SANGODOYIN v. UI (2020)

SANGODOYIN v. UI

(2020)LCN/15190(CA)

In The Court Of Appeal

(IBADAN JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Thursday, March 26, 2020

CA/IB/438/2014

Before Our Lordships:

Jimi Olukayode Bada Justice of the Court of Appeal

Nonyerem Okoronkwo Justice of the Court of Appeal

Folasade Ayodeji Ojo Justice of the Court of Appeal

Between

DOCTOR D.K SANGODOYIN APPELANT(S)

And

UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN RESPONDENT(S)

RATIO

WHETHER OR NOT THE FACTUAL SITUATION RELIED ON FOR A CAUSE OF ACTION MUST CONSTITUTE THE ESSENTIAL INGREDUENTS OF AN ENFORCEABLE RIGHT OR CLAIM

In other words, the factual situation relied upon must constitute the essential ingredients of an enforceable right or claim, See the case CHEVERON NIGERIA LTD VS LONESTAR DRILLING NIGERIA LTD. (2007) NSQLR VOL. 31 PAGE 92 AT 99, ALHAJI M. M. ABUABKAR VS. BEBEJI OIL AND ALLIED PRODUCTS LTD, & ORS (2007) VOL. 29 page 1634 at 1675 where the Supreme Court held,
“That a cause of action arises from circumstances containing different facts that give rise to a claim that can be enforced in a Court of law, and this lead to the right to sue a person responsible for the existence, either directly or by extension of such circumstances. There must be a wrongful act of a party (i.e. the party sued) which has injured or given the plaintiff reason to complain in a Court of law for remedy consequent to the party aggrieved.” PER OKORONKWO, J.C.A.

DEFINITION OF A “CAUSE OF ACTION”

NONYEREM OKORONKWO, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): In the case at the National Industrial Court Ibadan Division that gave rise to this appeal by its judgment delivered on 23rd June 2014, that Court in concluding its judgment, upon an application to set down a point of law for trial following a Preliminary Objection held as follows:
“Having found that the Originating Processes in this case discloses no reasonable cause of action, I have no hesitation in striking out this Statement of Claim and dismissing this suit”.

So, upon the conclusion of pleadings and Preliminary Objection that no reasonable cause of action was disclosed, the trial Court upon due consideration, held that no reasonable cause of action was disclosed by the claimant and dismissed the suit of the claimant. This appeal challenges the decision of the trial Court in that regard, was there a reasonable cause of action disclosed by the Statement of Claim of the Claimant? If there was, was the trial Court right in dismissing the suit as disclosing no cause of action?

Before going further on this, I consider it apposite to consider, even at the expense of time and length the respective case of the parties before examining whether the claimant’s case disclose any “reasonable cause of action”.

Appellant
The claimant herein appellant by way of synopsis of his case in paragraph 1.00 – 1.29 in the appellant’s brief gave an account of his case as reproduced below.
INTRODUCTION
This is an appeal arising from the decision of the National Industrial Court, Ibadan dismissing the Claimant/Appellant’s suit against the Respondent which was then part-heard for allegedly disclosing no cause of action.
The Appellant at all times material to the suit was serving as a Senior Lecturer and Acting Head of Department in the Department of Statistics of the Respondent University.
The Appellant was approached as Acting Head of Department of Statistics by one Engineer Odunbomi requesting for statement of result of his son, one Ade Odunbomi who was graduated from the Department in 2001 — 2002 Academic Session.
Having been convinced of the correctness of the result following discoveries from the 2001 — 2002 final year summary of result duly endorsed by the External Examiner and Appellant’s predecessor in office, Appellant issued the statement of result, prepared by the staff of the department, one Miss Ojo.
Following the issuance of the result, the Appellant was queried by Respondent for issuing the result, alleging that the student had been withdrawn for admission irregularities which fact was never disclosed to the Appellant nor reflected in any of the Departmental Records.
The Appellant after answering the query was made to face trial before a panel set up by the Respondent named ‘Panel F’ to investigate the role played by the Appellant in the issuance of the Statement of Result.
Copy of the query and the Appellant’s answer thereto are contained on pages 79 -95 of the Record of Appeal.
After taking Oral and documentary evidence from the witnesses for the Respondent (University) and the Appellant as ‘the Accused’, the Panel F found that the Appellant has no case to answer and exonerated him as it was discovered he had no notice of any allegation of irregularity in the admission of the student before issuing the result.
The panel also found that what the Appellant issued was the Statement of Result and not ‘Academic Transcript’ as alleged.
The report of ‘Panel F’ that tried and exonerated the Appellant is contained on pages 96-101 of the Record of Appeal.
To the Appellant’s astonishment, in spite of the finding of ‘no case to answer’ in his favour, the Respondent still insists on setting up another Panel M to retry him contrary to the provisions of Section 36 (9) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended).
The Appellant consequently filed suit FHC/1B/CS/61/2007 at the Federal High Court, Ibadan which case was later transferred to the National Industrial Court, Ibadan and became suit No. NICN/IB/42/2013. It is the said Suit No. NICN/IB/42/2013, that gave rise to the instant appeal.
The Appellant eventually resigned his appointment and made payment of one month salary in lieu of notice when Respondent remained adamant in subjecting Appellant to double jeopardy, to ensure Appellant’s career is unjustly damaged The letter of resignation and cheque is contained on pages 291 and 292 of the Record of Appeal.
The Respondent after retaining the cheque for about 2 months purportedly rejected the resignation, but stopped Appellant’s salary whilst the case instituted against the University has been pending in Court and eventually dismissed the Appellant, inspite of his pending suit.
The Appellant following his purported dismissal from the service of the University whilst his case was pending applied for amendment of his pleadings to include reliefs challenging his purported dismissal while the case was pending and after having resigned in accordance with the University regulations.
The Federal High Court, Ibadan granted the Appellant’s prayer for amendment against which there is no appeal to date.
The Ruling of the Federal High Court granting the amendment and transferring the case to the National Industrial Court in view of amendment to the 1999 Constitution by inclusion of Section 254 (c)(1) to the Constitution is on pages 28-32 of the Record of Appeal.
The Appellant’s Amended Statement of Claim and the Respondent’s consequential Amended Statement of Defence are contained on pages 36-40 and pages 41-47 respectively of the Record of Appeal.
Following transfer of the case to National Industrial Court, the Claimant filed his ‘Statement of Facts’, written statement on oath, list of documents, frontloaded documents and written statement of claimant’s subpoenaed additional witness which are all contained on pages 68-210 of the Record of Appeal.
The Defendant/Respondent’s Statement of Defence, written Statement on oath, list of documents and frontloaded documents at the National Industrial Court are contained on pages 232-292 of the Record of Appeal.
The Appellant filed Rep/y to Statement of Defence before the National Industrial Court. The Claimant/Appellant’s Rep/y to Statement of Defence of the Respondent, Claimant’s additional Statement of Oath together with the frontloaded documents attached to the reply are on pages 293-328 of the Record of Appeal.
Hearing had begun in the suit before the National Industrial Court on IP March, 2014; the proceedings are contained on pages 361-365 of the Record of Appeal.
The Defendant/Respondent on 12 May, 2014 in the course of trial filed motion dated 9th May, 2014 seeking to set paragraphs 32-35 of her Statement of Defence down for trial.
The application of the Respondent together with supporting affidavit and written address are on pages 335 — 339 of the Record of Appeal.
Claimant/Appellant’s Counter Affidavit and written Address in opposition to Defendant/Respondent’s motion are on pages 342-346 of the Record of Appeal.
The Defendant/Respondent’s Reply on point of law is on pages 353-357 of the Record of Appeal.
The written addresses in support and against the Defendant/Respondent’s application setting down the allegation of ‘none disclosure of cause of action’ down for hearing were adopted on 2d June, 2014 at pages 367-368 of the Record of Appeal.
Ruling in respect of the application was delivered on Monday 23d June, 2014 although it was headed or titled ‘Judgment’ and it is contained on pages 370-381 of the Record of Appeal.
The Claimant/Appellant was dissatisfied with the judgment or ruling dismissing Appellant’s case for ‘allegedly disclosing no cause of action’ and has consequently filed Notice of Appeal which is contained on pages 382-387 of the record of Appeal.

Respondent
The respondent too, in an elaborate effort in its brief set out the same story from the perspective of the respondent it is as follows:
INTRODUCTION<br< p=”” style=”box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;”>

</br<>

The Appellant as Plaintiff instituted this action at the Federal High Court Ibadan via a Writ of Summons dated 23rd of July, 2015.
The Appellant as Plaintiff prayed the Court for the following Orders:
1. Declaration that the findings of both Professor Lateef Hussein’s panel on Chemistry 195 and Panel F on Issuance of Departmental transcript or Statement of Result of Odunbomi are binding on the University including the Plaintiff.
2. Declaration that the Defendant cannot set up another panel to try Plaintiff for the same allegations as tried by Professor Lateef Hussein Panel and Panel F as such will be unjust, unfair and prejudicial to Plaintiff.
3. Declaration that setting up of Panel M or any other Panel to try the Plaintiff for allegations already tried by Professor Lateef Hussein’s Panel and Panel F is contrary to the University regulations or Staff Handbook.
4. Declaration that any attempt to retry the Plaintiff for either allegations tried by Professor Lateef Hussein’s Panel or Panel F is in contravention of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and therefore void.
5. An order directing the Defendant to give effect to the findings of Panel F.
6. Injunction restraining the Defendants through its offices from retrying the Plaintiff for any of the allegations already tried by Professor Lateef Hussein’s Panel and Panel F or in any way victimized the Plaintiff in the performance of his duties as a staff of the Defendant.
The Appellant then Plaintiff also filed along with the Writ of Summons a Statement of Claim and annexure to be relied upon.
On the 15th of November, 2012, the Federal High Court granted leave to the Plaintiff to amend his Statement of Claim and Writ of Summons to include two additional Reliefs renumbered as 5 and 7 viz:
(6) Declaration that the purported dismissal of the Plaintiff by the Defendant vide the purported letter of dismissal dated 24th May 2010 is wrongful, unlawful, unconstitutional, null and void.
(7) An order setting aside the purported letter of dismissal dated 24th May, 2010.
On the 26th April 2013, the Federal High Court transferred this suit to the National Industrial Court consequent upon the 3rd alteration of the 1999 Constitution.
On the 15th day of July 2013, at the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (NICN), Parties were directed to regularize their proceedings in line with the rules of the NICN.
On the 16th day of December 2013, the Defendant filed after seeking and being granted a prayer before the Court to extend the time within which the Defendant could file their processes, the Defendant filed their Statement of Defence, Witnesses Statement on Oath, List of Witnesses and List of Documents in reaction to the Claimant’s processes.
The Defendant in their Statement of Defence raised a Preliminary point of law to the effect that there is no cause of action before the Court in this suit, and that the suit is premature, incompetent, frivolous, not justiciable, lacking in merit and should be dismissed.
On the 17th of March 2014, hearing commenced with the testimony of the Claimant’s first (F) witness (1) giving evidence in Chief and adjourned to the 10th of April, 2014.
On the 10th of April, 2014, the date adjourned for the cross examination of the CW1, the Defence counsel drew the Court’s attention to the Preliminary point contained in paragraph 32 of their Statement of Defence and applied that the point be set down for hearing.
The Preliminary point of Law was set down for hearing via a motion on notice supported by a 9 paragraph Affidavit Sworn to by one Benedicta Adigwe, dated 12th May, 2014 and a Written Address wherein the Defendant formulated three (3) issues.
The Claimant in response filed a 13 paragraphed counter Affidavit in opposition to the Defendant’s Motion dated & filed 26th May, 2014 deposed to by one Sarafadeen Olusosun.
The Claimant also filed a Written Address in opposition to the Defendant Applicant’s Motion,
Both Parties formulated issues in their various addresses but the Court dissolved all the issues into two (2) viz:
(1) Whether this Honourable Court can grant Defendant/Applicant’s Motion in view of the state of the pleadings and the settled position of Law.
(2) Whether the above mentioned suit is premature and does not display any Cause of Action or reasonable cause of action before this Honourable Court.
Before we proceed to what the judgment of the Court was, we wish to state the facts of this case briefly.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The Claimant/Appellant was a Senior Lecturer and former acting Head of Department of Statistics in the University of Ibadan.
The Defendant/Respondent is a Federal Government Agency established under the laws of the Federal Republic of Nigeria to give tertiary education in Nigerians and foreigners.
The Claimant/Appellant, together with one Chief (Engr. Ade Odunbomi), since there is no record in the Department of Statistics of the Defendant where a formal request/application as claimed by the Claimant was made for the request of his Son’s transcript.
The said Chief Odunbomi had always known that his son had been withdrawn by the Defendant.
This knowledge of the withdrawal made him appeal to the Vice Chancellor to reconsider the University’s position as to revoking the withdrawal order in respect of his son.
The said Ibrahim Odunbomi was advised to withdraw as a student of the Department of Statistics in 2002.
Chief Odunbomi appealed to the Vice Chancellor on 16th March, 2004 to reconsider his position in respect of his son.
On the 7th of April 2004, the Vice Chancellor replied Chief Odunbomi’s letter dated March 2004, and copied all relevant authorities including the HOD, Statistics Dept. (the Appellant) and the said copy was duly minuted on for filing by no other person than the Appellant himself, The letter of appeal and the subsequent response of the university, of which a copy was also received and minuted upon by appellant, are contained in pages 247-250 and also on page 324 of the record of appeal.
In the year 2004 precisely on the 8th of April, the Appellant as then acting HOD, Statistics Dept. issued an unauthorized transcript to Chief Odunbomi or documents in the institution.
The Claimant/Appellant did not refer to any document even the Senate Approved list of final year students (Graduates for 2000/2001 up to 2003/06 academic session)
The Defendant/Respondent received a letter to authenticate a transcript purportedly issued by the University.
As a result of the unauthorized issuance of the transcript the Vice Chancellor ordered that all the staff involved be queried in order to follow the laid down procedure for discipline in the University.
The process led to a panel being set up to investigate (not to try or retry anybody) the matter.
After considering the Claimant/Appellant’s reply to his query, he was invited to appear before a panel set up to investigate the matter.
The ongoing investigation by the Defendant/Respondent had not been concluded and as such any verdict of no case to answer returned by an Investigative Panel could not be upheld more so as the Panel had done an inconclusive work in the sense that certain vital witnesses who should have been interviewed by the panel and were not interviewed neither were some vital documents considered.
This non conclusion of its terms of reference by Panel F was noted by the SSDC which led to it setting up another panel (Panel M) to investigate the matter, consider some relevant documents, call some vital witnesses and make recommendations to the SSDC.
The Defendant/Respondent never dismissed the Claimant/Appellant before the Institution of this suit nor had it even taken any decision in respect of the Claimant/Appellant.
The Claimant/Appellant filed this action at the Federal High Court on the 23rd of July 2007 while he was dismissed on the 24th of May 2010.
The Claimant was not even dismissed based on the Issuance of an unauthorized Transcript but he was dismissed for abandonment of duty for over two (2) years, a different issue entirely from what was prematurely taken to Court.
At no time was the Claimant/Appellant subjected to several trials as the Panel F was setup by the SSDC, and when it could not conclude its investigation Panel M was set up still from and by same SSDC. All were investigative Panels to investigate and not the Disciplinary Committee itself (SSDC) which is the only body empowered to receive the investigation report, do further investigation either by directing the same investigative panel to do more work or setting up another panel, and by calling the queried staff for the purpose of making recommendations/findings to the governing council that is empowered by statute to make pronouncement on alleged misconduct.
An Investigative Panel is different from a Committee set up to try misconduct. According to the regulations, the Defendant is empowered to set up investigative disciplinary cases to a logical conclusion.

Against the backgrounds of the factual scenario presented by the parties, each submitted issues for determination namely:
Appellant
(i) Whether the Learned Trial Judge was right in holding that the claim of the Appellant which challenges violations of his constitutional right against double jeopardy did not disclose cause of action, which decision is contrary to the Provisions of Section 36 (9) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) and evidence on record and is therefore perverse. This issue relates to Grounds 1, 2, 3 and 7 of the Grounds of Appeal.
(ii) Whether the Learned Trial Judge did not act in excess of jurisdiction and violates the Appellant’s constitutional right to fair hearing when he dismissed the claims, discountenancing the aggregates of facts pleaded and held the purported dismissal of the Appellant is unjusticeable as it was done after the writ of summons had been filed when Appellant’s action challenging the dismissal had not been heard and in spite of the fact that the purported dismissal of Appellant’s appointment was done in gross violations of various provisions of the University Act. University of Ibadan staff Information handbook (Rules and Regulations Governing Conditions of service of Senior Staff) thereby arriving at perverse and unjust decision. This issue covers Grounds 4, 5, 6, 8 and 11 of the Grounds of Appeal.
(iii) Whether the Learned Trial Judge did not act in excess of jurisdiction when he dismissed the Claimant/Appellant’s case which was not heard on merit at the stage of preliminary objection rather than striking out same if indeed it disclosed no cause of action. This issue relates to Grounds 9 and 10 of the Grounds of Appeal.
Respondents
(a) Whether the Lower Court was right to have in its ruling of 23rd June 2014, held that the Appellant’s claims disclose no reasonable Cause of Action or any cause of action at all.
(b) Whether the Constitutional Right of Fair Hearing of the Claimant/Appellant was at any stage before this trial or during the trial violated by either the Defendant/Respondent or by the Trial Court/Judge.
(c) Whether the Trial Judge acted in Excess of its Jurisdiction when he ‘dismissed’ the Claimant/Appellant’s case.

Both the issues of the appellant and the respondent can be resolved into one issue which is:
“Whether the suit of the Claimant/Appellant discloses any cause of action?”

The appellant in arguing this issue refers to the setting up of an administrative panel of inquiry otherwise known as Panel F to inquire into the alleged irregularity of the appellant issuing a departmental statement of result in respect of a student Mr. Ibrahim Adejuwon Odunbomi who was alleged to have admission issues in the University and who has been advised to withdraw from the Institution.

The administrative body set up by the University Senior Staff Disciplinary Committee otherwise called Panel F held inquiry called witnesses and received documents and in the end held that appellant had no case to answer as appellant had no means of knowing that the said student was under University sanction. Panel F therefore exonerated the appellant.

On what a cause of action is, the appellant in his brief submitted thus:
In OLAGBENRO VS OLAYIWOLA (2014) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1436) Pg. 313, at 369-370 D-A wherein this Honourable Court stated:
“Before going into the issue, it is necessary to define or determine what a cause of action is and when it accrues before deciding whether the action is statute barred or caught up by the Statute of Limitation or Section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act. In the old case of Letang vs. Cooper (1965) 1 QB 222 at page 242 Lord Diplock L.J. said of cause of action:
“The words have been defined as meaning simply a factual situation, the existence of which entitles one person to obtain from the Court a remedy against another person.”
A plethora of other judicial authorities having defined cause of action to have the same meaning as above and have the same connotation, that is: A cause of action is: the facts or fact, which establish or give rise to a right of action. It is the factual situation, which gives a person a right to judicial relief. see, EGBE V. ADEFARASIN (NO 2) (1987) 1 NWLR (Pt. 47) Page 1; YUSUF VS. CO-OP. BANK LTD. (1994) 7 NWLR (Pt. 359) 676; UBN LTD VS.OKI (1999) 8 NWLR (Pt. 614) Page 244; ADIMORA VS. AJUFO (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt. 80) 1; OGBIMI VS. OLOLO (1993) 7 NWLR (Pt. 304) 128. Further, a cause of action consists of every fact which would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to judgment, It is a bundle or aggregate of facts, which the law will recognize as giving the plaintiff a substantive right to make a claim against the relief or remedy being sought. The factual situation on which the plaintiff relies to support his claim must be recognized by law as giving rise to a substantive right capable of being claimed or enforced against the defendant, A cause of action is therefore determined by the statement of claim and the averments therein. See, AJAYI VS. MILITARY ADMINISTRATOR, ONDO STATE (1997) 5 NWLR (Pt. 504) Page 237; OTIJBU VS. OMOTAYO (1995) 6 NWLR (Pt. 400) Page 247 AND OLORIODE VS. OYEBI (1984) 1 SCLR 390.”

Concerning the main grouse or complaint of the appellant, the respondent’s answer was that the investigative Panel, Panel F did an inclusive work in the sense that vital witnesses who should have been called by the panel were never called or questioned. This is the main point of the defence.

Resolution of Main Issue
Simply, the Claimant/Appellant pleaded that the respondent University having indicted him of wrong doing contrary to University regulation set up, an administrative board “Panel F” to inquire into the matter and issue a report. The Panel met, took oral and documentary evidence from seven witnesses. At the end, the Panel found and returned a verdict of “No case to answer” in favour of the appellant.

It was not indicated that during proceedings before the Panel F, the respondent raised any objection or by reason of any misgivings the University dissolved the Panel F upon any ground. It did not do so but waited until the Panel made a finding that is favourable to the appellant. It was only then that the respondent University appointed Panel M to investigate the appellant again upon the same allegations.

The question of law is whether any cause of action arose from these facts?

In my view, an obvious cause of action arose from the facts and enures in favour of the Claimant/Appellant. The appellant was subjected to disciplinary inquiry before a University administrative board Panel F. the board examined appellant and heard witnesses and in the end exonerated the appellant. This finding creates a Lawful expectation in the appellant that his travails are over. Appellant was at that point entitled on the basis of Panel F decision in his favour to request for his suspension to be lifted and benefits given. This was not to be, the respondent without even rejecting the decision of Panel F (If it could do so) unilaterally set up another panel, Panel M to retry the Appellant. The Respondent was clearly shopping for a Panel that would give it a preferred result to the detriment of the appellant.
The decision of Panel F, in appellants favour created a legal right in the appellant’s favour and any unlawful interference with such right can justify any action in Law.
The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended Section 36 (1) provides thus:-
In the determination of his civil right and obligations including any question or determination by or against any government or authority, a person shall be entitled to a fair hearing within a reasonable time by a Court or other Tribunal established by law and constituted in such manner as to secure its independence and impartiality.
Panel F is an administrative agency of a Government Institution the respondent University founded on Law. It’s decision has created some interest or right in the appellant which appellant can seek to enforce by action. It is a misconception by the trial judge to hold as follows.
In the instant case, the claimant has not put before the Court any claim on which the Court can exercise its jurisdiction, none of the claimants/complaints set out in the statement of fact show the constituent elements of a legal right or the infringement of the claimant’s right by the defendant or even the resultant damage emanating from the breach of this right for which the claimant is seeking remedy. In other words, the factual situation relied upon must constitute the essential ingredients of an enforceable right or claim, See the case CHEVERON NIGERIA LTD VS LONESTAR DRILLING NIGERIA LTD. (2007) NSQLR VOL. 31 PAGE 92 AT 99, ALHAJI M. M. ABUABKAR VS. BEBEJI OIL AND ALLIED PRODUCTS LTD, & ORS (2007) VOL. 29 page 1634 at 1675 where the Supreme Court held,
“That a cause of action arises from circumstances containing different facts that give rise to a claim that can be enforced in a Court of law, and this lead to the right to sue a person responsible for the existence, either directly or by extension of such circumstances. There must be a wrongful act of a party (i.e. the party sued) which has injured or given the plaintiff reason to complain in a Court of law for remedy consequent to the party aggrieved.”
I cannot find any of such legal right (s) infringed in this instant case.
The appellant clearly has a vested right by the decision of Panel F and the wrongful interference or act against that right is the act of the respondent without any justification setting up another Panel, Panel M to do the same work Panel F was set up to do and had completed. In Deaconess Mrs. Felicia AriwooIa Ogundipe vs. The Minister Federal Capital Development Authority (2014) LPELR-22771 CA the terms “Vested right” and “Vested interest” were given thus:-
“The term vested right is defined in Black’s Dictionary. Deluxe 9th Edition at page 1438 as “A right that so completely and definitely belongs to a person that it cannot be impaired or taken away without the person’s consent.”
In their view, author of Bousier Law Dictionary at page 1159-1160 have explained Vested right as follows “In Law vesting is the creation of some right estate claim or other legal or equitable interest that from the moment is settled and established it is not dependent upon a condition to be satisfied or an event to occur for the party in whom it is vested to enforce it”.
In the case of Alhaji Sobalaje Eleran & 2 ors vs Dr. Atiku Aderonpe (2008) 11 NWLR Pt. 1097, 50 at 81 Per Sankey, JCA quoted with approval the definition of vested interest in Black’s Law Dictionary Seventh Edition as “An interest the right to enjoyment of which, either present, or future, is not subject to the happening of a condition precedent”. Per Adumein JCA.
In Dictionary of Law by L.B Curzon 6th Edition, the authors quoting Salmond on Jurisprudence defined “right” as:
1. That to which a person has a just or lawful claim.
2. An interest which will be recognized and protected by a rule of law, respect for which is a legal duty, Violation of which is a legal wrong — Salmond Jurisprudence (1902).
I can therefore safely say that the appellant has vested interest in the report of Panel F exonerating him from the allegations of the respondent and the respondent cannot defeat the legitimate interest or right thus created in the appellant without justification by creating another Panel, Panel M to get the result it desires.
It is this vested right or interest that the appellant has sued to protect and enforce.
The trial Court was clearly in error to hold that there was no cause of action. There is a cause of action.

For the reasons given, this appeal succeeds and is allowed.

The judgment of the National Industrial Court Ibadan Division delivered on 23rd day of June 2014 is hereby set aside. It is ordered that the case be remitted to the President of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria for assignment to another judge.

JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA, J.C.A.: I read before now the lead judgment of my learned brother NONYEREM OKORONKWO, JCA just delivered.

My Lord has dealt with the issue in this appeal appropriately.
I also agree that the Appellant has vested interest in the report of Panel F that exonerated him from the allegations of the Respondent and the Respondent cannot defeat the legitimate interest or right thus created in the Appellant without justification by creating another Panel M to get the result it desired.

Although this is a Civil Matter, but the procedure followed by Respondent which set up a second panel for the Appellant after he has been exonerated by the first panel is like subjecting the Appellant to double jeopardy. The Respondent wanted a panel that would give it a favourable report to nail the Appellant.

Nigeria is operating a Constitutional Democracy and not under a military regime. We must ensure that in dealing with our fellow citizens we must be fair. If we are not fair, a third party having a second look at our actions will come to the conclusion that the second panel was set up to witch-hunt the Appellant in this case.

It is not too late for the Respondent to retrace its step. I will say no more.

In conclusion, I am of the view that for the reasons so ably set out in the lead Judgment, the Judgment of the lower Court in NO: FHC/IB/CS/61/2007: BETWEEN DR. D.K. SANGODOYIN VS. UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN delivered on 23/6/2014 ought to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside by me. In its place the Suit is hereby remitted to the President of National Industrial Court for re-assignment to another Judge who will hear the suit on its merit with dispatch.

There shall be no order as to costs, each of the parties are to bear their own costs.
FOLASADE AYODEJI OJO, J.C.A.: I have had the privilege of reading in draft the judgment just delivered by my learned brother, Nonyerem Okoronkwo, JCA.

A ‘cause of action’ has been held to be the entire set of circumstances giving rise to an enforceable claim. In other words, it is the combination of facts which gives the Claimant a right to sue the Defendant. It consists of two elements. The first is the wrongful act of the Defendant which gives the Claimant cause to complain. The second is the consequent damage. A reasonable cause of action simply means a cause of action with some chances of success. See BARBUS & CO (NIG) LTD & ANOR VS. OKAFOR-UDEJI (2018) 11 NWLR (PT. 1630) 298, RINCO CONST. CO. LTD VS. VEEPEE IND LTD & ANOR (2005) 9 NWLR (PT. 929) 85: OSHOBOJA VS. AMUDA & ORS (1992) 6 NWLR (PT. 250) 690.
The Appellant was issued a query by the Respondent. He was to explain his role in the issuance of the Statement of Result to a Student who had been withdrawn for admission irregularities. The Respondent thereafter set up a panel named Panel F to investigate the role of the Appellant in the issuance of the result. Panel F allegedly called witnesses and received documentary evidence and thereafter exonerated him (the Appellant). It is further the case of the Appellant that the Respondent set up another panel called PANEL M to investigate the same allegation. It is the setting up of the second panel that caused the Appellant to institute the action at the lower Court. The complaint of the Appellant is that the setting up of a new panel after he was exonerated is a breach of Section 36(9) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended). The said Section provides thus:
“No person who shows that he has been tried by any Court of competent jurisdiction or tribunal for a criminal offence and either convicted or acquitted shall again be tried for that offence or for a criminal offence having the same ingredients as that offence save upon an order of a superior Court.”
The suit at the lower Court was instituted to challenge his dismissal based on the outcome of the 2nd panel of investigation. The amended claim of the Appellant at the lower Court discloses a reasonable cause of action. It seems to me the action filed by the Appellant was to vindicate some legal right and I so hold. I agree with the lead Judgment that the Appellant has a vested right which he seeks to protect.

I also allow this appeal and abide by the consequential orders in the lead Judgment.

Appearances:

Alhaji Lasun Sanusi, SAN with him, Akpobome Akpughe and Adebimpe A. Adeniji, Esq. For Appellant(s)

A.S. Ajayi, Esq. For Respondent(s)