/recommendations of the joint investigation committee which e approved by the 1^st defendant. The defendants insiste that the claimant was not unlawfully removed as a result of the allegations leveled against him but was duly and lawfully removed based on the findings of the Joint Investigation Committee.  The defendants went on to contend at the trial that the claimant is not entitled to the reliefs sought in paragraph 41 (1) – (11) of the Statement of facts.                                                                                                                             

60. The defendants also contended  at the trial that this  Court lacked lacked jurisdiction to entertain this suit and set the point(s) for hearing during the trial of this suit challenging the competence of  the suit that it was an abuse of court processes. And urged this Honorable Court to dismiss the case of the claimant with substantial cost for being frivolous, vexatious and a flagrant abuse of the process of this court.

THE REPLY OF THE CLAIMANT TO THE DEFENDANTS’ JOINT STATEMENT OF DEFENCE.                                                                               

    61.  In response, the Claimant in the reply to the joint statement of defence, the Claimant averred amongst  denying specifically denies paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, , 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 15, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57 and 58 as not true and misleading and entirely irrelevant to the determination of this e because the Claimant’s Claim is simple and to the effect that the suspension of the Claimant from his appointment as Vice Chancellor of Federal University Dustin-Ma on 20^th June, 2017 on the allegation that the Claimant filed a suit against the Defendants at the Federal High Court Katsina was done without giving the Claimant any hearing and without fair hearing as the Claimant was not even queried and at the time of the suspension of the Claimant on the allegation that he filed a case at the Federal High Court Katsina, he had a pending case before the National Industrial Court Kano filed on the 31^st day of May, 2017 before his suspension on 1 June, 2017; as such, the suspension of 20^th June, 2017 was done while the Defendants were fully aware of the pendency of suit NICN/KN/29/2017, done with the intention to frustrate the pending suit, pose a (sic) fiat accompli on the trial court and render the claims of the Claimant nugatory.                                                                                         

62. The Claimant responded  further that the suspension was done mala fide along with the stoppage of his in the pendency and subsistence of Suit No. NICN/KN/29/2017, which the Defendants must not have done in the pendency of the said suit, to respect the court and not to put the court in a helpless situation and not to render the decision of the National Industrial Court Kano of Nigeria  nugatory, which the Defendants just did by suspending the Claimant stopped his salaries and further terminated his appointment as Vice Chancellor of Federal University DustinMa on ¹ June, 2017 and 13^th September, 2017 unjustly.                                                                                                                  

   63.  In further reply the Claimant denied paragraphs 2 to 58 of the joint statement of defence and maintained that his salary is not only guided by the Universities Act which has not provided for exhausting internal grievances settling procedures before the Claimant can have access to a court and any other processes referred to by the Defendants , are not applicable to the Claimant and the office of the Vice Chancellor contrary to paragraphs 6,7& 8 of the defence.That suspending the Claimant and stopping his salaries dated 20^th June, 2017 speaks for its self and confirmed that the only reason why the Claimant was suspended and his salary stopped was because he Filed a case against the Defendants at the Federal High Court Katsina, and that the action of the Defendants was done in the pendency of the said suit no NICN/KN/29/2017 already filed on the 31^st of May, 2017, in clear disrespect to the court and disregard e pending case contrary to paragraphs 5,6,7,8,9,10 & 11,12 of the statement of the Defence.                                                                                                                            64.  In further denial and reply to paragraphs 12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22  and 23 of the joint statement of defence, The Claimant maintained that they have no relevance to this case which is only limited the events of the 20^th June 2017 and 13^th September, 2017, suspension of the Claimant, stoppage of the salaries of the Claimant, termination of the appointment of the Claimant for services no longer required and for allegedly not appearing before the investigation committee of the Defendants; all done in disrespect of the process of this Court in suit no: NICN/KN/29/2017 and in the pendency of the case, in which the Defendants stole a match not only in anticipation of an application but in real existence subsistence and pendency of suit no NICN/KN/29/2017 between the same Claimant against the same Defendants over the same office and appointment of the Vice Chancellor of Federal University Dustin-Ma, invalid suspension of the said Claimant from his appointment as the Vice Chancellor of theFederal University Dustin- Ma by the management of the Defendants. Statement of defence, the Claimant maintains that his appointment is only guided by the Universities Act, which has not provided for exhausting internal grievances settling procedure before the Claimant can have access to court and any other processes referred by the Defendants, are not applicable to the Claimant and the office of the Vice Chancellor.                                                      

      65.  Claimant states that the resolution of council mandating the Pro Chancellor to single handedly pick member of the Council in to Senate Council Committee  Investigation Committee is contrary to the laid down law regarding the full Council as a body to convene and select the investigation committee members, the procedure being guided by the Universities (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Act 2003 and all the subsequent actions of all the Defendants against the Claimant are null and void being that they were done mala fide and in the pursuit of wrong decision of council at the 7^th Regular Meeting of 1 April, 2017, subject of suit no. NICN/KN/29/2017.                                                                                                      66. He maintained that the bad faith contained in, exhibited by and disclosed from the intent and purpose of the letter of suspension of the Claimant from his appointment of 20^th June, 2017 is clearly plain and proves the prejudice of the Defendants against the Claimant pursuant to which all the processes of the suspension, stoppage of payment of salary and termination of the appointment were carried out by the Defendants on the said 20^th June, 2017 and 13^th September, 2017 therefore null, void and of no effect, as the Defendants are fully aware that the Claimant’s appointment as Vice Chancellor has nothing to do with the application of any other law, Condition of Service of the Universities or any administrative procedures most especially that all were done in the pendency of suit no NICN/KN/29/2017 and in disregard the suit, to render the decision of the court nugatory.                                                                                                                                                        67.  The Claimant, in further reply, states that as at 31^st May, 2017 he filed suit no : NICN/KN/29/2017 at the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, Kano and by 20^th June, 2017, the Defendants being aware of the pendency if the suit NICN/KN/29/2017 issued the letter of 20^th June, 2017 suspending the Claimant from his appointment as Vice Chancellor and stopped payment of his salaries even though the letter referred to different suit at the Federal High Court, Katsina and was written by the management of the Defendants pursuant to the conditions of service applicable only to the senior staff of the University and not the Claimant (Vice Chancellor). The court was invited to take judicial notice of all the proceedings, documents and processes and date of filing case no NICN/KN/29/2017, being 31^st May, 2017.                                                                 

  68. In further denial and reply to paragraphs 26 and 27 of the joint statement of defence, the Claimant stated that he did not receive any invitation to appear before the investigation committee and did not write any text message to the Chairman of the 1^st Defendant acknowledging the invitation.  In further denial and reply to paragraphs 28,29,30,31,32 and 33 & 34 of the Defendants’ statement of defence, all were not done in accordance with the law that applies to the Claimant as Vice Chancellor of the 2^nd Defendant, null and void and were done in the pendency of the suit no NICN/KN/29/2017 disrespecting and disregarding the proceedings of the trial National Industrial Court of Nigeria, this court, and the Claimant has a right of presenting his grievances to the court of Kano National Industrial Court of Nigeria, as he did in suit no NICN/KN/29/2017 and then suit no NICN/KN/54/2020.                                              

   69.  The Claimant denied paragraphs 36 and 37 of the joint statement of defence and reply that the Defendants are acting mala fide as the office of the Claimant is an establishment of the University law and is the Chief Academic and Administrative officer of  the 2^nd Defendant and takes precedence over the management and the Claims of the Claimant in this case is that the suit/complaint over the events of 13^th April, 2017 is grossly disregarded, disrespected abused as from 20^th June, 2017 when the Claimant was suspended by the management and salary stopped pursuant to the provision of Senior Staff Condition of Service which does not apply to the Claimant as Vice Chancellor.

70. In further reply to paragraphs 38, 39 and 40 of the joint statement of defence, the actions of the Defendants was done in the pendency of suit no NICN/KN/29/2017 by the management, in accordance with the Senior Staff Condition of Service not applicable to the Claimant, as is contained in the letter of the management of the Defendants of 20^th June, 2017 which speaks for its self, contrary to the Claims and averments of the Defendants which are clearly not true and the Defendants actions are invalid by reason of the pendency of the said suit no NICN/KN/29/2017 ; lis pendens .                                                                                              71. The Claimant denied paragraphs 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 48,49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57 and 58 and in reply to the same, Claimant maintains that all the actions of the Defendants in the said paragraphs were done unlawfully and done in disregard of pendency of suit no NICN/KN/29/2017 and in disrespect of this court and are null, void and of no effect whatsoever. The Claimant, in reply to paragraph 42, stated that he suffers prejudice from the Defendants, he was denied fair hearing before and after he was wrongly suspended and his salaries stopped by the letter of 20^th June, 2017, all injured him and was more injured when his appointment was terminated by the Defendants on the 13 September, 2017; all done in the pendency of suit no NICN/KN/29/2017 in disregard of this court and its hearing of the said case; done by the Defendants wrongly; in lis pendes.                                                  

72.  In further denial and reply to paragraphs 44, 45, 47 and 49, the Claimant stated that he was not granted fair hearing before his suspension, stoppage of salary and termination of appointment, the Claimant was actually victimized, persecuted and maliciously treated by the Defendants who all acted mala fide, null and void.  The Claimant denied paragraphs 48, 49 and 50 of the joint statement of defence and stated that no vehicle was recovered from the Claimant by the investigatory agencies.  The Claimant, in further reply, states that the actions of the investigatory agencies was triggered by the Defendants’ complaints to them and they may join in the suit if they so wish; and the Claimant has no any prayers against the said agencies to them parties to this case.                                                                                                                              73.19. The Claimant denies paragraphs 51 and 52 & 53 of the statement of defence and reply that the appointment of the Claimant as Vice Chancellor Federal University Dustin Ma is guided by Universities Miscellaneous (Provisions) (Amendment) Act 2003 (statutory flavour), not any other law, sentiments or dictates of the Defendants and can only be determined in accordance with the provisions of that law and no more; while all the actions of the Defendants against the Claimant were done unlawfully in the pendency of suit no NICN/KN/29/2017 and mala fide, null and void and contrary to the clear provisions of Universities Miscellaneous (Provisions) (Amendment) Act 2003.          74. The Claimant, in reply to paragraphs 53 & 54 of the defence, stated that his salaries stoppage, suspension and termination of appointment were done arbitrarily and pursuant to the Defendants’ letter of 20^th June, 2017 and 13 September, 2017 as a result of the malicious but alleged and purported investigation of the joint committee of the Defendants which all were done in the exclusion of the Claimant, in disregard and in pendency of the Claims of the Claimant against the suspension from office as Vice Chancellor on the 13^th September, 2017 which the Claimant invites this court to take judicial notice of and the so called finding of the purported joint investigation committee is null and void being done mala fide id in the pendency of the said suit

NICN/KN/29/2017.                                                                                                    

   75. The Claimant denied paragraph 55 of the joint statement of defence and in reply stated that the Claimant is entitled to the Claims and prayers in this suit.  The Claimant denied paragraph 56 of the Defendants’ joint statement of defence and maintain that this suit is competent before the court and the court has the jurisdiction to hear the case. The Claimant denied paragraphs 57 and 58 of the joint statement of defence as this suit is not an abuse of court process, as the issues and facts forming the case were wrongly caused by the Defendants in the pendency of suit no NICN/KN/29/2017 over the office and appointment of the Claimant as Vice Chancellor of Federal University Dustin-Ma and his unlawful suspension from the appointment, which he Claimant applied before the trial court National Industrial Court “ Nigeria, Kano in NICN/KN/29/2017 to amend his claims/statement of facts and plead all the facts leading to this case,but the Defendants in that case (are the Defendants in this case) opposed the application and the court refused the application for amendment; while in the same case the Defendants disrespected the process and the pendency of the case and suspended the Claimant from his appointment, stopped his salaries and finally terminated the appointment unlawfully, which necessitated the filing of this suit so as to deal with the events that started from 20^th June,2017 after case no NICN/KN/29/2017 was filed was pending before this court . This Court was urged to take judicial notice of the above fact and processes before it in suit no NICN/KN/29/2017. The Claimant prayed the Court to discountenance the statement of defence of the Defendants being fundamentally contradicting, reprobating and approbating and reprobating on all the facts of the defence.

  THE DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF PRELIMINARY OBJECTION

76. At the Close of hearing the Defendants filed a Notice of Preliminary objection pursuant to section 2 (a) & (b) of the Public officers Protection Act, 2004, Order 17 of the National Industrial Court civil Procedure Rules 2017.TheDefendants sought the following reliefs :

AN ORDER of this Honourable Court dismissing the Claimant’s suit NO.NICN/KN/54/2020 for lack of jurisdiction to hear and determine this for it being statute barred.                                                                                            

    2. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court directing the Claimant to pay cost of prosecuting this case.                                                                                   

          3. And for such further or other order(s)as this Honourable It may deem fit to make in the circumstances of this case.

The grounds upon which the applications were brought are :                                             1. The appointment of the Claimant as the Vice Chancellor of the 2^nd Defendant was terminated precisely on the 13” day of September, 2017 S evidenced by Exhibit DA7.                                                                                                                  

  2. That the Plaintiff became aggrieved on the 13^th September, 2017 after his appointment as Vice Chancellor was terminated.                                                         

  3. That the Plaintiff instituted this suit on 24^th December, 2019 while his appointment was terminated on the 13^th September, 2017.                                              4. That the Claimant testified under cross examination that he was served h termination of appointment letter around 13^th September, 2017.                                      5. That by 12^th December, 2017 the three months period the Claimant required to file an action elapsed.                                                                                              

 6. That the Claimant testified further that it is more than three months from 13^th September, 2017 to 24^th December, 2019 .                                                                 

   7. That by Public Officers Protection Act the Plaintiff action/suit can only lie if nstituted within three months after the termination of Plaintiff’s appointment.    8. That D.W.1 also testified to the fact that Claimant appointment as Vice Chancellor Federal University Dutsin-ma was terminated on the 13^th September, 2017.                                                                                                                                   

9. That this matter is statute-barred and has been caught up by the statute of limitation because of the following :                                                                                       a. The appointment of the Claimant as the Vice Chancellor of the 2^nd defendant was terminated precisely on the 13^th day of September, 2017 as evidenced by Exhibit DA7.                                                                                                                           

 B. The Claimant instituted this action before this Honourable Court on the n December, 2019.                                                                                                               

  C. That it is in evidence established during cross examination of the Claimant that, he was served with the termination or appointment er around 13^th September, 2017.                                                                                                                  

  D. That the cause of action in this suit has arisen on the 13^th day of  September, 2017 that is the date in which the Claimant was served with the termination of appointment letter by the Defendants and the Claimant instituted this action twenty-seven (27) months, eleven (11) after the accrual of the cause of action which is more than two ars.                                                                                                  

E. That the 2^nd pefendant is a Public Institution and thus protected by the Public Officers (Protection) Act, 2004 and is entitled to the protection of here months limitation period. F. That the suit is statute-barred having been filed after twenty-seven (27) months, eleven (11) days after the accrual of the cause of action which is about two years. That this Honourable Court lacks jurisdictional competence to entertain matters that are already statute-barred.

77. The Preliminary Objection was supported by an affidavit where the deponent stated that › appointment of the Claimant as the Vice Chancellor of the 2^nd defendant was terminated precisely on the 13^th day of September. 2017 as evidenced by Exhibit DA7. That the Plaintiff became aggrieved on the 13^th September, 2017 ater s appointment as Vice Chancellor was terminated amongst others. Basically re stating the grounds mentioned above.

78. In the Written address in support of the Preliminary objection, a sole issue was formulated for determination: ‘‘Whether this honourable Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine this matter.’’                                                                                     79. In the legal arguments on this sole issue it was argued that Claimant instituted this action after twenty-seven (27) months, eleven (11) days from the date the cause of action has arisen. My lord, a ause of action is said to have arisen when a legal right of a person is breached or violated. We refer my lord to the case of A.G ADAMAWA STATE V. A. G. FED. (2014) 14 NWLR (PT. 1428) P. 515 @ 527 wer ne Supreme Court held as follows; “A cause of action arises on a date or from the time when a each of any duty or an act occurs which warrants the person 10 is injured or the victim who is adversely affected by such ch to take a court action to assert or protect his legal right t has been breached or violated. [Woherem v. Emereuwa 4) 13 NWLR (pt. 890) 398 referred to] (P. 565, paras A-C) .                                                                                       

80. It was submitted further that the Court lacks the requisite jurisdiction to hear and determine this matter, because the matter is statute-barred. That it was in evidence that the Claimant’s appointment s terminated on the 13^th day of September, 2017 as evidenced by Exhibit ‘. We also refer my lord to the evidence elicited through the Claimant luring cross examination by the Defence counsel which he testified that; “I ‘t remember the date the letter was served on me. It was served around September 13, 2017. From September, 2017 to 22 ecember, 2019 is about 2 years…”. My lord, we submit that, based on e above authority cited coupled with the evidence tendered before my lord, e cause of action in this suit had arisen on the 13^th day of September, 2017 and the Claimant instituted this action on the 24^th day of December, 2019 which is clearly beyond the three months permitted by Section 2(a) of the Public Officers (Protection) Act, 2004. And the Court was urged to so hold that this suit is statute-barred and dismiss same accordingly. Citing AG ADAMAWA STATE V. A. G. FED. (2014) (supra).                                                                                81. The Objectors submitted further that where an action is statute barred, the Claimant who might have had a cause of action loses the right to enforce the cause of action by judicial process because the period of time laid down by e limitation law for institution of such action has elapsed, and the Court was urged to so hold.

82. It was also submitted that the 2^nd Defendant falls within the categories of persons protected by the provision Section 2 (a) of the Public Officers (Protection) Act. We refer my lord to the case of A.G RIVERS V.A.G BAYELSA STATE (2013) 3 NWLR (PT. 1340) P. 123 @135-136. Where e Supreme Court held thus ; “The words “any person” as provided in section 2 (a) of the Public Officers (Protection) Act are not limited only to natural persons or human beings or to natural persons sued in their personal names. Unless the contrary intention is indicated, and › such intention is therein manifested, those words in the Public Officers (Protection) Act include persons known to Law inclusive of artificial persons, public bodies or body of persons corporate or incorporate as well as statutory bodies or persons, whether sued by their official titles or not so long as y are sued in respect of an acts done in pursuance or execution of any law or any public duty…” It was submitted that any action or proceeding against the Defendants shall not lie or instituted unless it is commenced within three months next, after the act. On the status of >efendants, reference was made to the case of  UNIJOS V. EGWUOHA (2013) 9 NWLR (PT. 1360) P.478 @481-482. Where ! reme Court held thus; H “The University of Jos is a Public Officer within the section 2 of the Public Officers Protection Act…’’. And this Court was urged to so hold as in this case.                      

83. In response, the Deponent in  the Claimant’s counter affidavit averred that that the Claimant was served with the Defendants’ Preliminary Objection dated 13^th July, 2021 on the 16^th July, 2021 and he read through the Notice, grounds, the affidavit in support and the written address. The discovered that paragraphs 3a), b), c) — d), e), f), g), h), i), J), K), I), M), n), o), p) and q) of the Defendants’ Affidavit in Support of the Preliminary Uvje Ain Compicicly misleading and not correctly put.                                                                                       

C. That contrary to the entire aforesaid paragraphs 3a), b), c), d), e), PA ), g), h), i), j), k), l), m), n), o), p) and q) of the Defendants’ Affidavit in Support of the Preliminary Objection, the action of the Defendants in terminating the Claimant’s appointment as Vice Chancellor of the 2 Defendant, was done in bad faith and in the pendency of the Claimants SuIT NO. NILN/KN/29/2017 between ‘rofessor Haruna Abdu Kaita Vs. The Governing Council of the Federal University, DutsinMa & 7 Others, (the same parties as in this se) which was commenced in May, 2017 and determined in 23^rd ly, 2020.                                                                                                                                                                                        D. That the Claimant pleaded in paragraphs 6, 7, 11, 23, 25, 26, 27, 8, 31, 32, 33 I, ii, iii, iv, v, vi, vii, viii, 35 and other paragraphs of his statement of facts and corresponding paragraphs of his evidence in Written Deposition on Oath that the termination of his ppointment as Vice Chancellor was done in bad faith, in the pendency of suit No. NICN/KN/29/2017 and the injury caused was a continuous one before the determination of suit No. NICN/KN/29/2017 and the injury caused was a continuous one and that the Defendants acted against their powers against the laid vn law and process for the removal of the Vice Chancellor, under e Universities (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendments) Act 2003.                                                                                                                                             E. That during the pendency of the said Suit No. NICN/KN/29/2017 before this Honourable Court, over challenge of the validity of the suspension of the Claimant as Vice Chancellor Federal University, Dustin Ma, the Defendants were bound to respect the pendency of he said suit and restrain itself from taking further step against the appointment of the Claimant as Vice Chancellor Federal University, DustinMa, until the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, Kano must have determined the claim of the Claimant before the Defendants’ ld proceed with such further process against une claimant and s employment/appointment. . That contrary to the deposition in paragraph 3d. above, the Defendants in this case are the same Defendants  in NICN/KN/29/2017, willfully and maliciously disregarded the pending suit and arrogated to themselves the powers to terminate e appointment of the Claimant against all the rules and laws of ne Universities (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendments) Act 3, which governs the procedure for the appointment and removal of the Claimant as Vice Chancellor of Federal University, ustinMa. That the pendency of Suit No. NICN/KN/29/2017 over claim of then, wrongful suspension, along with the pendency of the said suit, and ie wrongful termination of the Claimant’s appointment as Vice-Chancellor (subject of the present suit) without observing due legal process has been a continuous injury to the Claimant as from 13^th April, 2017, through to 13^th September, 2017, through to the 24^th of December, 2019 when this suit was filed, through to 23^rd July, 2020 when suit no NICN/KN/29/2017 was finally determined by this court and the final determination of the entire case on APPEAL NO.: CA/KN/152/2020  by the Court of Appeal, Kano on the 24^th December, 2020. H.                                                     

That throughout the pendency of Suit No. NICN/KN/29/2017 before this court and APPEAL NO.: CA/KN/152/2020 by the Court of Appeal, Kano between the same Claimant and the same Defendants the time within which to file the present complaint Suit NIC N/KN/54/2019 has not begun to run and did not lapse and the Plaintiffs Suit No. NICN/KN/54/2019 is not statute barred as at the of commencement of this suit.

       84. In the written address in support of the counter affidavit it was argued that it is a trite law that the competence of a the Claimant’s statement of facts and not from the affidavit in support of the objection. Citing BERGER (NIG) PLC & ANOR V. TOKI  RAINBOW COMMUNITY BANK LTD (2009) LPELR-4381(CA). I shall not go on to consider here the rest of the submissions of the Claimant as they deal more with the substantive matter in the suit.                                                                                         

COURT’S DECISION ON THE PRELIMINARY OBJECTION                

85. In determining whether the suit is statute barred or not, it should be borne in mind that I have considered all the salient parts and points raised by both parties in favour of the prelimainary objection and against it. And having done so, I have come to this conclusion that the Claimant commenced this suit on the 24^th of  December, 2019. The Claimant had on the 31^st of May filed suit no:NICN/KN/54/2017 challenging his suspension by the Defendants as Vice-Chancellor of the 2^nd Defendants. It very clear that it was during the pendency of this suit before this court that the Claimant’ employment was terminated in September, 2017.

86. On 23^rd July 2020 this Court delivered judgment upholding the right of the Defendants to suspend the Claimant being his employer. The act of suspension being an administrative act intended to ensure good and stable administration of the University placing reliance on the case of  PROFESSOR J. ADEPOJU AKINYANJU V. UNIVERSITY OF ILORIN & ORS (2005) / INWLR (PART. 923 87.

87. The Claimant immediately appealed the decision of this Court to the Court of Appeal Kano which upheld the  decision of the Court below in APPEAL NO.: CA/KN/152/2020 on 24^th December 2020. This being the case, I hold that throughout the pendency of the suit No:NICN/KN/29/2017 up to the time of the filing of the appeal time had not began to run and did not lapse and the Claimants suit in NICN/KN/54/2019 filed on 24^th December 2019 is not statute barred.

88. I hold further that the right of the Claimant to challenge the Termination of his appointment  in exhibit DA7 remained in abeyance during the pendency of suit No:/NICN/KN/29/2017 and up until the determination of the appeal in CA/KN/152/2020  at the Court of Appeal. Consequently, I hold that as at the time this present suit was filed in December , 2019 it was not statute barred. See the Supreme Court in ALHAJI HARUNA KASSIM VS. HERMAN EBERT (1965) NNLR 75 where the Court held that time ceases to run when the Plaintiff commences legal proceedings in respect of a cause of action. That is time freezes for the purpose of the statute of limitation when an action is instituted. In other words time froze when this suit was filed as it was frozen still when NICN/KN/29/2017 was filed and was still pending. See also the Supreme Court in SIFAX NIG. LTD & ANOR V. MIGFO  NIG. LTD & ANOR, 1 SC 417/2015, (2015) LPELR .I hold further that to have filed another suit ie this suit, immediately after exhibit DA7 was served on the Claimant, that is to say, within three months from 13^th September, 2017 after exhibit DA 7 was given to the Claimant to signify that the action of the Claimant had been brought while the cause of action was still within the limitation period as the objectors have suggested would not have gone well either. Indeed, the Claimant during the pendency of suit no   NICN/KN/29/2017 after receipt of his termination letter had sought to file the present suit at the time which the court did not allow because to have done so would not only have been egregious but would have amounted to an abuse of court process. So, in the premises of the above reasons, the Court having held that the suit is not statute barred the preliminary objection is hereby overruled and is consequently dismissed and the jurisdiction of the court is not in any way ousted.  

THE WRITTEN ADDRESS OF THE PARTIES.   

 89. In the Claimant’s final written address 6 issues were formulated for determination :                                                                                                   1.WHETHER the University Management of the Federal University Dutsin-Ma has the power to suspend the Claimant on 20^th of June, 2017, as the Vice Chancellor of the Federal University DutsinMa and stop the payment of his salaries and allowances (as the Vice Chancellor)?                                                                                       

     2. WHETHER the suspension of the Claimant by the University Management of the Federal University Dutsin-Ma on the 20^th June, 2017 and the termination of the contract appointment of the Claimant as Vice Chancellor of the University on the 13^th of September, 2017, in the pendency of the Claimant’s suit no. NICN/KN/29/2017 for restoring his appointment from suspension, as the Vice Chancellor of the Federal University DutsinMa, was validity done in the pendency of the said suit?                                                                                                                   

       3. WHETHER the Claimant’s case is statute barred pursuant to the provisions of  Public Officers Protection Act in the determination of the Claimant’s contract of employment/appointment as Vice Chancellor of the Federal University DutsinMa, for term of 5 years contract from 11^th February, 2016 to 10^th February, 2021?                                                                                                                 4. WHETHER the evidence presented by the Defendants on claims that they served the Claimant with several invitation notices to attend the sittings of the investigation committee set up by the 2^nd Defendant, proves truly that the Claimant was actually served with the said invitations by the investigation committee to support the Defendants’ claim that the committee invited the Claimant to afford him a fair hearing?                                                                                                                                       5. WHETHER the eleven (11) listed allegations in Exhibit DA subject of the JCSC investigation being criminal in nature were proved beyond reasonable doubt to warrant the Defendants to act on it as the basis to rightly and validly terminate the appointment of the Claimant ?                                                                                                  

  6. WHETHER the Defendants provided any evidence of gross misconduct an made any finding of “gross misconduct” against the Claimant in the Report of the                               JCSC (EXHIBIT DA1) to satisfy the legal ground for the termination of the Claimant as Vice Chancellor of the Federal University Dutsin-Ma in accordance with the provision of Section 4 (c ) of The Universities miscellaneous (Provisions) (Amendment) Act, 2003 ?

90. The Defendants in their final written address reiterated their submissions in the Notice of Preliminary objection which has just been determined. Four issues were then formulated for determination in the written address:                          

  1. Whether the Claimant’s right to fair hearing was breached by the 1^st  defendant?                                                                                                                            

   2. Whether the Claimant can be reinstated despite expiration of his tenure of five years single term affected from 11^th February, 2016 to 10^th February, 2021? 3. Whether reliefs 1, 5, 6 & 7 of the claimant’s claim is grantable taking in consideration decision of this Honourable Court in Suit No. NICN/KN/29/2017 between Professor Abdu Haruna Kaita V. The Governing Council Federal University Dutsin-Ma & 7 Others?.                                                                             

  4. Whether the termination of appointment of Claimant by the defendants as Vice Chancellor federal University Dutsin-Ma was proper?                                               91. I will consider the arguments and submissions on each issue raised by the Claimant and Defendants in their written addresses and determine each of the issues and based on the applicable laws to the facts of this case and thereby determine each issue accordingly.                                                                                                           92. In the first issue whether the University Management of the Federal University Dutsin-Ma has the power to suspend the Claimant on 20^th of June, 2017 as the Vice Chancellor of the Federal University Dutsin-Ma and stop the payment of his salaries ? Here the Claimant had argued that in the University system the Vice Chancellor is the Chief Executive and his appointment guided by statute. According to the provisions of part 1: Section 9(1), (2) of the Federal University Dutsin-Ma Laws where it is provided that : ‘‘ The Vice Vice-Chancellor shall, in relation to the University take precedence over all other members of the University, except the Chancellor and, subject to section 5 of  this Act, the Pro-Chancellor and any other person for the time being acting as Chairman of the Council .’’ It was submitted that statutorily in hierarchical order, the Vice Chancellor reports only to the Governing Council . That the Management is a non-statutory committee, and one among many committees under the Vice Chancellor, consisting of the Registrar, Bursar, Librarian, Director Academic Planning, and Director of Physical Planning.  That all these members report directly to the Vice Chancellor.  That in a bizarre breach of statutory hierarchical order, the Claimant received an uncanny letter dated 20^th June, 2017, from the Management Committee suspending and stopping the Claimant’s salary as the Vice Chancellor. The letter was admitted in evidence and marked as Exhibit “E”, whose contents have already been reproduced earlier in this judgment.                                                                                            93. In response the Defendants had in issue three of their final written address submitted that the Claimant’s claims are not grantable, for the simple reason that, the reliefs sought in 1,5,6 &7 have been determined by this Honourable Court in suit No. NICN/KN/29/2017 and same has been affirmed by the Court of Appeal in Appeal No. CA/KN/152/2020. They submit further that, it is trite law that a judge is not allowed to give a decision or make an Order on the same matter twice, thus a judge is only permitted to give his decision or make an Order on a matter only once. They submit further that, it is a general rule that no Court has a power to rehear, review, alter or vary any judgment or Order after it has been entered. They also submit that since the court has determined the reliefs sought it has become functus officio and therefore lacks jurisdiction to claim citing the case of  UKACHUKWU V. UBA (2005) 18 NWLR PT. 956 P. 53 @54 and ILOABACHE V. ILOABACHE (2007) ALL FWLR (PT. 3639) 173 @ 177 PARAS. D – G (CA). They also submit that, from the authorities this Honourable lacks the requisite jurisdiction to determine an issue where it is functus officio in respect of  the issue, and urged the Court so hold.                                                                                                        94. Now, in the Suit in No.NICN/KN/29/2017  the Claimant had sought the following reliefs:                                                                                                                   

     1. A Declaration that the 1^st Defendant is bound in all its action including the process of appointment or removal of the Vice Chancellor to observe and maintain strictly the principle of fair hearing in all the processes thereto.                          2. A Declaration that Defendant’s failure and or refusal of the Chairman of the 1^st  Defendant to annex the petition along with the letter dated 13^th April, 2017 signed by the Pro Chancellor of the 1^st  Defendant addressed to the Claimant constitute a clear failure of due process.                                                                                  3. A Declaration that the comments contained as No. 13 in the letter dated 13^th April, 2017 signed by the Chairman of the 1^st Defendant and addressed by the Claimant is Improper.                                                                                                          

4. A Declaration that the suspension of the Claimant by the Chairman by the 1^st   Defendant is irregular and unlawful.                                                                                       5. A Declaration that the setting up of an investigation panel prior to preliminary report or findings against the Claimant regarding the purported allegation is improper, vindictive and pre-emptive.                                                              

  6. An Order that the letter dated 13^th April 2017 signed by the Chairman / Pro Chancellor of the 1^st Defendant addressed to the Claimant having failed to satisfy the minimum requirement of the due process and lacking in the transparency and origin be quashed.                                                                                    

   7. A Declaration that the Chairman/Pro Chancellor letter dated 13^th April, 2017 addressed to the Claimant violates the principle of due process and fair hearing. 

95. In the present suit the Defendants are insisting by their submissions that reliefs 1, 5, 6 &7   are not grantable because this Court has become functus Officio having determined those reliefs and the Court of Appeal having also affirmed the Court’s decision.                                                                                           

   96. Reliefs 1, 5, 6, & 7 consist of the following:                                                                   1. A DECLARATION that the Defendants are bound in all its (their) actions, including the process of appointment or removal of the Vice Chancellor to observe and maintain strictly the principle of fair hearing in all the processes thereto relating to the suspension of the Claimant by the Defendant, giving him a hearing, fair hearing through giving him a query over the allegation that he committed a misconduct when he allegedly filed a suit against the Defendants on 26^th  of May, 2017 (as claimed by the Defendants in the suspension letter of 20^th June, 2017) and the stoppage of his salaries and allowances on the 20^th of June, 2017 without granting the Claimant Fair Hearing.                                                  

   5. An Order setting aside the suspension of the Claimant made by management of the 2^nd Defendant on the 20^th June, 2017 and the 2 terminations of his appointment as Vice Chancellor of the 2^nd Defendant by the 1^st Defendant of 13^th  September , 2017 being null, void and of no effect.                                                      

6. An Order of mandatory injunction restraining the Defendants, their Agents, Servants, Employees, Representatives and Privies from suspending the Claimant from his appointment as the Vice Chancellor of the 2^nd  Defendant and restrain from terminating the said appointment or dismissing Claimant from the said appointment and from doing anything  whatsoever  that will adversely affect the right of the Claimant and his appointment as the Vice-Chancellor.                                    7.   An Order that the Claimant is still the Vice Chanceller of the 2^nd  Defendant entitled to his salaries, allowances and all entitlements attached to his office or all the period lost due to the wrongful suspension and termination of  his employment.               

97. Now in Suit No.NICN/KN/29/2017 this Court decided at page 32 of the the Judgment relying on the case of PROFESSOR J. ADEPOJU AKINYAJU  V. UNIVERSITY OF ILORIN  & ORS (2005) 7 NWLR ( PART 923 ) 87 following the decision of the Court of Appeal that “ When a Professor is suspended, that does not mean the end of everything. ‘‘Suspension ’’ only means to defer, lay aside or hold in abeyance. It also means to halt midway but  certainly not to bring to an end or terminate. The University has authority to discipline any member of the administrative or academic body. Suspension of the Appellant pending investigation can never amount to a breach of his right to fair hearing . The act of suspension in this case is an administrative act intended to ensure good and stable administration.’’ Arising from this prior determination I hold that reliefs 1(one) is not grantable as they deal squarely on the reliefs to do with suspension of the claimant and the issue of fair hearing which this Court has already determined. I shall return to reliefs 5 and 6 shortly in this judgment. So, as regards issue one formulated for determination by the Claimant that issue as far as it relates to the suspension of the Claimant and the stoppage of his salary is determined against the Claimant. In other words issue one is answered in the affirmative as the letter of suspension was headed ‘‘without pay. ’’ This Court having followed the decision in the ADEYANJU case to the effect that that the suspension of the Claimant in that instant was an administrative act intended to ensure good and stable administration of the University.  In this regard I am in agreement with the Defendant to this extent in the submissions they made in their third issue formulated for determination, where they cited ILOABACHE V. ILOABACHE ( supra) and UKACHUKWU V. UBA ( supra ) where the Court held that a court is said to be functus officio if the court has fulfilled or accomplished its function in respect that matter and it lacks potency to review, reopen or revisit the  matter. In other words, once a court delivers its judgment on a matter, it becomes functus officio in respect of that matter and it cannot revisit or review the said judgment. 

98.  I will address issue two ( whether the suspension and subsequent termination of the  was validly done in the pendency of  NICN/KN/29/2017 ?)  formulated by the Claimant and issue four by the Defendants ( whether the termination of the Claimant was proper). The Claimant submits that for all intent and purposes, the Res which must be preserved and protected by the legal doctrine of  lis pendence is the subsistence of the appointment of the Claimant as Vice Chancellor Federal University Dutsin-Ma in the pendency of this suit, necessitating the filing of Suit No.NICN/KN/54/2019 thereby satisfying the requirement for the grant of the Order of interlocutory mandatory injunction being prayed for by the Claimant, citing AMAECHI V. INEC & ANOR(2008) LPELR- 446 (SC) which was applied by the Supreme Court in political cases not on properties or landed properties alone. That the authority confirms that lis pendens as a legal principle as applicable in any pending litigation which include employment and appointment matters. Relying on the relevant ratio of the Supreme Court:  ‘‘ The doctrine of lis pendens finds expression in the assertion that it prevents any transfer of any right or the taking of any steps capable of foisting a state of helplessness and or hoplessness on the parties or on the Court during the pendency in Court of an action and even after. By that doctrine the law does not allow to litigant parties or give to them during the currency of the litigation involving the rights in it so as to prejudice any of the litigating parties. The doctrine negates and allows any transfer of rights or interests in any subject matter that is being litigated upon during the pendency of litigation in respect of the said subject- matter. ’’ Per Aderemi J.S.C (P.268, paras. D-F).

99. Reliance was also placed by the Claimant on the authority of  MUSA V. IBRAHIM & ORS (2018) LPELR-44371 ( CA ) where it was held that lis pendens  means that ‘‘ nothing should change during the pendency of an action’’ in other words the status of the parties, the subject matter of the suit and the interest of the Claimant must not be destroyed or taken away by the Defendants in the pendency of the suit or litigation. The Claimant then went on to assert that this means that the Defendants cannot rightly and validly determine the employment of the Claimant and cannot suspend him after the commencement of this suit in its pendency. Reference being made to BFI GROUP CORPORATION V. BPE ( 2012 ) LPELR 9339 (SC) and OBI V. INEC & ORS (2007) LPELR-2166/SC).                                                                                                  100. In response the Defendant submitted at issue two that, the termination of the appointment of the Claimant was proper, that the Claimant’s appointment was governed by statute and was one with statutory flavour and being protected by statute or laid down regulations made to govern the procedure for employment and discipline of an employee, that when the procedure in terminating the appointment of the of the employee is followed that termination is proper. Here they submitted that the Claimant was invited to the committee severally to wit ; text messages, DHL and through his counsel but he failed to honour the invitation of the of the committee, referring to MENAKAYA V. MENAKAYA (2001) 16 NWLR pt 738 pg 203 and UBTH BOARD OF MANAGEMENT V. ORONSAYE, LPELR 45655 (CA).                                        

     101.  In determining these two issues it must be said that as a fact the Claimant commenced the action in suit no NICN/KN/29/2017 on 31^ST May 2017 the Claimant was issued with a suspension letter dated 20^th June 2017. I find that at this time the Defendants should have known that it was not proper on its part to proceed with any action against the Claimant seeing that the Claimant had commenced the earlier proceeding. To this end, I find and do hold that the pleadings of the Defendants at paragraph 5 of the joint statement of defence that the Defendants did not send any communications to the claimant during the pendency of this suit or that before the Federal High Court Katsina is not true.

I hold that both letters of suspension and termination were communications sent to the Claimant during the pendencies of the suits instituted at either courts.                                                                                    

102. I read through exhibit DA the Report on the Allegation of financial and administrative impropriety leveled against Professor Haruna Abdu Kaita, the Vice-Chancellor Federal University Dutsin-Ma (FUDMA). Presented by the Joint Senate Investigation Committee ( JCSIC) to the Governing Council, Federal University Dutsin-Ma at the 8^th Regular Governing Council Meeting held on 7^th and 8^th September, 2017.                                                               

  103.  At page 60 of exhibit DA is the letter of ADALCHI  CHAMBERS Solicitors to the Claimant dated 21^st August 2017 and headed RE: SPECIAL INVITATION  FOR INTERACTION. It reads :                                                             We act as Solicitors to Professor Haruna Abdu Kaita of Federal University Dutsin-ma who will in this correspondence and all future correspondences be referred to as our “Client”.

Our Client had referred to your letter reference No.FUDMA/GC/JCSIC/VC/004 dated 17^th August, 2017 on the above subject matter and wish to observe as follows:                                                                                                                                

   1. That you are aware that our Client has filed an action before the National Industrial Court, Kano Division in Suit No.NICN/KN/29/2017 BETWEEN professor Haruna Abdu Kaita  AND The Governing Council, Federal University Dutsin-Ma & 7 Others challenging his purported removal from his duties as- the – Vice Chancellor of Federal University Dutsin-Ma.                                     

2. That you are also aware that two (2) processes one Originating Summons as well as Motion on Notice duly filed were served on you since on the 14^th day of June, 2017 by 11:00am through one Sani Safiyanu a staff in the Office of the Registrar seeking to restrain you and Your committee from convening, sitting and or inviting any person from appearing before you.

3. That you Professor Rashid A. Hamzat is a party joined as the 8^th Defendant in Suit No.NICN/KN/29/2017 BETWEEN Professor aruna Abdu Kaita AND The Governing Council, Federal  September, 2017 for hearing.

 4. That a twenty (23) page document entitled “Report on Allegations of Financial and Administrative Impropriety Leveled Against the Vice Chancellor, Professor Haruna Abdu Kaita Presented to the Governing Council of Federal University Dutsin-ma at its 8^th Regular Meeting held on … 2017” which seems to have been prepared and ready for presentation hence the purported letter of invitation to our Client is a mere formality as your committee had since taken a decision against our Client even before his appearance before Your Committee, we refer You to paragraph 8.0 (General Recommendation) contained at page 18- 21 of your purported report.                                                                                          

In view of the above we wish to state with greatest regret that a Federal . Institution like yours is deliberately trying to overreach a Court of competent jurisdiction through self-help and this is a clear attempt to temper with the administration of justice the issue of which is currently in Court and this in our honest opinion tantamount to a contempt of Court.

Unless you formally write and withdraw the said letter referred to above promptly we will not hesitate to commence the legal process against you for Contempt  of  Court.                                                                                                                 Thank you ,                                                                                                        

Your faithfully,

FOR: ADALCHI CHAMBERS

ABDUL ALIYU ESQ PRINCIPAL PARTNER                                                        

  CC: 1. The Commissioner of Police, Katsina State Police Command.

        2. The Area Commander, Katsina Area Command.

        3. The Divisional Police Officer, Dutsinna Division.                                                           

        4. The Registrar, National Industrial Court, Kano.

104.  Now, paragraph 8 of  page 18 ( Conclusions ) reads:     It is the view of the Committee that the Vice-Chancellor, Professor Haruna Abdu Kaita cannot be exonerated from specific allegations as indicated in the findings and recommendations, and therefore, found as of fact and evidence that there are strong evidence of misconduct established against him,                                                   It is the Committee’s view that Prof. Haruna Abdu Kaita grossly abused the . Office of the Vice Chancellor, Federal University Dutsin-Ma by his conduct while presiding over the affairs of the University, he has clearly demonstrated  that he lacks the required discipline, integrity and financial prudence for the management of public institutions, especially at the apex of university administration, as Vice Chancellor.                                                                               The Committee, therefore, recommends that:                                                                           a. Prof. Haruna Abdu Kaita be relieved of his position as Vice Chancellor, Federal University Dutsin-Ma.                                                                                                  b. Prof. Haruna Abdu Kaita be reported to the relevant law enforcement agencies for appropriate action( s).                                                                                  105. The above shows that :                                                                                                   1. The letter from ADALCHI Chambers was written on the 21^st of August 2017, the 8^th Regular meeting of the Governing Council was held on the 7^th and 8^th of September 2017.                                                                                                               2.The Defendants were aware of the proceedings before this Court which is clothed with jurisdiction to hear the matter for over two weeks and they proceeded to Terminate the Claimant’s appointment  by exhibit F1 and F2 dated 20^th September 2017.                                                                                             3.  By the time the Claimant filed the suit in NICN/KN/29/2017 on 31^st May, 2017  the Defendants were well aware of a pendency of the proceedings filed by the Claimant and went ahead to suspend the Claimant as Vice Chancellor without pay by exhibit E dated June, 2017.                                                                                                    4. By the time the Defendants terminated the appointment of the Claimant by exhibits F1 and F2 dated 13^th September, 2017 they were aware of the pendency in this Court  of Suit no:NICN/KN/29/2017 which was to go on appeal.                                                                                                                        

106.  In the case of AMAECHI V. INEC ( a case somewhat analogous to the facts in this case).(2008) 5 NWLR (1080) 227,LOR/18/1/2008 the Supreme Court in the lead judgment of Oguntade JSC had this to say :                                                                                                                           ‘‘ In relation to Ararume the message sent to the general public translated into  saying that the P.D.P was not bound to obey the judgment of the Court. The P.D.P by publicly announcing that it had no candidate for the Imo State Governorship election, clearly destroyed the efficacy of the Judgment in favour in favour of Ararume given by this Court in order to destroy his chances at the election. In relation to the Amaechi case , the message to the Public was that whatever the judgment the Court gave was irrelevant. Worse still, the P.D.P went before the Court below to ask that the appeal in Amaechi’s case be struck out on the ground that with his expulsion, the Court had lost the jurisdiction to hear the case. Let me say for the avoidance of doubt that the expulsion of  Amaechi from the P.D.P at the time when his appeal was pending before the Court below was unlawful and amounts to a calculated attempt to undermine judicial authority.’’                                                                                                                  107.   At the end of the lead judgment Amaechi was declared as the person entitled to be the Governor of Rivers State. See also Lord Denning in A.G V. BUTTERWORTH (1962) and  Lord Coltenham in RE LUDLOW CHARITIES LOCHMERE  CHALORI’S CASE 1837 40 ER 661 @ 670.                                                                           108.  In this present case, it should be noted that inspite of the powers which Councils of universities have in appointing Vice Chancellors they are not laws unto themselves. They are not only subject to the President of the Federal Republic of  Nigeria  who has the power to remove any member or dissolve the Council. They are also subject to the control of courts of law in exercise of their powers. See ASSOCIATED PROVINCIAL PICTURE HOUSES LTD V. WEDNESBURY CORPORATION (1948 1 K.B 223). It should be made clear that a University Council cannot by its own decision finally determine or decide on the question of it’s exercise of  it’s powers. Such question is always subject to the review of courts. See OLANIYAN V. UNIVERSITY OF LAGOS (1985) 3 NWLR( Pt9).599. I hold that Defendant’s actions are subject to the review of this Court.                                                                                                                                       109. As to the suspension of the Claimant as it relates to this matter the question to be asked whether on the law governing the relationship between the Claimant and the Defendants as applied to material evidence before the Court oral and documentary there was a breach of contract of service or the rules governing the term of the Claimant as Vice Chancellor which entitles the Claimant to the reliefs sought. Here, the material evidence before the court is exhibit E, the letter of suspension without pay itself  reproduced earlier in the judgment, it shows the claimant was suspended because he took the University to court.                                                                                                                       110. And in regard to the termination of the Claimant’s appointment, the test of whether the termination is proper or unlawful is whether the procedure adopted in effecting the termination conforms to the conditions laid down in the terms of the employment of the aggrieved employee/ appointee as the case may be. To be unlawful there must be proved that there is a departure from the prescribed procedure or that in applying the rules there is a departure from the prescribed procedure or that in applying the there is a violation of the rules of natural justice so as to render formal compliance a travesty. NICOL V. E.C.N (1968) 3  ACR. 434, ADEDEJI V. POLICE SERVICE COMMISSION (1968) NMLR 102, DENLOYE V. MEDICAL AND DENTAL PRACTITIONERS COMMITTEE (1968) 1 ALL NLR 306, AWOTEDU V. VICE CHANCELLOR UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN OY,S.H.C 262, OLANIYAN V. UNIVERSITY OF LAGOS (1985) 3 NWLR PT.9 599.                                                                                                      111. In this matter the duty now falls on the Court to evaluate the salient pieces of evidence before it as courts have the duty and power to consider documents before it in order to ascribe probative value to them NARUMA & SONS V. N.B.T.C LTD (1989)2 NWLR( PT.106) 730 @ 756. From the contents of exhibit E, the letter of suspension of  20^th June, 2017, whose content this court did not concern itself  with in NICN/ KN/29/2017, and whose contents have been earlier laid out in this judgment that ;                                                                                                                                ‘‘ The University   The University Management noted that you have taken the University to Federal High Court Katsina over your interdiction and the on going investigation on the allegations labelled against you.                                

  I am directed to bring home to you the provisions of Section 4.3.9(i) and (ii) of the Senior Staff Conditions of Service of Federal University Dutsin-Ma, viz:  

 (i) No staff shall resort to litigation without first exhausting the internal avenues for settling grievances or seeking redress in the University;                                                     (ii) Any staff who takes the University to court shall be placed on suspension without pending the determination of the case.                                              Accordingly, I am further to convey the approval of the University Management Committee given at its 37^th regular meeting held on Monday, 19^th June, 2017, for your suspension without pay pending the determination of your case by the Court. The suspension is with effect from the date you took the University to Court i.e. 26^th May, 2017.                                                 111A. Now the Defendant knew the Claimant was in Court at the time of this suspension as shown in the earlier consideration of exhibit DA. The contents of the suspension letter itself is confirmation that the Defendants were quite aware that by law they were to await the outcome of the court case. As a consequence I find and do hold that the refusal of the  Defendants to await the outcome of suit no NICN/29/2017 amounted to a departure from procedure . It is a prescription that when a case/proceeding is pending the parties are not to take further steps prejudicial to the outcome the proceeding. The doctrine of  lis pendens finds expression in the assertion that it prevents any transfer of any right or the taking of any steps capable of foisting a state of helplessness on the parties or the court during the pendency of an action and even after. By that doctrine, the law does not allow to litigant parties or give to them during the currency of the litigation involving the rights in it so as to prejudice any of the litigating parties. The doctrine negates and disallows any transfer of rights or interest in any subject matter that is being litigated upon during the pendency of the litigation respect of the said subject matter. See AMAECHI V. I.N.E.C (supra), DAN-JUMBO V. DAN-JUMBO (1999) 11 NWLR (PT. 627) 445.                                                                                                                   

111. By the facts of this case as set out above I am fully persuaded that the doctrine applies to this case. I hold that the Suspension of the Claimant and on the 20^th of June 2017 and the subsequent termination of his appointment on the 13^th September 2017 were not validly done as both acts were carried out during the pendency of suit no NICN/KN/29/2017. That being the case, the second issue formulated for determination by the Claimant is answered in the affirmative and the fourth issue formulated by the Defendant whether the termination of the Claimant was validly done is answered in the negative.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         112. Having come to the above decisions on issues 2 and 4 by the claimant and Defendants respectively it becomes abundantly clear that the facts woven into issues 4 (four) and 6 (six) by the Claimant would not require any further say from the Court because having found that the termination of the Claimant even his suspension was not validly done, therefore anything done towards  the removal of the Claimant and even his suspension as Vice Chancellor Federal University Dutsin-ma amounted to a nullity. I so hold.

113.   As to the 5^th issue by the Claimant, there is no evidence there is no                                                       evidence that the allegations leveled against the Claimant being criminal in nature were proved  in any court of law or tribunal neither was there evidence of an indictment there at against the Claimant.                                             114.  As to relief   1 by the Claimant whether his right to fair hearing was breached  I find that the dust on this matter was not allowed to settle either way. Besides on this head of claim I held it not grantable seeing that the the back and forth of communications between the Claimant and Defendants leading to the suspension and termination of the Claimant during the pendency of suit no NICN/KN/29/2017renderred such communications of little importance in my humble view. In the premises of the foregoing the claims for declaration in the 2^nd , 3^rd and 4^th  heads of Claim succeeds. For the avoidance of doubt regarding the 4^th head of claim it is declared that the termination of the Claimants appointment is null and void.                                  115.   As a consequence the 5^th head of claim succeeds, the Suspension of the Claimant by the Management of the Defendants and the termination of  his appointment are hereby set aside being null and void. The Calim in the 6^th head of  claim is refused as the act sought to be injuncted is already a completed act. Except that rights accruable to the Claimant and his appointment as Vice Chancellor remain intact.                                                          116.  Following from the above it is ordered in the 7^th  head that the Claimant remained the Vice Chancellor of the Federal University Dutsin-ma from the date of his suspension, 20^th June 2017, till the date of the expiry of the term of five years stipulated in exhibit A which expired on the 10^th of February, 2021.  And having granted the relief sought in the 7^th head of claim the Claim in the 8^th head of claim that the Claimant is entitled to serve as Vice Chancellor for the equivalent duration of his tenure, lost days etcetera is granted equally.

I have granted the the 5^th , 6^th ,7^th and 8^th heads of claim knowing that nature itself does not harbor a vacume. So, bearing in mind that Defendants were unable to comply or obey these orders, then consequently, I turn to the alternative 10^th head of claim.

117. It is ordered in the alternative in the 10^th head of claim that out of the facts and circumstances of this case that the Claimant is entitled to the sum of three hundred million naira ( N300, 000,000), payable by the Defendants jointly and severally, to the Claimant as general damages for the wrongful and unlawful suspension an termination of the Claimant from his employment as Vice Chancellor of the Federal University Dutsin-ma on 20^th June and 13^th September, 2017 respectively.

118. Cost is   awarded against the Defendant in the sum of N50,000.00 ( fifty thousand Naira only. The sums ordered payable to the Claimant are to be paid within 45days of this judgment. Judgment is entered accordingly. 

                    …………………………………………                                                                   

                                    Hon, Justice E.D.E Isele