Administrative Law (41)
HELD:
HELD:
"The second prayer of the Appellant is to order Okeke J or another Judge of the Federal High Court to read a Ruling already prepared by Okeke J. Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant had pointed out that the Records of Appeal show conclusively that the Ruling was ready but could not be delivered due to the Respondent's application. This is true.
HELD:
"The Appellant here contends that parties having submitted the complaint to the Central Bank of Nigeria for resolution, it cannot approach the Court on the same issues.
HELD:
"The law is also settled that where there are serious allegations of embezzlement or fraud, the matter is beyond the power of administrative panel.
HELD:
"The lower court concluded as follows:
HELD:
''A judicial commission of inquiry or an administrative panel is not the same thing as a court of law or its equivalent. Because a court of law operates within a judicial hierarchy any person wrongly convicted is enabled to contest his conviction to the Supreme Court of Nigeria.
An administrative panel such as the AD-HOC Disciplinary Committee in the case at hand, in its enquires may not necessarily strictly adhere to such rules of natural justice such as exist in a court as known to our law. However, it is standard and I dare say basic that the rules of fair hearing-natural justice can neither be compromised nor waived. The reason is that any infraction to that basic rule of fair hearing should automatically bring to naught whatever had been done in the process of the inquires embarked upon by the panel, judicial or administrative. Federal Polytechnic Mubo v. T. L. M Yusuf (1991) 1 NWLR (Pt. 165) page 81 at 100; Olaniyan and Ors. v. University of Lagos &Anor. (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 80) 25.Arobieke v. National Elect. Liability Mgt. Co.[2017] 6-12 M.J.S.C (Pt. I)[P. 120] Paras. D-G
FACTS:
"It is crystal clear that the 4th Respondent derived it powers to discipline the Appellant and all within his category from the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999. The moment it has exercised its constitutional power the only role the Court will play is to ascertain whether the manner in which the power was exercised conformed with fundamental principles of law but not whether the decision was wrong or right as the court has no jurisdiction to substitute it's own opinion for that of the 4th Respondent.
"...The role of the court in the matter such as this, is one of a review and not appellate. I once had the opportunity of restating the law in this respect. In the Governor of Oyo State and ors v. Folayan (1995) 8 NWLR (Pt. 413) 292, 322-323 a said: "As stated earlier in this judgment, the plaintiff's case is for a judicial review of the Aboderin Commission, in relation to matters within a public body's field of judgment the court conducts its review from the body's stand point and must not intervene solely on the basis that it would itself have acted differently.