Download PDF
RULING. 1. The claimant filed this suit on the 28th day of February 2018 claiming the following reliefs against the defendants 1. A DECLARATION That the letters dated 6th February 2018 and 12th February 2018 addressed to the claimant to appear before the Governing council in respect of a case of gross misconduct and the joint committee of council and Academic Board while APPEAL NO CA/A/797/M/IGBINOSUN FRIDAY ESE V THE RECTOR AUCHI POLYTECHNIC, AUCHI & ORS is pending at the court of Appeal Abuja were issued in gross abuse of court process and are therefore null and void 2. A DECLARATION That the Defendants cannot validly take steps or conduct any investigation and/or take any decision in respect to any matter connected to the letters dated 6th February 2018 and 12th February 2018 addressed to the claimant to appear before the Governing council and the joint committee of council and Academic Board respectively in respect of a case of gross misconduct while Appeal No CA/A/797/M IGBINOSUN FRIDAY ESE V THE RECTOR AUCHI POLYTHECNIC, AUCHI & ORS is pending at the court of Appeal Abuja. 3. A DECLARATION That any decision reached based on the invitation contained in the letters dated 6th February 2018 and 12th February 2018 addressed to the claimant to appear before the Governing council and the joint Committee of Council and Academic Board respectively in respect of a case of gross misconduct while Appeal No CA/A/797/M IGBINOSUN FRIDAY ESE V THE RECTOR AUCHI POLYTHECNIC, AUCHI & ORS is pending at the court of Appeal Abuja is null and void 4. AN ORDER OF INJUNCTION restraining the Defendants by themselves their servant agent and or privies however so called from further conducting any investigation, making recommendation or taking decisions in respect of the allegation of the offence of gross misconduct levelled against the claimant until Appeal NO CA/A/797/M/IGBINOSUN FRIDAY ESE V THE RECTOR AUCHI POLYTECHNIC AUCHI & ORS is pending at the Court of Appeal Abuja is heard and determined. 2. On 10/12/2018, when this matter came up before the court Mr. Sunday Iyemeake, Esq; counsel for the Defendants informed the Court that they have filed an appeal before the Court of Appeal against the decision of this Court and the appeal has been entered. Counsel urged the Court to transfer their pending application to the Court of Appeal 3. Mr. D. A. Alegbe, Esq; counsel for the Claimant on his part submitted that there is distinction between an interlocutory appeal and appeal against substantive matter. Counsel submitted the appeal is not in respect of substantive matter it has nothing to do with the subject substantive suit. 4. After listening to the submissions of Counsel. Counsel were ordered to fie written address on propriety of proceeding with the substantive suit in view of pending appeal at the court of appeal. 5. In compliance with the order of court counsel for both parties filed written addresses to support their respective views on the issue raised suo motu by the Court. 6. Counsel adopted their written addresses on 24/10/19, D. A. Alegbe, Esq; counsel for the Claimant submitted a single issue for resolution, to wit: ‘’WHETHER AN INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL CAN PREVENT THE TRIAL COURT FROM HEARING THE SUBSTANTIVE MATTER WHERE THERE IS NO VALID ORDER OF A STAY OF PROCEEDINGS BY THE TRIAL OR APPELLATE COURT IN THE CASE.’’ 7. In arguing the sole issue formulated for determination, counsel contended that On the 24th day of September 2018 this honourable court made an order of mandatory restorative injunction compelling the defendants including the registrar, Auchi polytechnic who issued letter dated 15/3/18 dismissing the claimant, to immediately reinstate the claimant as chief lecturer in the department of accountancy of the 1st defendant with all his entitlement as chief lecturer. The Defendants appealed against the ruling and filed an application for stay of proceedings in the substantive suit and stay of execution of order in the ruling delivered on the 24/9/2018. 8. It is the contention of counsel that the substantive matter in this case has not been decided, what was decided was an extrinsic interlocutory matter which bothered on the conduct of the defendants which attempted to steal a match on the claimant and render whatever this honourable court may ultimately decide nugatory if in favour of the claimant or put in another way preempting the court in the exercise of its constitutional function as donated by section 6 (6)(b) of the 1999 constitution of the federal republic of Nigeria (as amended) 9. Counsel contended that the effect of an interlocutory appeal on a substantive suit will vary having regard to the nature of interlocutory appeal, if the interlocutory appeal bothers on jurisdictional competence of a court to hear the substantive matter which is capable of determining the case one way or the other in which case court will stay its proceedings. On this contention counsel relied on the case of OWENA BANK (NIG) PLC V OLATUNJI (1999) 13 NWLR (PT 634) PG 218 @ 230 PARAS B-C, where Onghen, JCA as he then was stated that where an interlocutory order does not finally dispose of the case, it would be wrong to stay proceedings because of an appeal lodged against it by an aggrieved party. However, a court will order a stay of the proceedings where an Interlocutory appeal, if successful, disposes of the entire proceedings. Where the complaint of the applicant in the interlocutory appeal can conveniently be taken together in an appeal against the final decision of the court in the event that the case is determined in favour of the Respondent; the application should be refused. See also ABJOYE V UA LTD (1986) 2 NWLR (PT.20) 101, OBINYIRUKA V ALICE (1991) 4 NWLR (PT.183) 87. 10. Counsel also relied on the case of NIGERIA NATIONAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION & ORS VS ODIDERE ENTERPRISE NIGERIA LIMITED (2008)8 NWLR (PT 1090) PG 583 @ 616-617, to contend that where an interlocutory appeal does not finally dispose of the matter it would be better to continue with the suit. However, if it will ultimately disposed of the matter prudence dictates that a stay of proceedings be granted. 11. It is the contention of counsel that the interlocutory appeal is on mandatory restorative injunction which reinstate the claimant to prevent steal of a match it is not in any way related to the pending suit which challenge continuous trial of the claimant when he is exercising right of appeal on the issue and for which the defendants have pending applications which seeks to strike out on abuse of court process which are still pending. 12. Counsel contended that the notice of appeal is invalid because it was filed without the leave of the Appellate court as provided for in section 254 (6) the constitution of the federal republic of Nigeria(third alteration) act 2010, counsel refers to the cases of GENERAL OIL LIMITED VS ODUNTAN & ANOR (1990) 7 NWLR (PT 163) PG 423 @ 443 and submitted that the case law has placed a burden on the trial judge that in an application for stay, he should consider whether or not the appeal is frivolous and implicit in this is the fact that he must be satisfied that there is a valid and arguable appeal 13. The case of DR OKEZIE VICTOR IKPAZU VS DR SAMPSON UCHECHUKWU OGAH (2016) LPELR- 40845 (CA), was also cited and relied on where the court stated that: “ once an appeal is entered in this court all courts below should hands off, when a court makes a ruling, in the course of hearing a substantive suit, a party dissatisfied, may appeal it. The record in respect of the ruling is then transmitted to the court of Appeal for determination. Once that is done, the court will cease to have jurisdiction in respect of the subject of ruling, but would have the jurisdiction to continue with the substantive suit, as the record of it has not been transmitted to the court of appeal.’’ 14. It is the contention of counsel that the applicant in a bid to cure their invalid Notice of Appeal has filed a motion notice dated 30th of November 2018 and filed on the 7-12-18 at the court of appeal seeking leave of the court of appeal to appeal against the ruling of this honourable court delivered on the 24th day of September 2018. It is contended that a mere application for leave without a valid appeal cannot ground a stay of proceedings see OCHOR V OJO (2008)13 NWLR (PT 1105) PG 524 @ 540 PARAS D-E THE SUBMISSION OF THE DEFENDANT 15. The Defendant’s on its part submitted that on the 24th of September 2018, the Honourable Court delivered a Ruling and ordered the defendants to reinstate the claimant and pay his entitlement, being dissatisfied with the aforesaid ruling of this Honourable Court, the Defendant have approached the court of Appeal vide the Notice of Appeal, seeking for two reliefs thus; a. An Order setting aside the decision of this court delivered on the 24th day of September 2018 b. An Order dismissing the Claimant’s application dated 30th April 2018 and the entire suit for want of competence and want of jurisdiction, 16. The counsel for the defendants informed the court that appeal has been entered and urge this court to adjourn this case pending the outcome of the appeal, After hearing both counsels, the court suo motu, ask both counsel to address the court whether or not in the face of the existing appeal, the court can continue hearing on the substantive matter. 17. The defendant raised a single issue for determination, to wit: ‘’WHETEHER IN VIEW OF THE PENDING APPEAL IN THIS SUIT THIS HONOURABLE COURT OUGHT NOT TO STAY FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN THIS MATTER PENDING THE DETERMINATION OF THE APPEAL.’’ 18. In arguing the sole issue submitted for resolution, counsel contended that an appeal having been entered in this matter, this court has to stay further proceedings in the matter, pending the outcome of the appeal. To support this contention counsel relied on the case of KIGO (NIGERIA) LTD V HOLMAN BROTHER (NIGERIA) LTD & ANOR (1980) N.S.C.C. 204 HELD THAT; the court from which an appeal lies as well as the court to which an appeal lies have a duty to preserve the res for the purpose of ensuring that the appeal, if successful, is not rendered nugatory. On this contention counsel relied on the case of REGENCY COUNCIL OF OLOTA OF OTTA & ORS V CHIEF OLUFEMI SODEINDE & ORS (2013) LPELR- 20687 (CA) PER UWA JCA (PP 40-41) PARAS G-B HELD AS FOLLOWS “where an appeal has been lodged against a decision of a court, the said court must have in mind that its decision could be reversed on appeal and therefore ought not to create a situation of hopelessness by continuing with the hearing of the matter as happened in this case in disregard of the pending appeal” 19. Counsel also relied on the case of IKPEAZU V OGAH & ORS (2016) LPELR- 40845 (CA) PP 22-23 PARAS B-A PER OGUNWUMIJU JCA, while re-emphasizing that trial court is made aware of pending appeal against its decision in the course of the trial, the trial court ought to await the result of the appeal. Immediately record is received the court of appeal becomes seized of the matter. Counsel contended that an appeal is said to have been entered when record of appeal is transmitted to Court of Appeal or supreme court as the case may be. To support this contention counsel relied on the case of NIGERIAN NAVY & ORS V NAVY CAPTAIN D.O. LABINJO (2012) NSCQR 50 @ PG 255. Counsel also referred to the case of ATISCO PET NIG LTD V UBN PLC (2009) 3 NWLR (Pt.1127) 22, and submitted that the Defendants have satisfied the conditions for grant of stay. 20. Counsel contended that the record of Appeal having been transmitted from the registry of this court to the court of Appeal, therefore stating that an appeal in this matter has been entered, hence urging My Lord with respect to stay further proceedings pending the determination of the matter at the court of appeal 21. Counsel also submitted that in the exercise of its discretion to grant or refuse an application for stay of proceedings pending the determination of an appeal, the court is to be guided by the following; I. There must be a pending appeal; a stay of proceedings can be granted only if there is a pending appeal, which is valid in law. II. There must be an arguable appeal III. Where the appeal will dispose of the proceedings; where the interlocutory appeal following an application for stay of proceedings will finally dispose of the case or put an end to the proceedings in the lower court, stay of proceedings would be granted. IV. Where the res” will not be preserved; V. Where greater hardship will be caused; where it will render the order of the appellate court nugatory: a stay of proceedings will be granted; 22. Counsel argued that on point (iv), (v) and (vi), that if this court proceeds with the hearing and grant the reliefs in the substantive suit, it therefore means, that the claimant would have been reinstated and paid his entitlement. If the appeal then succeeds, and the appeal court grants the relief 2 the claimant won’t be able to refund the salaries he had collected for that period, as he had not shown that he will be able to repay same, thereby wasting tax payers money and making the appeal nugatory 23. Counsel referred to the case of NIZO (NIG) LTD & ANR V HAJIYA BINTA ALIYU (2005) LPELR 7533 (CA) PP 12-13 PARAS G-A, where it was held thus “it is therefore definitely the law, that where an issue of jurisdiction is raised by an applicant in a ground of appeal contained in a notice of appeal, the applicant is taken to have satisfied special or exceptional circumstances, to justify granting him relief of stay of further proceedings pending the determination of an appeal” 24. Counsel also draw the attention of the court to grounds 3 and relief 2 of the Notice of Appeal and submit that a jurisdictional issue has been raised, 25. In concluding his submission counsel urged the court to stay proceeding in view of entry of appeal at the Court of Appeal. 26. COURT’S DECISION 27. I have carefully considered the written submissions of counsel for both sides as well as the oral adumbration of their respective positions on the issue raised by the court suo motu. 28. On 10/12/2018, when this matter came up for hearing Mr. Sunday Iyemeake, Esq; counsel for the Defendants informed the Court that an appeal has been entered before the Court of Appeal against the ruling of 24/9/2018, granting mandatory restorative injunction. Counsel urged the court to transmit his application for stay of proceedings to the Court of Appeal since the Court of Appeal is seized of the matter with entry of an appeal. However, D. A. Alegbe, Esq; counsel for the Claimant contended that there is distinction between interlocutory appeal and appeal on substantive suit. 29. However, this court ordered counsel for both parties to address it on propriety of proceeding with the hearing on this suit considering entry of appeal against the decision of this court issuing mandatory restorative injunction against the Defendants in this suit. 30. For the Claimant counsel it is not necessary to stay proceedings in this suit since the appeal before the Court of Appeal is not in respect of the substantive suit, it is an interlocutory issue that has little or no relevance to the substantive suit. Counsel urged the Court not to stay proceeding. The Counsel for the Defendants on his own part is of the view that there is the need for this court to stay proceeding in order to allow the Court of Appeal to deal with the Appeal which bothers on jurisdiction of the Court. 31. In order to resolve the issue under consideration, it is apt to consider the provisions of Order 4 Rule 11 of the Court of Appeal Rules, which provides, thus: ‘‘After an appeal has been entered and until it has been finally disposed of the Court shall be seized of the whole of the proceedings as between the parties thereto, except as may be otherwise provided in these Rules, every application shall be made to the Court and not to the Court below, but any application may be filed in the Court below for transmission to the Court’’. 32. The provisions of Order 4 Rule 11 of the Court of Appeal Rules reproduced above are very clear and unambiguous. The wording of the Rule is plain without any ambiguity. The words therein should be given their ordinary grammatical meaning. It is settled law that when provisions of statute or Rules of Court are clear and unambiguous, the Court is duty bound to apply literal rule of interpretation to construe the provisions under consideration without resort to any internal or external aid. In the instant case the words used in Order 4 Rule 11 of the Court of Appeal Rules, being devoid of any ambiguity will be given their simple ordinary meanings. See FIRST BANK OF NIGERIA V MAIWADA (2013) 5 NWLR (Pt.1348) 443, HONEYWELL FLOUR MILLS PLCV ECOBANK NIGERIA LTD 2016 16 NWLR PT.1539 387, ABUBAKAR V NASAMU 2012 17 NWLR PT.1330 523. Applying this principle of interpretation to the case at hand this Court has no choice than to interpret the words of the Rule as used and apply same accordingly. 33. In view of the foregoing after an appeal had been entered, all applications are made to the Court of Appeal, albeit an application may be filed in this Court for transmission to the Court of Appeal. Once appeal has been entered this Court no longer has jurisdiction and competence to entertain any application brought in respect of the matter. See ESIRI V IDIKA (1987) 4 NWLR (PT.66) 503. 34. With the clear provisions of Order 4 Rule 11 of the Court of Appeal, this Court cannot assume jurisdiction to hear and determine motion for stay. To do that will amount to disrespect to the powers of the Court of Appeal. If such happens any order made will be without jurisdiction and will not be legitimate. In the case of COMMISSIONER FOR EDUCATION AKWA IBOM STATE & ORS. V HARRIKIKO ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED & ANR. (2013) LEPLR-21399 (CA), the Court of Appeal set aside an order made by the High Court after an appeal had been entered at the Court of Appeal. The High Court order was nullified because it was made without jurisdiction. The rational is once an appeal is entered the Court of Appeal has become fully seized of the matter. From thence forward, the Court of Appeal becomes dominus litis. It has full and complete dominion over all processes filed and ensuring proceedings to the exclusion of this court. 35. In view of the foregoing, it is my humble view that this Court lacks the requisite jurisdiction in the face of the clear and unambiguous provisions of Order 4 Rule 11 of the Court of Appeal Rules to entertain the motion for Astay of proceedings. I so hold. Sanusi Kado, Judge. REPRESENTATION: V.O. Edegbini, Esq; for the Judgment creditor/respondent Salan Y. Dako, Esq; for the Judgment Debtors/Applicants