IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE PORT HARCOURT JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT PORT HARCOURT

 

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE P. I. HAMMAN --- JUDGE

DATE: 17TH JUNE, 2022              

SUIT NO: NICN/YEN/126/2015

BETWEEN:

PROFESSOR BARINEME BEKE FAKAE     ---------         CLAIMANT

 

AND

 

RIVERS STATE UNIVERSITY NKPOLU,                          DEFENDANT

PORT HARCOURT

JUDGMENT

 

1.1.           The claimant commenced this suit by way of Complaint and Statement of Facts dated and filed on 2nd November, 2015. With the leave of court granted on the 21st of June, 2016, the claimant filed Amended Complaint, Amended Statement of Facts and other accompanying processes dated and filed on the 18th of April, 2016. The claimant again sought and obtained the leave of court on the 5th of February, 2020 to further amend the originating processes in this suit by changing the name of the defendant from Rivers State University of Science and Technology, Nkpolu, Port Harcourt to Rivers State University, Nkpolu, Port Harcourt. The Amended Complaint and Amended Statement of Facts are dated and filed on 7th of February, 2020. The reliefs sought by the claimant as per the Amended Statement of Facts are as follows:

 

i.                    A declaration that the claimant's employment with the defendant vides a letter of offer of appointment dated 16th May, 2014 and which was accepted by the claimant by a letter dated May 16, 2014 is valid and still subsisting.

 

ii.                  Declaration that the claimant is entitled to all his entitlements, remuneration, salaries, emoluments and/or other privileges which accrued to him as an employee of the defendant vide a letter of offer of appointment dated 16th May, 2014.

iii.               The sum of N2,017,589.10 (Two Million, Seventeen Thousand, Five Hundred and Eighty Nine Naira, Ten Kobo) being the total sum of claimant's salary for the months of August, September and October 2015 at the rate of N672,529.70 (Six Hundred and Seventy Two Thousand, Five Hundred and Twenty Nine Naira Seventy Kobo) per month.

iv.                The sum of N672,529.70 (Six Hundred and Seventy Two Thousand, Five Hundred and Twenty Nine Naira Seventy Kobo) per month from November 2015 when this suit was instituted until judgment is delivered and the sum of N672,529.70 (Six Hundred and Seventy Two Thousand, Five Hundred and Twenty Nine Naira Seventy Kobo) from the date judgment until the judgment is liquidated.

v.                   The sum of 20 Million Naira as General Damages for injury, hardship, inconveniences, pains and embarrassment cause(sic) to the claimant by the Defendant denying his appointment and non-payment of his salary.

vi.                A declaration that the clamant is entitled to his accumulated leave of absence of 240 days as calculated by a letter dated July 13, 2015 in line with the condition of service of senior staff of the defendant.

vii.              An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant either acting by itself or its servant, agents, privies, assigns or whatever capacity as howsoever called or described from stopping the payment of the claimant’s salary, arrears and other entitlements accrued to him as an employee of the defendant.

1.2.           Upon service of the Originating Processes on the Defendant, the Defendant filed Statement of Defence and other accompanying processes on the 24th of November, 2015. In response to the claimant’s amendment, the defendant filed an Amended Statement of Defence on the 25th of February, 2020. The defendant’s additional witness statement on oath of its witness Benjamin Ugbari which was filed on the 8th of July, 2021 was however deemed by the court on the 12th of July, 2021.

 

1.3.           Trial in this suit started on the 17th of November, 2020 when the claimant opened his case by testifying for himself as CW. The witness who affirmed to speak the truth and spoke in English Language identified and adopted his two statements on oath filed on 2nd November, 2015 and 18th April, 2016. The following documents were tendered by the claimant and admitted by the court:

 

1.      University of Nigeria Nsukka letter of commendation dated 26th January, 2009----------- exhibit CW1A.

2.      University of Nigeria Nsukka letter of temporary appointment dated 29th September, 1983 ---- exhibit CW1B.

3.      University of Nigeria Nsukka offer of regular appointment dated 25th April, 1984 --- exhibit CW1C.

4.      University of Nigeria Nsukka offer of regular appointment dated 28th August, 1987 --- exhibit CW1D.

5.      University of Nigeria Nsukka letter of promotion dated 13th July, 1990 ---- exhibit CW1E.

6.      University of Nigeria Nsukka letter of promotion dated 1st March, 1994 ---- exhibit CW1F.

7.      University of Nigeria Nsukka letter of promotion dated 30th June, 2005 ---- exhibit CW1G.

8.      University of Nigeria Nsukka letter of promotion dated 27th August, 2007 ---- exhibit CW1H.

9.      Bundle of documents comprising of the claimant’s CV, age declaration, First School Leaving Certificate, WASC and other credentials -------- exhibit CW1J.

10. Letter of appointment as Rector Rivers State Polytechnic Bori dated 12th September, 2003 --- exhibit CW1K.

11. Letter of appointment as Acting Vice Chancellor Rivers State University of Science and Technology dated 14th November, 2007 --- exhibit CW1L.

12. Letter of confirmation of appointment as Vice Chancellor Rivers State University of Science and Technology dated 18th August, 2008 ----- exhibit CW1M.

13. Letter of Government of Rivers State, Ministry of Education dated 5th March, 2009 ------- exhibit CW1N.

14. Application for transfer of service dated 1st April, 2014 --- exhibit CW1P.

15. University of Nigeria Nsukka letter of transfer of service dated 5th May, 2014 ----- exhibit CW1Q.

16. Letter of Rivers State University of Science and Technology dated 2nd May, 2014 ---- exhibit CW1R.

17.  Rivers State University of Science and Technology Offer of Appointment dated 16th May, 2014 ------ exhibit CW1S.

18. Letter of acceptance of offer of transfer of service dated 16th May, 2014 ---- exhibit CW1T.

19.  Rivers State University of Science and Technology Memo dated 30th May, 2014 ------ exhibit CW1U.

20.  University of Nigeria Nsukka letter of transfer of service dated 4th June, 2014 --- exhibit CW1V.

21.  Rivers State University of Science and Technology Regulations Governing the Conditions of Service of Senior Staff CONTISS 6-15, 13th November, 2013 ---- exhibit CW1W.

22.  Rivers State University of Science and Technology Internal Memo dated 13th July, 2015---- exhibit CW1X.

23.  Rivers State University of Science and Technology Internal Memo dated 13th August, 2015 --- exhibit CW1Y.

24.  Agenda and Minutes of the 11th Regular Meeting of the Governing Council of Rivers State University of Science and Technology held on Wednesday 30th July, 2014 ------ exhibit CW1Z.

25. Internal Memo of Rivers State University of Science and Technology dated 23rd September, 2015 ------------exhibit CW1A1.

The witness (CW) was cross-examined by the defendant’s counsel and re-examined by his counsel before being discharged. The Claimant closed his case on 17th March, 2021.

 

1.4.           The defendant opened its defence on the 12th of July, 2021 by calling its sole witness Benjamin Ugbari (a legal officer with the defendant) who testified as DW. The witness swore on the Holy Bible before identifying and adopting his statement on oath filed on the 8th of July, 2021. One document which is a CTC of Rivers State University payslip in the name of Fakae B. B. was tendered through the witness and admitted by the court as exhibit DW1A.

The witness was cross-examined by the claimant’s counsel and discharged without any re-examination. The defendant closed its case on the 25th of November, 2021.

 

1.5.           With the close of evidence in this suit, parties were directed to file their final written addresses beginning with the defendant. While the defendant’s final written address filed on the 26th of January, 2022 was deemed by the court on the 17th of February, 2022, the claimant’s final written address was filed on the 16th of February, 2022. The defendant filed a Reply on Points of Law on the 2nd of March, 2022. These proceses were adopted by counsel on the 17th of March, 2022 with Femi Bobade appearing with O. B. Wokeh for the claimant while J. T. Okulu appeared with H. E. Roberts for the Defendant. With the adoption of parties’ final written addresses, judgment in this suit was reserved.

THE CASE OF THE CLAIMANT:

2.1.           The Claimant who is a professor of Veterinary Parasitology and former Acting Vice-Chancellor, and Vice-Chancellor of the defendant between the years 2007 to 2015 was initially a lecturer in the Department of Veterinary Parasitology and Entomology at the University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Enugu State. He was employed as a Graduate Assistant on 29th September, 1983, where he rose to become a professor of Veterinary Parasitology.

 

2.2.           He pleaded his unblemished and rich record of service with the University of Nigeria, Nsukka as follows:

i.          Between 1983-1986            -           Graduate Assistant

ii.         1986-1988                             -           Lecturer II

iii.       1988-1993                             -           Lecturer I

iv.        1993                                       -           Consultant Parasitologist

v.         1993                                       -           Senior Lecturer

vi.        1995-1996                             -           Head of Department of Veterinary

Parasitology and Entomology

vii.      1998                                                   Head of Department of Veterinary

Parasitology and Entomology

viii.     2000                                       -           Reader (Associate Professor in 

                        Veterinary Parasitology)

ix.        2002-2003                             -           Head of Department of Veterinary

                                                                        Parasitology and Entomology

x.         2004                                       -           Professor of Veterinary

                                                            Parasitology.

 

2.3.           According to the claimant, sometimes in 2003 when he was appointed the Rector of the Rivers State Polytechnic, Bori, his employer University of Nigeria Nsukka gave him leave of absence to take up the appointment. That in 2007 he was appointed as the Acting Vice-Chancellor of the defendant, and was later confirmed in 2008. After the expiration of the first term of office of four (4) years he was re-appointed as the Vice-Chancellor of the defendant in 2012, for a period of three (3) years, which elapsed sometime in July, 2015.

 

2.4.           The claimant avers that since he has consistently been on leave of absence granted him by his employer University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Enugu State since 14th November, 2007 he requested for transfer of service from University of Nigeia Nsukka to the defendant, and by "Mutual Agreement" between the defendant and the University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Enugu State, his employer wrote to the defendant to indicate its willingness to accept the transfer of service. That his request for approval of transfer of service from University of Nigeria Nsukka vide his letter to the defendant dated 2nd May, 2014 was approved by the defendant’s Governing Council as a Professor in the Department of Applied and Environmental Biology in line with the defendant’s enabling law.

 

2.5.           That by "mutual agreement" and in response to the letter written by the University of Nigeria, Nsukka requesting confirmation of the defendant's willingness to accept the service of the claimant, the defendant by a letter dated 30th May, 2014 requested the University of Nigeria, Nsukka to forward to the defendant a certified true copy of the claimant's Record of Service for further action, which was forwarded to the defendant vide letter of University of Nigeria, Nsukka dated July 4, 2014.

 

2.6.           According to the claimant, under the Condition of Service a staff on USS6 and above is entitled to annual vacation leave of 30 (thirty) days, annual vacation leave is compulsory and all members of staff are required to take and exhaust their annual vacation leave within the leave year in which such leave is earned except deferred, and a staff can defer his annual leave and take same as accumulated annual leave. That sequel to his request to proceed on accumulated leave which he could not take due to the exigency of his office as the Vice Chancellor since 2008 made vide his letter dated August 3rd 2015, the defendant after calculating his accumulated leave for 240 days (2008 to 2015) however refused to grant the approval due to alleged irregularities in his employment.

 

2.7.           That the Governing Council of the Defendant had not been reconstituted as at August, 2015 since its dissolution by the visitor of the defendant in June 2015.

 

2.8.           The claimant pleads his total salary per month as a grade level 7/10 Professor like any other grade level Professor in the employment of the Defendant as the sum of N672,529.70 (Six Hundred and Seventy Two Thousand, Five Hundred and Twenty Nine Naira Seventy Kobo). That the Defendant has refused/stopped and or neglected to pay him his salary since August 2015 after the completion of tenure as the Vice Chancellor of the Defendant which has caused him great inconveniences and pains.

DEFENDANT’S CASE:

3.1.           According to the Defendant, the claimant was sometimes in 2003 appointed the Rector of the Rivers State Polytechnic Bori, he was however not a staff of the defendant having not been properly employed by the defendant. That the purported appointment/employment and/or transfer of service of the claimant by the defendant did not comply with the provisions of the defendant’s Regulations Governing the Conditions of Service of Senior Staff as Revised and Approved by the Governing Council on 13th November 2013 because the following stipulations of section 2 were not met by the claimant:

 

(i)               The satisfactory investigation of the reference and certificate of qualifications claimed on the application.

(ii)            The candidate signing an Acceptance form to the effect that he understands and will abide by the conditions of employment.

(iii)          Submission of a certificate of fitness duly approved by the Director of Health Services Department of the Defendant.

(iv)          The recommendation of the Appointments and Promotions Committee (Academic Staff) established by the University Law whose responsibility it is to satisfactorily investigate references and certificates of qualification claimed on application, appoint the candidate and report/recommend same to the Governing Council for approval and necessary action.

 

3.2.           That since the Appointments and Promotions Committee (Academic) of the defendant did not recommend and report the claimant for appointment to the council, his appointment by the Chairman of the Governing Council amounted to irregularity because the Chairman has no power to make the approval it made on the claimant’s           application dated    2nd of May, 2014 without recommendation from the Appointment and Promotion Committee (Academic). That the Registrar of the University also acted without powers when she issued the purported letter of appointment to the claimant since it did not comply with requirements of the condition of service. That the Department of Applied and Environmental Biology did not make any input and is not aware of the appointment of the claimant as a professor in the Department.

 

3.3.           The defendant avers further that, the claimant used his position as the Vice-Chancellor to work his way through his appointment and transfer of service to the defendant without following due process. That there was no “Mutual Agreement” between the University of Nigeria Nsukka and the defendant for the transfer of service of the claimant.

 

3.4.           That when the claimant’s employment with the University of Nigeria Nsukka ended on 17th April, 2014, on the 5th May, 2014 the University of Nigeria Nsukka requested the defendant to indicate its willingness to accept the services of the claimant. The defendant indicated its willingness on the 30th May 2014 and the University of Nigeria Nsukka agreed to transfer on the 4th June 2014.

 

3.5.           According to the defendant, at the material times when transfer of service processes commenced and when University of Nigeria Nsukka purportedly agreed to transfer the claimant to the services of the defendant the claimant was no longer in the employment of the University of Nigeria Nsukka, hence the University of Nigeria Nsukka had nothing to transfer to the defendant.

 

3.6.           That the claimant has never earned salaries, entitlements, remunerations etc. as a staff of the defendant but as Vice-Chancellor of the University appointed by the Government of Rivers State whose tenure ended on the 31st July, 2015. That since the claimant is not an employee of the defendant, he is not entitled to any salaries, entitlements, remunerations, emoluments and/or other privileges including leave.

 

3.7.           That the claimant worked as the appointed Vice-Chancellor of the defendant from 2007 to 2015 and at the end of his tenure in 2015 he vacated his office and is no longer entitled any form of privileges and entitlement from the defendant. That the defendant did not cause the claimant to close his record of service and transfer his employment with the University of Nigeria, Nsukka (UNN) because he had since 17th April, 2014 closed his record of service with University of Nigeria Nsukka before he made the attempt to transfer to the defendant.

 

3.8.           That since the defendant’s Governing Council did not approve the claimant’s transfer of service at any meeting, the suit should be dismissed in its entirely for being frivolous, speculative, a gold-digging venture and brought in utmost bad faith.

DEFENDANT’S SUBMISSIONS:

4.1.           The Defendant’s counsel identified two (2) issues for the determination of the court, to wit:

 

1.      Whether the transfer of service of the claimant with the defendant was laced with irregularities therefore null and void.

 

2.      Whether the claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought in this suit.

 

4.2.           It was submitted on issue one (1) that the transfer of service of the claimant with the defendant was laced with irregularities and therefore null and void. That since the claimant was a staff of UNN prior to his appointment as Vice Chancellor by the Rivers State Government in 2007, he could not have gained another employment during the tenure of his appointment or service with Rivers State Government. That if any employment was to take place it would ordinarily be at the expiration of his tenure as Vice-Chancellor in July, 2015.

 

4.3.           Learned counsel referred to the answers elicited from the claimant during his cross-examination and exhibits CW1W, CW1S, CW1T and CW1Q and submitted that since the claimant failed to submit a certificate of fitness duly approved by the Director of Health Services Department of the defendant which is a condition precedent to the assumption of duty makes his employment irregular. That since from exhibits CW1T and CW1Q the Claimant’s service with UNN, his former employer ended or terminated on 17th of April, 2014, 15 (fifteen) days before the claimant applied to the defendant for transfer of service on 2nd May, 2014 vide Exhibit CW1R and 29 (twenty nine) days before the letter of offer of appointment dated 16th May, 2014 (Exhibit CWIS) was issued by the defendant to the Claimant, there was nothing for UNN to transfer, and the transfer is therefore irregular. See Nasarawa State University and Anor V. Nekere (2018) LPELR-44550(CA) Page 40 paras. A. That the best form of evidence is documentary evidence and a document which is tendered in Court is the best proof of the contents of such document, and no oral evidence will be allowed to discredit or contradict same. That exhibit CWIT is an admission against the claimant’s interest which does not require further proof. See Ibrahim V. Abdallah and Ors. (2019) LPELR-48984(SC) Pp. 11-12 Paras. E-A, Bakari V. Ogundipe and Ors (2020) LPELR-49571(SC) Pp. 62-62 Paras. A-A, Odi V. Iyala (2004)8 NWLR (Pt.875) 283 at 308 Paras. D-E and section 123 of the Evidence Act 2011. That something cannot be placed on nothing and expected to stand, referring to the cases of U.A.C. V Mcfoy (1961) 3 ALL ER 169 at 172 and Oshoffa and Ors V. Kosoko and Ors (2013) LPELR-22145 (CA) Pp.33-33 paras. D-G.

 

4.4.           Learned counsel referred to section 2.14(c) of exhibit CW1W and submitted that from the timelines of the correspondences between the claimant, University of Nigeria Nsukka and the Defendant leading to this suit there was no mutual agreement between UNN and the Defendant before the transfer of the claimant’s service. That exhibit CW1S dated 16th May 2014 predates the Defendant’s expression of willingness to accept the transfer of service of the claimant exhibit CW1U dated 30th May, 2014 and UNN transfer of Service to the Defendant exhibit CWIX). That the claimant took advantage of his office as the defendant’s Vice Chancellor to cause the irregularity.

 

4.5.           It was further posited that there was no satisfactory investigation of the reference and certificates of qualification as required by the provisions of section 2.1 of Exhibit CW1W, and the claimant did not sign an Acceptance form to the effect that he understands and will abide by the conditions of employment as provided for under section 2.1(b) of Exhibit CW1W. That there was also no recommendation of the Appointments and Promotions Committee (Academic Staff) established by the University Law whose responsibility it is to satisfactorily investigate references and certificates and report/recommend same to the Governing Council for approval and necessary action as provided for under sections 2.1 and 4.2(b)(i)(ii)(iv) and (v) of exhibit CWIW.

 

4.6.           That since by section 2.1 lines 7-10 of exhibit CW1W the date on which a member of staff will take up an appointment is a step to the completion of the contractual relationship between the parties and the claimant did not resume his duties, the contractual relationship between the parties if at all was never complete. The court was urged to resolve issue one (1) in favour of the claimant. See Oak Pensions Ltd and Ors V. Olayinka (2017) LPELR-43207(CA).

 

4.7.           With respect to issue two (2) learned counsel argued that the claimant is not entitled to the reliefs sought in this suit because he has not been able to prove on a preponderance of evidence that he is entitled to the reliefs sought by him. That in law he who alleges must prove, and the burden or onus of proving his claims is entirely on the claimant and does not shift to the defendant. See sections 132 and 133 of the Evidence Act 2011 and the case of Oyovbiare V. Omamurhonu (2001) FWLR (Pt.68) 1129(SC).

 

4.8.           That the claimant’s reliefs i and ii cannot be granted because the offer of appointment dated 16th May, 2014 (exhibit CW1S) which was accepted on same date vide Exhibit CW1T is invalid as it is tainted with irregularities. For the claimant's reliefs iii, iv and vii it is submitted that the claimant is not entitled to any salaries or remuneration as he is not a staff of the defendant as he never performed his role in his department. That he cannot be paid salary for a period he did not work for the defendant as a Professor in the department of Applied and Environmental Biology. That since the claimant did not deny the fact that he was only earning salaries as the Vice Chancellor of the Defendant appointed by the Rivers State Government and not as a staff or employee of the defendant as can be gleaned from exhibit DW1A, the uncontroverted fact is deemed admitted, and what is admitted needs no further proof. See Section 123 of the Evidence Act and Odi V. Iyala (Supra).

 

4.9.           With respect to the claimant's relief (vi) for accumulated annual leave of 240 days it is submitted that he is not entitled to same because annual vacation leave (whether accumulated or not) can only be granted to the claimant during the period he is in the service of the defendant not when he is still in the service of UNN or Rivers State Government. That the 240 days accumulated leave being sought by the claimant was calculated from 2008-2015 when the claimant’s service has not been transferred to the defendant. The claimant purportedly resumed his duties in August 2015 after the expiration of his tenure as Vice Chancellor in July, 2015. See paragraph 21 of the Amended Statement of Claim filed 25th February, 2020 and exhibit CWIX. That he had not worked for a continuous service of 12 months or a minimum of 6(six) months in the case of the first year of appointment with the defendant as provided by section 8.4 (c)(i) of exhibit CWIW to entitle him to take annual vacation leave.

 

4.10.       With respect to the claimant's relief v for the sum of N20 Million as general damages, it was posited that the claim for general damages will fail because the claimant has failed to prove his case, and also that the law frowns at and does not allow the grant of general damages in cases of employment. That the grant of general damages will amount to double compensation. See Salami V. Union Bank of (Nig) Plc (2010) LPELR-8975 (CA) Pp 78-82 C-C. The court was urged to resolve issue two (2) in favour of the defendant.

 

4.11.       The learned counsel to the defendant finally urged the court to dismiss the suit in its entirety.

 

CLAIMANT’S SUBMISSIONS:

5.1.           The Claimant’s counsel identified three (3) issues for the determination of this court, to wit:

 

1.      Whether the claimant’s transfer of service, offer of appointment and acceptance of offer of transfer of service is regular, valid and still subsisting?

 

2.      Whether the defendant is not caught by Estoppel in law from denying the regularity, validity and subsistence of the claimant’s appointment after the mutual agreement between the defendant and University of Nigeria, Nsukka?

 

3.      Whether having regards to the evidence adduced by the claimant before the court, this court ought to grant the claimant’s reliefs?

 

5.2.           On issue one (1) the learned Claimant’s counsel reproduced the provisions of section 2 of exhibit CW1W (the Defendant’s Regulation Governing the Conditions of Service of Senior Staff) and argued that by exhibits CW1P, CW1Q, CW1R, CW1S, CW1T, CW1U and CW1V there were exchange of correspondences between University of Nigeria, Nsukka and the defendant in respect of the transfer of service of the claimant, and this creates mutual agreement of the two institutions as both parties where clearly aware, informed and ad idem of the transaction. That the exchange of correspondences in respect of the application for transfer of service of the claimant is solely and entirely an internal affair between University of Nigeria, Nsukka and the defendant, completely outside the control of the claimant. That even if there are irregularities in the timeline of the correspondences exhibits CW1Q, CW1U, CW1S, CWIT and CW1V between the University of Nigeria Nsukka and the defendant, such irregularities were committed by the defendant and not the claimant, and as such the claimant cannot be made to suffer for the mistake of the defendant. That contrary to the defendant’s contention that section 2 sub-section 2.4 of the defendant’s Regulation applies to the claimant’s transfer of service it is section 2 sub 2.5 paragraph (f) and sub 2.14 paragraph (c) that specifically apply to transfer of service and no other sub-section of the defendant's Regulations can be read into these sub-sections.

 

5.3.           It was further argued that by exhibit CW1V the University of Nigeria, Nsukka transferred the claimant’s certified record of service from 29th September, 1983 to 17th April, 2014 to the defendant which was accepted by the defendant vide exhibit CW1U. That in interpreting a document, the entire document must be read as a whole with effect being made to achieve harmony among the parts. See Adigun V. Ibadan North Local Government (2016) LPELR-41385(CA). That exhibit CW1R dated May 2, 2014 is not the application that initiated the transfer of service of the claimant, but exhibit CW1P which was made on 1st April, 2014 long before 17th April, 2014 and the Service of the claimant could not have ended or ceased as at the time of the application on 1st of April, 2014. That in any case, the claimant’s transfer of service was ratified by the defendant’s Governing Council vide exhibit CW1Z which exercised its discretion in line with its power conferred under Section 2 sub 2.5 paragraph (1) of Conditions of Service of Senior Staff.

 

5.4.           It was further posited that the offer of appointment of the claimant, exhibit CW1S and the Acceptance of offer exhibit CWIT are regular, valid and subsisting because by section 6(1) and (2) and section 11 and 17 (Fourth Schedule) of the Rivers State University of Science and Technology Law Cap. 133 which is the enabling law creating and governing the defendant's school the power to hire, employ and to terminate and or dismiss the claimant is solely rested upon the Governing Council of the defendant.

 

5.5.           That since there is nothing before the court to show that the claimant’s appointment was terminated by the Governing Council or even that it was irregular, the court should hold that his appointment is valid and still subsisting in the face of the law, and the claimant is entitled to salary, other entitlements, leave, and privileges which accrue to employees of the defendant.

 

5.6.           With respect to issue two (2), learned counsel submitted that by exhibits CW1Q, CW1R, CW1U and CW1V which create mutual agreement between the defendant and University of Nigeria Nsukka, the defendant is caught by estoppel in law from denying the regularity, validity and subsistence of the claimant's appointment. See section 169 of the Evidence Act 2011.

 

5.7.           That by the acts and conducts of the defendant in showing willingness to accept the claimant's transfer of service in exhibit CW1U, the defendant who led the claimant to close his service with University of Nigeria, Nsukka, vide exhibit CW1V is estopped from denying the truth of the transfer of the claimant's service as well as the validity and subsistence of the offer of appointment of the claimant vide exhibit CW1S and the letter of acceptance of the said offer vide exhibit CW1T which was ratified by the defendant’s Governing Council vide exhibit CW1Z. See Okonkwo V. Kpajie (1992) LPELR (2483) 1 at 38-39, Mabamije V. Otto (2016) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1529) Pg. 171 at 191 paras B-F and UBA Plc V. J.I. Efemini and Sons (Nig) Ltd (2018) LPELR-44150 (CA).

 

5.8.           On issue three (3) learned counsel to the defendant posited that by the evidence adduced by the claimant in this suit he has adduced cogent, satisfactory and conclusive evidence upon balance of probability so as to entitle him to the grant of the reliefs sought in paragraph 28 (i) to (vii) of the Amended Statement of Facts. That the burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on the person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side. See sections 131(1)(2), 132, 133(1)(2) and 134 of Evidence Act, 2011 and Orianzi V. The Attorney-General, River State and 3 Ors (2017) 6 NWLR (pt. 1561) 224 at 279 paras           B-E and Ogah V. Ikpeazu and Ors (2017)17 NWLR (pt 1594) 299 at paras G-H.

 

5.9.           That the claimant has established the subsistence of his employment with the defendant vide exhibits CW1S and CW1T, and the defendant failed to lead or adduce any evidence before this court to show that the said exhibits CW1S and CW1T which are the letters of offer of appointment and acceptance of offer of the claimant has been terminated or withdrawn. That the court is bound to accept and act upon the uncontroverted evidence of a party, referring to the cases of  Oforlete V. State (2000) LPELR - 2270(SC) and Lipede and Ors. V. Sonekan and Anor. (1995)LPELR-1786 (SC).

 

5.10.       That damages is a remedy in form of monetary award to be paid to a claimant as compensation for loss or injury caused by the defendant. That the claimant has proved that the defendant denied him opportunity to carry out his duties under the valid and subsisting employment and he is therefore entitled to general damages. That a perpetual injunction is an injunction granted after a final hearing on the merits, and is granted when the claimant has duly satisfied the court that he has a legal right to be protected by the court. See Ojo V. Akinsanoye (2014) LPELR-22736 (CA). The court was finally urged to grant all the reliefs in this suit.

 

DEFENDANT’S REPLY ON POINTS OF LAW:

 

6.1.           The learned counsel to the defendant filed a Reply on Points of Law on the 2nd of March, 2020.

 

6.2.           In response to paragraphs 1.9 and 1.10 of the Claimant's final written address, it was replied that section 2 sub 2.5 (F) of the defendant’s Regulations is not relevant to this case and does not apply to the claimant because the purported transfer of service of the claimant does not require probation and confirmation as stipulated in section 2 sub 2.5 (a) which defines tenured appointment.

 

6.3.           In response to paragraph 1.14 of the Claimant's final written address, it was replied that contrary to the submission of the claimant’s counsel, the fact that the purported employment/transfer of service of the Claimant is tainted with irregularities was pleaded in paragraphs 12 to 17 of the  Statement of Defence and paragraphs 17 to 22 of the Deposition on Oath of DW1.

 

6.4.           In response to paragraph 1.15 of the Claimant's Final Written Address it was replied that there was no irregularity on the part of the Defendant and if at all there was any irregularity on the part of the defendant then it was consequent and sequel to the claimant's misrepresentation or non-disclosure of the true status of his employment with UNN at the time of his application for transfer of service to the Defendant vide Exhibit CWIR on 5th May, 2014. That if the Claimant had disclosed the fact of the termination of his service with UNN, his purported transfer of service would not have been allowed by the defendant.

 

6.5.           With respect to paragraph 1.19 of the Claimant's final written address it was replied that exhibits CW1R and CWIP speak for themselves as to the fact of the Claimant’s service with the Defendant being closed or terminated with UNN on 17th April, 2014. That the contents of exhibit CWIP being the best form of evidence which was tendered by the Claimant cannot be contradicted by any oral evidence. See Arije V. Arije (2018) LPELR-44193(SC).

 

6.6.           With respect to the submission of claimant’s counsel in paragraph 1.21 of his final written address it was replied that the ratification of the claimant's transfer of service by the Defendant's Governing Council vide exhibit CW1Z does not in any way cure the irregularities in the Claimant's transfer of service which was void ab initio.

 

6.7.           With respect to the claimant’s issue two (2) at paragraphs 1.26-1.20 of the claimant's final written address it was replied that the claimant cannot invoke estoppel as a shield in his favour in this case. That estoppel as an equitable relief cannot be used as a vehicle to commit or cover-up fraud or gain an advantage or steal a match against the Defendant. That the claimant who has by his action of not revealing that his service with UNN had ended on 17th April, 2014 demonstrated dishonesty and deceived the defendant cannot seek the help of equity by invoking estoppel in his favour. See Diamond Bank Ltd V. Ugochukwu (2007) LPELR-8093(CA). That since estoppel is a special defence, the Claimant who did not specifically plead same in his Statement of Facts for him to raise it at this stage cannot in his final address raise the issue of estoppel for the first time. That for a party to avail himself of the plea of estoppel he should have pleaded it specifically. See Adedeji V. Fatoyinbo and Anor (2013) LPELR-20217(CA). The court was urged to discountenance the Claimant’s submissions and dismiss the suit with cost.

 

 

 

 

COURT’S DECISION

 

7.1.           Having carefully considered the pleadings, testimonies, exhibits and submissions of counsel for the parties, this court shall adopt the Defendant’s issue two (2) which is similar to the claimant’s issue three (3) in deciding this suit. All the points raised by the parties in the other issues formulated by them shall be considered in the course of this judgment. The lone issue is whether the claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought in this suit.

 

7.2.           Before I consider the lone issue identified by the court for determination, it is important to first resolve the point raised by the claimant’s counsel with regard to the competence of the Defendant’s Reply on Points of Law filed on the 2nd of March, 2022. The claimant’s counsel submitted by way of adumbration on the 17th of March, 2022 that while paragraphs1.1 to 1.9 of the defendant’s Reply on Points of Law are re-arguments put forward by the defendant, paragraphs 1.10 to 1.11 raise new issue of non-disclosure. The court was urged to discountenance the offending paragraphs.

 

7.3.           I have looked at the said paragraphs of the Defendant’s Reply on Points of Law, and I do not see how they amount to re-argument of the defendant’s submissions. Paragraphs 1.1 to 1.9 specifically responded to the claimant’s arguments at paragraphs 1.9, 1.10, 1.14, 1.15, 1.19, 1.21, 1.23 and 1.24 of the claimant’s final written address where the claimant raised the issue of the application of section 2(2.5)(F) of the Conditions of Service exhibit CW1W to the case of the claimant, and refuted the allegation that the claimant’s transfer of service was tainted with irregularities. For paragraphs 1.10 to 1.11 of the Reply on Points of Law, I have also seen that the defendant merely responded to the claimant’s issue two (2) of the claimant’s final written address where the claimant raised the issue of estoppels relying on the provision of section 169 of the Evidence Act, 2011. I therefore hold that the defendant’s Reply on Points of Law filed on the 2nd of March, 2022 is competent and same shall be relied upon in this judgment.

 

7.4.           With respect to the lone issue identified by the court for determination, both learned counsel to the claimant and the defendant have restated the correct position of the law that in the circumstance of this suit the onus of proof is on the claimant who is required to establish his case on the preponderance of evidence or balance of probabilities. The claimant is the one that will fail if no evidence is given in the suit. I need not say more on this. See sections 131, 132, 133 and 134 of the Evidence Act, 2011. See also Patrick Ziideeh V. Rivers State Civil Service Commission (2007) LPELR-3544(SC), Nigerian Bottling Company Plc and Anor V. Mr. Dan Ogor (2020) LPELR-53355(CA) and Dangana Mamman and Ors V. Manasseh A. Tukura and Ors (2021) LPELR-53297(CA).

 

7.5.           I have seen that the issues relating to the employment of the claimant with the University of Nigeria Nsukka are not really in contention in this suit. Parties are both in agreement that prior to the appointment of the claimant as Acting Vice Chancellor and later as the substantive Vice Chancellor of the defendant he was an employee of the University of Nigeria Nsukka. The claimant has proved his employment with the University of Nigeria Nsukka vide exhibits CW1A, CW1B, CW1C, CW1D, CW1E, CW1F, CW1G, CW1H and exhibit CW1K which is the claimant’s Curriculum Vitae.

 

7.6.           It would also seem that the appointments of the claimant as the Acting Vice Chancellor and later the substantive Vice Chancellor of the defendant is also not in issue in this suit. The claimant informed the court both in his evidence in chief and during his cross-examination that he was appointed the defendant’s Acting Vice Chancellor and the Vice Chancellor from 2007 to July, 2015. These facts were admitted by the defendant’s witness Benjamin Ugbari during his cross-examination on 28th of September, 2021 when he informed the court of being aware of the claimant’s employment with University of Nigeria Nsukka and the claimant’s appointment as the Acting Vice Chancellor and subsequently the Vice Chancellor of the defendant up until July, 2015. While exhibit CW1K is the letter appointing the claimant as the Rector of Rivers State Polytechnic Bori dated 12th September, 2003, exhibits CW1L, CW1M and CW1N are all letters appointing the claimant as the Acting Vice Chancellor and Chancellor of the defendant. Exhibit DW1A on the other hand indicate the salaries paid to the claimant as the Vice Chancellor of the defendant. Since these facts are not in dispute, I hold that they have been established by the claimant and they do not require further proof in this suit. See Sunday Temile and Ors V. Jemide Ebigbeyi Awani (2001) LPELR-3140(SC) and Federal University of Technology Minna, Niger State and Ors V. Bukola Oluwaseun Olutayo (2017) LPELR-43827(SC).

 

7.7.           The only issue in contention in this case is with respect to the transfer of the service of the claimant from University of Nigeria Nsukka to the defendant vide exhibits CW1P, CW1Q, CW1R, CW1S, CW1T, CW1U CW1V and CW1Z. The contention of the defendant is solely that the claimant’s transfer of service is irregular and therefore null and void for non-compliance with the preconditions of sections 2.14, 2.1 and 2.2(b) of exhibit CW1W and exhibit CW1S.

 

7.8.           From the evidence on record the claimant had applied to the Vice Chancellor of the University of Nigeria Nsukka for the transfer of his service to the defendant vide exhibit CW1P dated 1st of April, 2014, and sequel to the claimant’s request the University of Nigeria Nsukka wrote to the defendant vide exhibit CW1Q dated 5th May, 2014 requesting the defendant to indicate its willingness to accept the service of the claimant on transfer. The defendant in its response to the request of the Univeristy of Nigeria Nsukka vide exhibit CW1U dated 30th May, 2014 unequivocally expressed the willingness to accept the claimant’s transfer of service and requested the University of Nigeria Nsukka to forward the Certified True Copy of the claimant’s Records of Service for further action. The said Certified True Copy of the claimant’s Records of Service was forwarded to the defendant vide exhibit CW1V dated 4th June, 2014 conveying the approval of the University of Nigeria Nsukka for the transfer of the service of the claimant for the period from 29th September, 1983 to 17th of April, 2014 to the defendant.

 

7.9.           I have also seen that the claimant wrote exhibit CW1R dated 2nd May, 2014 to the defendant notifying the defendant of his application to the University of Nigeria, Nsukka and requested for the approval of the transfer. From the minutes underneath exhibit CW1R the approval was duly given by the Pro-Chancellor and Chairman of the defendant’s Governing Council, pursuant to which the Offer of Appointment dated 16th of May, 2014 (exhibit CW1S) was issued to the claimant which he accepted vide exhibit CW1T dated 16th May, 2014. Suffice it to add that the appointment was ratified by the defendant’s Governing Council vide exhibit CW1Z.

 

7.10.       Since exhibit CW1S is the fulcrum of the claimant’s case, it may be apposite to reproduce the said exhibit CW1S for the purpose of clarity.

 

Ref: RSUST/PO/28                                                             16th May, 2014

 

Prof. B. B. Fakae,

Office of the Vice Chancellor,

Rivers State University of Science & Technology,

P.M.B. 5080,

Nkpolu-Oroworukwu,

Port Harcourt.

 

Dear Prof. Fakae,

 

OFFER OF APPOINTMENT

 

Following your application for Transfer of Service dated May 2, 2014, I am pleased to inform you that the University Governing Council has approved your appointment as Professor in the Department of Applied and Environmental Biology at the Rivers State University of Science of Technology, Nkpolu, Port Harcourt, on a commencing salary of (N7,570,356.36) per annum i. e. CONUASS 7/10 including all allowances. This is subject to the terms of the conditions of service and regulations governing the Professorial position of the University. The appointment is to retiring age (subject to confirmation), which in this University System is seventy (70) years.

 

You will be entitled to annual leave and free medical attention. University accommodation is provided to officers on CONUASS 7/10 subject to availability of accommodation. Housing allowances are paid to officers who are not given University accommodation. Please, note that these allowances and other conditions may be changed by the University Council from time to time.

 

The University runs a Pension Scheme which applies to all indigenous employees in the service of the University who are appointed to positions in the establishment. Other conditions of service are comparable to those generally obtaining in institutions of higher learning in the country.

 

Before assumption of duty, you will be required to submit:

1.      A medical Certificate of fitness duly signed by the Director of Health Services Department of the University or a fully registered Medical Practitioner in a Government or University Teaching Hospital subject to the approval of the Director of Health Services Department of the University.

2.      Photostat copies of

a)     Your Birth Certificate or Declaration of Age.

b)     Certificates in respect of your children, marital status and other relevant certificates.

3.      Two passport photographs of yourself.

You are expected to communicate with the University indicating your acceptance of the offer within four (4) weeks from the date of this letter. If the offer of appointment is acceptable, please, indicate the date you are likely to assume duty.

Congratulations.

Yours faithfully,

             D. C. Odimabo (Mrs.)

             Registrar

 

7.11.       It is pertinent to state that from the provisions of section 2.14(c) of the defendant’s Regulations Governing the Conditions of Service of Senior Staff CONTISS 6-15 revised and approved on the 13th of November, 2013 (exhibit CW1W), any transfer of service to the defendant from any other organization in the Nigeria Public Service shall be with the mutual agreement of the two institutions. The learned counsel to the defendant has argued strenuously that no such mutual agreement exist in this case. With respect to learned counsel, such argument cannot stand considering the avalanche of documentary evidence in this suit. There was clearly a request by the University of Nigeria Nsukka to the defendant vide exhibit CW1Q for the defendant to indicate its willingness to accept the service of the claimant, and the defendant conveyed the explicit willingness to accept the transfer of the claimant’s service vide exhibit CW1U  before the transfer of service was made vide exhibit CW1V. I do not know of any other mutual agreement the defendant needs in this case. I therefore hold that the transfer of the claimant’s employment from the University of Nigeria Nsukka to the defendant was based on the mutual agreement of the two institutions. His appointment as a Professor in the Department of Applied and Environmental Biology by the defendant was based on his application for transfer of service vide exhibit CW1R.

 

7.12.       I have equally seen that the appointment of the claimant was ratified by the defendant’s highest decision making body which is the Governing Council at its 11th Regular Meeting held on the 30th day of July, 2014 as can be gleaned from exhibit CW1Z. By the provisions of section 2.1 of exhibit CW1W all appointments are made by or on the authority of the Council. Since the Council of the defendant duly ratified the appointment of the claimant I find no merit in the contention of the defendant that the appointment is fraught with irregularities. The Governing Council of the defendant was chaired by one of this country’s most eminent and revered jurists, the Hon. Justice A. G. Karibi-Whyte (JSC), CON, CFR who was the Pro-chancellor and Chairman of Council of the defendant. To suggest that the claimant as the Vice Chancellor of the defendant influenced the revered jurist is unfortunate, to say the least.

 

7.13.       I have also seen that the defendant’s Registrar Mrs. D. C. Odimabo who raised the issue of irregularities in the claimant’s appointment in exhibit CW1Y and declined the claimant’s request to proceed on accumulated leave was present and acted as the Secretary during the Council Meeting of 30th July, 2014 when the employment was ratified, and she also signed the letter of appointment exhibit CW1S. She did not raise eyebrows and even when the claimant applied for accumulated leave she computed the accumulated leave vide exhibit CW1X dated 13th July, 2015 only to turn around and issued exhibit CW1Y dated 13th August, 2015 declining the request.

 

7.14.       The defendant’s witness Benjamin Ugbari informed the court during his cross-examination that it is the defendant’s Governing Council that has the power to appoint and dismiss employees of the defendant, and that he is aware that the defendant’s Governing Council issued letter of appointment as a Professor in the Department of Applied and Environmental Biology to the claimant. He further informed the court that he is not aware of any letter, correspondence or memo terminating the claimant’s appointment, and that the Vice Chancellor of the Defendant has no power over any decision made by the defendant’s Governing Council. That the Vice Chancellor has no power to review any appointment made by the Governing Council.

 

7.15.       With this relevant evidence from the defendant’s witness it is obvious that the decision of the Governing Council ratifying the claimant’s appointment can only be reversed or reviewed by the same authority i.e. the Governing Council. There is nothing before the court to show that steps were taken to bring any alleged irregularity in the claimant’s appointment to the attention of the Governing Council, and since the appointment letter issued to the claimant has not been withdrawn or the appointment terminated, I hold the view that it subsists. In the course of writing this judgment I looked into different literatures for the definition of the words ‘ratify’ or ‘ratification’. The Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary New 8th Edition at page 1275 defines the word ‘ratify’ as “to make an agreement officially valid by voting for or signing it.” The Nigerian Law Dictionary 1st Edition by Suleiman Ismaila Nchi at pages 269-270 defines ratify as “to approve, confirm or sanction; to make valid; to approve or authorize retroactively an act, conduct or agreement expressly or impliedly.” Ratification is defined as “Approval or confirmation of an unauthorized act or one which was not binding to make it so. The adoption of a contract or a transaction by a person who was not a party to it and not bound by it e.g. by a principal of the unauthorized act of his agents. Ratification can only be valid if the principal ratifying existed at the time of the unauthorized act and the act was intended to be done on behalf of the principal, and the act must be one that is capable of being ratified. See Folashade v. Duroshola (1961) 1 All NLR 87; Mutual Aids Society Ltd v. Akerele (1965) 1 All NLR 336; Ojugbele v. Olasoji (1980) FNLR 133.” The Black’s Law Dictionary 10th Edition, page 1452 on the other hand defines the word ‘ratification’ as “2. Confirmation and acceptance of a previous act, thereby making the act valid from the moment it was done. 3. Contracts. A person’s binding adoption of an act already completed but either not done in a way that originally produced a legal obligation or done by a third party having at the time no authority to act as the person’s agent .” In the case of Monsuru Ogunseye & Ors V. The Registered Trustees of World Mission Agency Incorporated & Ors (2017) LPELR-42767(CA) at pages 17 -19 paras C-A, the word ‘ratification’ was judicially defined as, “In ordinary English usage, the word “ratify” is a transitive verb which means “to approve and sanction formally”. “Ratification” on the other hand is used in the noun sense, and its transitive verb “ratify” also means “to approbate”, “finalise”. “confirm” or “approve” an act done. In the legal sense however, let me appropriate the definition of “ratification” in the Black’s Law Dictionary (7th Edition) page 1268 – 1269; as follows: “Confirmation and acceptance of a previous act, thereby making the act valid from the moment it was done. A person’s binding adoption of an act already completed but either not done in a way that originally produced a legal obligation or done by a third party having at the time no authority to act….” In law therefore, “ratification” means the act of approval of the principal by an act of its agent where the agent lacked the authority to so act. The effect of ratification therefore is to put the parties concerned in the same position as that in which they would have been if the act ratified had been previously authorized. It therefore means that, even if the act was done without authority of the assumed principal and therefore invalid, the principal can ratify the act done without his authority. See Vulcan Gas Ltd. V. F.F. Ind. A.G. (2001) 9 NWLR (Pt.719) p. 610; Carlen (Nig) Ltd V. Unijos (1994) 1 NWLR (Pt. 323) p.631 and United Bank for Africa Plc V. Hon. Sunday Johnson & Anor (2008) LPELR-5062(CA). Ratification may be express or implied. Implied ratification may arise from any act which shows an intention to adopt the transaction. It may arise by silence or acquiescence with the act done without an earlier authority. Thus, in the case of Carlen (Nig) Ltd v. Unijos & Anor (supra) at p.667, Onu, JSC said: “Indeed, in law of agency, ratification will be implied from any act showing an intention to adopt the transaction, even silence or mere acquiescence and if an act is adopted at all, it will be held to have been adopted throughout.”

 

7.16.       Having evaluated the evidence on record, I hold the view that the evidence weighs more in favour of the claimant. The claimant who was made to believe that his transfer of service would be accepted and went ahead to process the transfer of service from University of Nigeria Nsukka to the defendant which was duly done cannot be left in the lurch. See section 169 of the Evidence Act, 2011 and the case of Garkuwa Pina V. Jagaba Mai-Angwa (2018) LPELR-44498(SC).

 

7.17.       The appointment of the claimant is one with statutory flavor or coloration since it is regulated by the defendant’s enabling Law and exhibit CW1W. That being the case the argument that the claimant is not entitled to salary for work not done is devoid of any legal basis. Even where the appointment has been terminated the appropriate remedy will be that of specific performance/reinstatement and payment of all arrears of salaries. In this case, the appointment was not even terminated as the defendant only decided to leave the claimant in limbo like the proverbial bat that is neither a bird nor a mammal. While the claimant’s service with the University of Nigeria Nsukka had been transferred to the defendant and duly accepted with new appointment letter issued to him and ratified by the defendant’s Governing Council, the defendant for inexplicable reasons refused to pay the claimant and assign responsibilities to him. Since the employment is one with statutory flavour, the claimant is entitled to all the arrears of salaries.  See Comptroller General of Customs & Ors. V. Comptroller Abdullahi B. Gusau (2017) 11 ACELR 132 at 139 – 140, Alhaji Mohammed Bala Audu V. Petroleum Equalisaton Fund (Management) Board & Anor. (2010) LPELR-3824(CA), P. C. Imoloame V. West African Examinations Council (1992) LPELR-1500(SC), and Power Holding Company of Nigeria Plc V. Mr. I. C. Offoelo (2014) 3 ACELR, page 1 at 19 – 20.

 

7.18.       Since the claimant could not have earned two remunerations as the Vice Chancellor and also a Professor in the defendant, and having taking into account the fact that his tenure as the defendant’s Vice Chancellor ended in July, 2015, I hold that his remunerations for the appointment as a Professor in the Department of Applied and Environmental Biology vide exhibit CW1S takes effect from the month of August, 2015 as requested for in exhibit CW1A1.

 

7.19.       On the whole, I find merit in the case of the claimant which succeeds in part. While reliefs i, ii, iii, iv and vii are granted, reliefs ‘v’ and ‘vi’ for the sum of N20 Million naira as general damages for injury, hardship, inconveniences, pains and embarrassment caused to the claimant by the defendant in denying his appointment and non-payment of his salary, and for accumulated annual leave of absence of 240 days are refused. The claimant who has been at home pursuing this suit since 2015 has spent more than the 240 days accumulated leave of absence being sought in this suit. For the avoidance of doubt, the court hereby declares and orders as follows:

 

1.      It is hereby declared that the claimant's employment with the defendant vide a letter of offer of appointment dated 16th May, 2014 and which was accepted by the claimant by a letter dated May 16, 2014 is valid and still subsisting.

2.      It is hereby declared that the claimant is entitled to all his entitlements, remuneration, salaries, emoluments and/or other privileges which accrued to him as an employee of the defendant vide a letter of offer of appointment dated 16th May, 2014.

3.      The defendant is hereby ordered to pay the claimant the sum of N2,017,589.10 (Two Million, Seventeen Thousand, Five Hundred and Eighty Nine Naira, Ten Kobo) being the total sum of claimant's salary for the months of August, September and October 2015 at the rate of N672,529.70 (Six Hundred and Seventy Two Thousand, Five Hundred and Twenty Nine Naira Seventy Kobo) per month.

4.      The defendant is hereby ordered to pay the claimant the sum of N672,529.70 (Six Hundred and Seventy Two Thousand, Five Hundred and Twenty Nine Naira Seventy Kobo) per month from November 2015 when this suit was instituted until judgment is delivered and the sum of N672,529.70 (Six Hundred and Seventy Two Thousand, Five Hundred and Twenty Nine Naira Seventy Kobo) from the date of judgment until the judgment sum is fully liquidated.

5.      An order of perpetual injunction is hereby made restraining the defendant either acting by itself or its servants, agents, privies, assigns or whatever capacity as howsoever called or described from stopping the payment of the claimant’s salary including the arrears and other entitlements accrued to him as an employee of the defendant.

6.      The terms of this judgment shall be complied with not later than 30 days from the date of delivery failing which same shall attract interest at 10% per annum.

Judgment is entered accordingly.

I make no order as to cost.

 

Hon. Justice P. I. Hamman

Judge

APPEARANCES:

 

Femi Bobade with O. B. Wokeh for the Claimant.

J. T. Okulu with H. E. Roberts for the Defendant.