Legalpedia Citation: (2025-03) Legalpedia 21687 (CA)
In the Court of Appeal
CALABAR
Tue Mar 25, 2025
Suit Number: CA/C/315/2015
CORAM
Uchechukwu Onyemenam Justice Court of Appeal
Nnamdi Okwy Dimgba Justice Court of Appeal
Asmau Ojuolape Akanbi Justice Court of Appeal
PARTIES
1. THE ACADEMIC STAFF UNION OF UNIVERSITIES (ASUU)
2. DR. NASIR F. ISA
3. THE ACADEMIC STAFF UNION OF UNIVERSITIES (CROSS RIVER UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY, CALABAR BRANCH)
APPELLANTS
DR SAMUEL ASUQUO EKANEM
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, HUMAN RIGHTS, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, LABOUR LAW, EMPLOYMENT LAW, TRADE UNION LAW, FAIR HEARING, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, APPEAL
SUMMARY OF FACTS
This case originated from a dispute concerning the disqualification of the Respondent, Dr. Samuel Asuquo Ekanem, from participating in union activities and contesting for an elective position within the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU). The Respondent was a lecturer and academic staff of the Cross River State University of Technology (CRUTECH) in Calabar, and by virtue of his position, a member of the CRUTECH chapter of ASUU (the 3rd Appellant).
The Respondent aspired to be the chairman of the CRUTECH branch of the union. He obtained a nomination form, underwent screening, and was cleared by the Electoral Committee of the 3rd Appellant to contest for the office on June 10, 2013, with a supporting Report of the Screening Committee dated June 13, 2013. However, while preparing for the election, the 1st and 3rd Appellants issued a resolution dated December 16, 2013, disqualifying him from contesting.
The Respondent claimed he was never invited for any inquiry over any misconduct before his disqualification, had never been found guilty by any Court, nor been indicted. He argued that the disqualification had damaged his professional integrity. In response, the Appellants maintained that a University Investigating Panel had found the Respondent guilty of selling a textbook on Philosophy & Logic (GSS 1102) to students without University approval, and that he had tied a Review Assessment to the textbook to ensure mandatory purchase by students taking the course.
The Appellants contended that this indictment disqualified the Respondent from contesting for any elective position under Article 14 Section 2(b) of the ASUU Constitution, which stipulates that for a member to be eligible to run in an election as a branch officer, the member must “not have been involved in any form of financial-related misconduct or indictment.” They argued that the sale of a textbook without university approval constituted financial-related misconduct under Article 14 Section 2(b)(vi) of the ASUU Constitution.
The Appellants further argued that the Respondent’s right to fair hearing was not breached because the same petition that had earlier been considered by the Electoral Committee (which cleared the Respondent) was forwarded to the National Executive Council (NEC) of the 1st Appellant, which then determined that the Respondent was not qualified to stand in the election based on the University Governing Council’s finding of financial misconduct.
HELD
1. The appeal was dismissed for lacking in merit.
2. The Court of Appeal affirmed the decision of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria which declared the disqualification of the Respondent from participation in union (ASUU) activities by the 1st and 2nd Appellants vide their Resolution of December 16, 2013, as wrongful, illegal, null and void.
3. The Court held that the trial Court did not grant a relief not claimed by the Respondent, as the primary relief sought was for a declaration that his disqualification was wrongful and null and void, which was exactly what the trial Court granted.
4. The Court also held that the trial Court did not raise the issue of financial misconduct suo motu, as the parties had already joined issues on whether the Respondent’s actions constituted “financial-related misconduct” under the ASUU Constitution.
5. The Court of Appeal awarded costs of N1,000,000.00 (One Million Naira) against the Appellants in favor of the Respondent.
ISSUES
1. Whether the trial Court was right when it granted to the Respondent a relief not claimed?
2. Whether the trial Court was not in error when it suo motu raised the issue of ‘FINANCE’ and ‘FINANCIAL MISCONDUCT’ and applied same as the basis of its findings and cost against the Appellants?
3. Whether the trial Court did not make a case for the Respondent when it raised, suo motu, issue of “usury and act beyond the place” and proceeded to make finding thereon without any submission by either party to that effect?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
JUDGMENT OF LOWER COURT – APPELLATE COURT’S APPROACH TO REVIEWING DECISIONS BASED ON CORRECTNESS RATHER THAN REASONS
“An appellate Court looks and bases its decision at the correctness of the decision. In other words, an appellate Court will not set aside the decision of a lower Court which is right and just, merely because the trial judge or the Court below, gave wrong reasons for the decision. The paramount consideration for the appellate Court is whether the decision was right and not necessarily whether the reasons are right.” – Per NNAMDI OKWY DIMGBA, J.C.A.
RIGHT TO FAIR HEARING – NECESSITY OF HEARING AFFECTED PARTIES EVEN IN APPELLATE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS
“Whether acting at first instance or at an appellate level, an administrative body that is endowed with powers that will affect a citizen’s civil right and obligation must afford that party an opportunity to be heard before it takes such a decision. Such a body is obliged to observe the rules of audi alteram pattern.” – Per NNAMDI OKWY DIMGBA, J.C.A.
CONSEQUENCE OF DENIAL OF FAIR HEARING – NULLIFICATION OF DECISIONS REGARDLESS OF SOUNDNESS
“Failing to do so will amount to a violation of the right to fair hearing under Section 36 of the Constitution. And a consequence of that violation is to render a nullity that decision reached, no matter how objectively sound the decision is.” – Per NNAMDI OKWY DIMGBA, J.C.A.
GRANTING OF RELIEFS – COURT’S POWER TO GRANT LESS THAN WHAT IS CLAIMED
“While also generally a Court cannot grant to a litigant more reliefs than the litigant has claimed for, a Court is able by a review of what has been presented, and as is justifiable by the circumstances of the case, grant to a party less relief than what the party has claimed.” – Per NNAMDI OKWY DIMGBA, J.C.A.
COURT’S DISCRETION – POWER TO MAKE APPROPRIATE ORDERS BASED ON EVIDENCE
“While it is true and trite that a Court cannot grant a relief to a party that was not solicited by him, a Court though not a Father Christmas, upon a careful and dispassionate appraisal of all the evidence, and the entire circumstances of the case before it, retains the discretion to grant or make orders that will justify the case before it.” – Per NNAMDI OKWY DIMGBA, J.C.A.
JUDICIAL DISCRETION – ACTIVE ROLE OF JUDGES IN REACHING JUST CONCLUSIONS
“Gone are the days when Judges were zombies. A Judge can use his discretion for a good course; the lower Court never granted what was not asked for by the parties. A Court of law has the discretion to look at all the documents in its possession to come to a judicious and reasonable conclusion.” – Per NNAMDI OKWY DIMGBA, J.C.A.
SUA MOTU ISSUES – WHEN COURTS CAN RAISE AND RESOLVE ISSUES WITHOUT INVITING PARTIES
“A Court is however allowed to raise issues suo motu in certain circumstances and resolve them without inviting contributions from the parties. Those include when the issue (a) relates to the Court’s own jurisdiction, (b) both parties were not aware or ignored a statute which may have a bearing on the case; that is to say, there is a statutory provision the judge is expected to take judicial notice of and (c) when on the face of the record, serious questions of the fairness of the proceedings is evidenced.” – Per NNAMDI OKWY DIMGBA, J.C.A.
COURT’S USE OF RECORD – DISTINCTION BETWEEN RAISING ISSUES SUO MOTU AND USING INFORMATION IN RECORD
“A trial Court is entitled to look into its file and records to make use of any documents contained therein to resolve issues submitted before it without calling parties for further address. And that when a Court extracts information from its file to resolve issues presented by the parties themselves, it cannot be accused of raising an issue suo motu.” – Per NNAMDI OKWY DIMGBA, J.C.A.
ABANDONED GROUNDS OF APPEAL – EFFECT OF FAILURE TO ARGUE A GROUND
“Arguments not having been advanced for this issue, I hold that on the state of the law, the issue 3 and ground four of the notice of appeal from which issue 3 springs, are deemed abandoned.” – Per NNAMDI OKWY DIMGBA, J.C.A.
BINDING NATURE OF PLEADINGS – LIMITATION ON PARTIES AND COURT
“By operation of the law, facts presented by parties in the pleadings filed in Court are the foundation of all the claims made and bind both the parties and the Court in the determination of the rights/obligations claimed by way of reliefs. Parties are bound by their pleadings. Evidence of facts not pleaded should not be admitted and, most importantly, the Court is not permitted to formulate issues not raised in the pleadings.” – Per UCHECHUKWU ONYEMENAM, J.C.A.
COURT’S JURISDICTION – LIMITATION TO ISSUES PRESENTED BY PARTIES
“A Court has no jurisdiction to extend the boundaries of the litigation beyond what the parties have indicated to it, in other words, the Court has no jurisdiction to set up a different or new case for the parties. The Court must hear the views of the parties before making an order different from the one claimed.” – Per UCHECHUKWU ONYEMENAM, J.C.A.
MAKING CASE FOR PARTIES – COURT’S OBLIGATION TO RESTRICT ITSELF TO FACTS PLEADED
“A trial Court should not make a case for a party different from that placed before it. Thus, the Court should not go outside the facts pleaded by a party to find for him.” – Per UCHECHUKWU ONYEMENAM, J.C.A.
GRANTING PARTIAL RELIEF – COURT’S POWER TO ENFORCE ENFORCEABLE PORTIONS OF CLAIMS
“The trial Court only granted in part the relief it considered enforceable in the circumstances of the case with the evidence placed before it by the parties and did not at any point make a case for either of the parties nor granted any relief outside what the Respondent sought from it. The trial Court arrived at its decision through proper evaluation of the evidence placed before it by the parties.” – Per UCHECHUKWU ONYEMENAM, J.C.A.
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
• Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended)
• Court of Appeal Rules, 2021
• National Industrial Court Act