IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE IBADAN JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT IBADAN

 BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE J.D. PETERS


DATE: 1ST JUNE 2026     SUIT NO: NICN/IB/30/2024


BETWEEN:

1. Mrs. Adedire Caroline O.

2. Mr. Kehinde Olawale Samuel

3. Mrs. Fawole Yemisi Janet

4. Mrs. Oyebade Aderonke Abiodun

5. Mrs. Oyenuga Yetunde Oluwakemi

6. Mr. Salami Taofeek Olusina

(Suing for themselves and on behalf of 108 employees of 

Obafemi Awolowo University Teaching Hospital Complex 

Management Board, Ile Ife particulars of which are 

attached as a schedule to the Complaint herein).          Claimants


AND

Obafemi Awolowo University Teaching Hospital Complex 

Management Board - - -       -        Defendants

REPRESENTATION

O. O. Ojutalayo, SAN with Kolawole Abdulsalam, 

Josephine Ogbinaka and M. Omaugbu for the Claimants

B. C. Boma-Kalio, Principal State Counsel, 

Federal Ministry of Justice, Abuja, for the Defendants


JUDGMENT

1. Introduction & Claims

1. This is an action brought by the Claimants in a representative capacity on behalf of a group of 108 disengaged staff of the Defendant. It was commenced by a General Form of Complaint dated and filed on 30/4/24 along with statement of facts, witness statement on oath, list of witness as well as list and copies of documents to be relied upon at trial. Claimants sought the following reliefs against the Defendant -

1. A Declaration that the termination by the Defendant of the appointment of 108 employees of Obafemi Awolowo University Teaching Hospital Complex OAUTHC, listed in the Schedule to this Complaint (Hereafter referred to as “Claimants”) by a Circular issued 31st January 2024, is grossly irregular, unlawful and violate the letters of appointment issued to the Claimants by the Defendant, the express provision of the University Teaching Hospital (Reconstitution of Boards etc) Act 2013 and/or other enabling statutes under which the Claimants were employed as staff of the OAUTHC as well as the public service rule, therefore null, void, illegal and of no effect whatsoever.

2. A Declaration that the Claimants are still bona fide employees of the OAUTHC and by reason thereof are entitled to their salaries, emoluments, benefits, rights, and entitlements due and ascribe to their respect positions and to continue to exercise their duties as staff without let or hinderance or any form of harassment or limitation whatsoever for the Defendant, their servant, agents, privies, or how- whatsoever.

3. An Order directing the Defendant to reinstate the Claimant into their respective positions as bona fide staff of the OAUTHC as of 31st January, 2024 and to date.

4. An Order directing the Defendant to immediately pay to each of the employees listed as numbers 1-108 in the schedule to this Complaint, their respective outstanding remuneration and entitlement for the month of February 2024 (when the Defendant stopped paying their remuneration which, in the aggregate, amounts to =N=33,653,921.98 (Thirty-Three Million, Six Hundred and Fifty-Three Thousand, Nine Hundred and Twenty-One Naira Ninety-Eight Kobo).

5. An Order (in the alternative to relief 4 above) directing the Defendant to immediately compute and pay to each of the Claimants their respective outstanding remunerations and entitlements from the time the Defendants stopped paying the Claimants’ remuneration up to the time of instituting the suit and until the judgment of the honourable court is delivered and thereafter until the enforcement of the judgment of this honourable Court.

6. Interest on the said outstanding remunerations and entitlements of the claimants and any other sum due to them at the rate of 21% from 31st January 2024 to judgment is delivered and thereafter at the same rate until final liquidation of the said judgment sum.

7. Cost of this action estimated as =N=5,000,000.000(Five Million Naira).

2. Defence & Counterclaims

2. The Defendant filed its statement of defence on 1/7/24 together with witness statement on oath, list of witness as well as list and copies of document to rely upon at trial. The Defendant sought the following reliefs in counterclaim against the Claimants –

  1. A declaration that employers have the power to hire and fire workers without needing to give a specific reason as in the instant case.

  2. An Order dismissing the suit for being speculative, vexations(sic) and lacking in merit with reasonable cost against the Claimants

  3. And for such further Order(s) the Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances.

3. Case of the Claimants

3. Claimants opened their case on 3/3/25 and called one Akinwale Abdullahi Oyedapo as their sole witness – CW. CW adopted his witness statement on oath of 20/1/25 as his evidence in chief. Witness tendered 118 documents as exhibits. The documents were admitted in evidence and marked as Exh. C1 – Exh. C118 respectively.


4. The case of the Claimants is that they were employed by the Defendants and have been diligently performing their duties with commitment and dedication; that the Defendant had been consistently paying their remunerations until 31/1/24 when it stopped it on account of a Circular issued by the Management on the ground that the employment that took place in the Defendant between 2022 and 2023 was carried out outside the waiver granted by the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation; that by another Circular dated 21/2/24, the Defendant declared the Claimants person non grata within its premises and instructed its officers and security agents to arrest any one of them found within its premises and that till date the Defendant has not served any of the Claimants a letter terminating their employment with it.


5. While being cross examined on 20/5/25, CW testified that he is a colleague of all the 108 Claimants; that they came across circular terminating their employment on the social media; that there was no meeting or discussion about the termination; that none of the Claimants was given notice of the termination; that Claimants were not aware of any waiver limitation when they were employed; that he is not aware if any of the 108 Claimants was employed during the waiver period and if others were employed outside the waiver granted; that Federal Ministry of Health plays supervisory role over the Defendant; that he does know the basis of Minister’s decision to cancel the excess employment; that he does not know anything about waiver; that Claimants were never given letters of termination but were prevented from entering the premises of Defendant; that Claimants have not been paid anything since the termination of their employment; that they are ready to work but not allowed to; that they believe they are still bona fide staff of the Defendant and that he is not aware of any waiver.


4. Case of the Defendant

6. The Defendant entered into its defence on 24/6/25. One Rotimi Omotoye testified as DW and simply adopted his witness deposition of 17/3/25 as his evidence in chief.


7. The defence put forward by the Defendant is that it employed beyond the waiver to employ granted to it by the Head of Civil Service of the Federation and that the directive to lay of the Claimants was from the Hon Minister of Health & Social Welfare the supervising Minister of the Defendant.


8. In cross examination, DW states that he is a Christian of the United Cherubim and Seraphim organization; that he recognizes he is an Ambassador of that Church and a child of God; that he owes God a duty first then his employer; that half-truth is not the same as the whole truth; that his employer did not tell him not to say the whole truth and that he is ready to say the whole truth now.


9. The witness testified further that screening exercise started from Manpower Development; that Claimants were screened by Defendant; that their Certificates were verified and they also did some medicals; that Claimants accepted the employment extended by Defendant; that Claimants were not issued any Query before being disengaged; that he is aware of a Circular terminating the employment of the Claimants; that he has been Head of Human Resource of Defendant since last year and that in the history of the Defendant it has never laid off its staff via Circular.

5. Final Written Addresses

10. At the close of trial and pursuant to the directive by the Court, parties filed their final written addresses. The final written address of the Defendant was dated and filed on 14/10/25. In it learned Counsel set down the following 3 issues for determination-

  1. Whether the employment of the Claimants is valid, considering that it was beyond the approved number granted by the Head of Service of the Federation

  2. Whether the Minister of Health’s directive to cancel the employment was lawful.

  3. Whether the Claimants are still workers of the Defendant, despite the cancellation of their employment.

11. On the first issue for determination, learned Counsel submitted that the validity of the Claimants’ employment was beyond the approved by the Head of Service and is null and void citing Adeleke v. Alhaji Abegunde (2006)14 NWLR (Pt. 1000) 423 & Section 6(6)(b), Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended and that the Defendant failed to comply with statutory requirement hence not valid citing University of Ilorin v. Akinola (2001)15 NWLR (Pt. 736) 507 & Idoniboye-Obu v. Nigeria Liquified Natural Gas (2012) LPELR-20821(SC). Learned Counsel urged the Court to hold as such.


12. On issue 2, learned Counsel submitted that the Hon Minister’s directive to cancel the employment of the Claimants was necessary to correct the irregularities in the employment process; that the Hon Minister has power to investigate and oversee agencies and hospital under his Ministry of which the Defendant is one citing Section 6(6)(b), Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, Section 45(3), National Health Act & Public Law (Cap. 184) and that the Defendant complied with the law. Counsel prayed the Court to resolve this issue in favor of the Defendant.


13. With respect to issue 3, Counsel submitted that the assertion of the Claimants that they are still bona fide workers of the Defendant is unfounded and lacks merit; that the cancellation of their employment, as directed by the Hon Minister of Health, effectively terminated their employment relationship; that Claimants have not worked for the Defendant since January 2024; that it is trite that no work no pay and that Claimant cannot claim salaries for services not rendered citing University of Ilorin v. Akinola (2001)15 NWLR (Pt. 736) 507 & Imaseun v. University of Benin (2019) LPELR-47963(CA). Counsel further submitted that the assertion of the Claimants as still being bona fide workers of the Defendant while simultaneously seeking reinstatement is contradictory and goes to the root of their claim and renders it untenable citing Afolabi v. Governor of Oyo State (2011) LPELR-3760(CA) & University of Ilorin v. Akinola (2011)15 NWLR (Pt. 736) 507.


14. Learned Counsel prayed the Court to dismiss the case of the Claimants in its entirety.


15. The final written address of the Claimant was filed on 3/12/25.  Learned Counsel submitted these 3 issues for determination –

  1. Whether the Claimants were validly appointed staff of the Obafemi Awolowo University Teach Hospitals Complex.

  2. Whether the Defendant’s purported termination of the appointment of the Claimants by issuance of circulars, declaration of the Claimants as persona non grata and cessation of payment of salaries of the Claimants without due process does not amount to unlawful termination of employment of the Claimants.

  3. Whether, having regard to the pleadings and evidence, the Claimants are entitled to the reliefs sought.

16. On issue 1, learned Counsel submitted that there is a valid and subsisting contract of employment between the Claimants and the Defendant citing Ovivie v. Delta Steel Co. Ltd (2023)14 NWLR (Pt. 1904) 2035(SC); that Claimants’ employment enjoys statutory flavour; that the Defendant is a creation of  the Universities Teaching Hospitals (Reconstitution Board, Etc) Act 2013 and the procedure for appointment and termination of staff thereunder is also stipulated in the said Act and hence the employment of the Claimants enjoy statutory flavour citing PHCN Plc v. Offoelo (2013)4 NWLR (Pt. 1344) 380(SC) & Section 5(5) of the University Teaching Hospitals (Reconstitution of the  Boards Etc) Act; that there is presumption of regularity of the recruitment exercise citing Section 168(1), Evidence Act, 2011 & Mamonu v. Dikat (2019)7 NWLR (Pt. 1672) 495 and that the Defendant cannot benefit from its own wrong as it cannot rely on the alleged administrative irregularity committed by it to invalidate appointments made and acted upon for over a year citing Alade v. ALIC (Nig.) Ltd (2010)19 NWLR (Pt. 1226) 11(SC) and that the Defendant is estopped from denying the employment of the Claimants after making them change their position citing University of Ondo v. Folayan (1994)7 NWLR (Pt. 354) 1(SC). Counsel prayed the Court to hold that appointments of the Claimants are lawful, valid and made under statutory power and subsisted until unlawfully terminated.


17. With respect to issue 2 Counsel submitted that termination of an employment with statutory flavour must comply with the statutory requirements; that the Defendant failed to comply with the provisions of Section 9, University Teaching Hospitals (Reconstitution of the Boards Etc) Act which laid out the steps to be taken in removing or terminating the employment of the Claimants; that in statutory employment the employer must comply strictly with the procedure prescribed by the statute before termination citing Oloruntoba-Oju v. Abdul-Raheem (2009)13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 83 and that failure of the Defendant to comply with statutory provisions before terminating the employment of the Claimants rendered same null, void and unconstitutional and that the Circular issued by the Defendant on 31/1/24 is unlawful and contrary to the Contract of Employment between the parties. Learned Counsel urged the Court to hold that until termination letter is lawfully issued by the Defendant, the Claimants remain its employees in the eyes of the law.


18. On issue 3, learned Counsel submitted that once the Court finds that the case of the Claimants is meritorious, the Claimants will be entitled to the reliefs sought citing NTC v. Nwokoruku (1993)3 NWLR (Pt. 281) 295(CA); that once an employment with statutory flavour is terminated in breach of the enabling statute, the remedy is reinstatement and payment of outstanding entitlements citing Compt. Gen. of Customs v. Gusau (2017)18 NWLR (Pt. 369)(SC) & Olufeagba v. Abdul-Raheem (2009)18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 384(SC) and that relief 5 which is for computation of outstanding pay is an alternative relief in the event that relief 4 is refused citing Owakar v. R.S.H.P.D.A (2022)12 NWLR (Pt. 1845) 463(SC). Learned Counsel further submitted that in the unlikely event that the Court holds that the Claimants’ employment is not with statutory flavour, the Court still has an inherent power to grant the Claimants damages and payment of a month salary in lieu of notice citing Chukwumah v. Shell (1993)4 NWLR (Pt. 289) 512(SC). Counsel prayed the Court to grant all the reliefs sought by the Claimants and award them cost as well.

5. Decision

19. This is an action brought in a representative capacity. The Claimants are some of the 108 staff employed by the Defendant. They were issued letters of employment, and they dully resumed duties in their different offices with the Defendant. Their salaries and allowances were paid for about one year before they suddenly stopped. The Claimants eventually learnt through a Circular that their employment was irregular in that it was in excess of the waiver allowed by the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation. According to the Claimants they were declared persona non grata in the premises of the Defendant. Based on this abridged facts Claimant sought the intervention of this Court. The Defendant denied liability and counterclaimed against the Claimant. The style adopted by the Defendant in defending this case is that of complete denial of virtually all the averments of the Claimants. The Defendant thereafter put the Claimants to the proof of same.


20. I have read and clearly understood all the processes filed by the parties in this case. I heard the oral testimonies of the witnesses called at trial, watched their demeanor and carefully evaluated all the exhibits tendered and admitted. I also listened attentively to the oral submissions of the learned Counsel to the parties at the point of adopting their final written addresses. 


21. Learned Counsel to the Defendant had set down 3 issues for determination in his final written address. These are as follows -

  1. Whether the employment of the Claimants is valid, considering that it was beyond the approved number granted by the Head of Service of the Federation.

  2. Whether the Minister of Health’s directive to cancel the employment was lawful.

  3. Whether the Claimants are still workers of the Defendant, despite the cancellation of their employment.

22. I elect to adopt and here adopt these 3 issues for the just determination of this case.


23. The first issue for determination is: Whether the employment of the Claimants is valid, considering that it was beyond the approved number granted by the Head of Service of the Federation. This issue is a critical one to the survival of this suit. In resolving same, the Court is expected to find out if the Claimants fulfilled the requirements for employment and the status of the employment offered vis a vis the intervention of the Head of Civil Service of the Federation. I should point out that throughout the entire defence processes filed, the Defendant denied all the averments of the Claimants including the fact that they were employed by the Defendant and that their employment was truncated by a Circular issued on the directive of the Hon Minister of Health and Social Welfare.


26. The law is trite and accords with commonsense that it is for an employee to prove the fact of his employment. This is in tandem with the age long principle of law as supported by Sections 131 & 132, Evidence Act, 2011 that he who asserts must prove the assertion. Now the Claimants in proving the fact of their employment called CW1 who testified that the Defendant placed advertisement for the various vacancies; that the Claimants applied, were invited for interview and screening and offered employment. Witness further tendered Exh. C1 – Exh. C109 being the letters of employment issued to the by the Defendant. None of these exhibits indicated the fact that the offers were at the pleasure of any Honourable Minister or anybody for that matter. I, in addition find evidence of payment of salaries to the Claimants as revealed in Ex. C112 being some of the payslips issued to the Claimants. The Defendant is a creation of the University Teaching Hospitals (Reconstitution of Board Etc) Act, 2013 and conferred with powers to have a mind of its own. Section 16 of the Act confers the Defendant with power of expansion which ultimately include power to recruit staff and general staff advancement. It is therefore in the exercise of statutory powers conferred on it that the Defendant employed the Claimants; the Claimants resumed work and rendered services to the Defendant. 


27. Indeed, the testimony of DW1 fully supported the validity of the employment of the Claimants. The witness had testified under cross examination on 24/6/25 inter alia that Claimants were screened by Defendant; that their Certificates were verified and they also did some medicals; that Claimants accepted the employment extended by Defendant; that Claimants were not issued any Query before being disengaged; that he is aware of a Circular terminating the employment of the Claimants; that he has been Head of Human Resource of Defendant since last year and that in the history of the Defendant it has never laid off its staff via circular.


28. Now learned Counsel to the Defendant had submitted that the recruitment exercise that brought the Claimants on board was in excess of the waiver granted by the Head of Civil Service of the Federation. This Court was not informed that the Claimants had any role to play in ensuring that the Defendant complied with some internal requirements to solidify their employment. The alleged failure of the Defendant to act within the number in an alleged waiver was an internal matter and the Claimants must not be made to suffer for what they knew nothing about. The law is trite that a party will not be allowed to profit from its own wrong. In Access Bank Plc v. Silver Wings Ltd (2024) LPELR the Court of Appeal quoted Teriba v. Adeyemo (2010) LPELR-3143 (SC) where it was held that – 


"...the applicable equitable principle being that a person cannot benefit from his own wrong. In its adjudicatory function, the Court has a duty to prevent injustice in any given circumstance and avoid rendering a decision which enables a party to escape from his obligation under a contract by his own wrongful act or otherwise profit by his own wrongful act." 


29. The only inevitable conclusion to reach from the foregoing is to resolve this issue in favor of the Claimants. I do so. Accordingly, I hold that the employment of the Claimants is valid, notwithstanding that it was allegedly beyond the approved number granted by the Head of Service of the Federation.


30. The second issue for determination is whether the Minister of Health’s directive to cancel the employment of the Claimants was lawful. This issue comes in for consideration from the argument of the learned Counsel to the Defendant. Counsel had submitted that the Hon Minister of Health and Social Welfare as the supervising Minister of the Defendant had given a valid directive cancelling the employments of the Claimants. Employment relationship is usually a contractual one involving the employer on the one hand and the employee on the other. In the instant case, the Defendant as an employer offered a valid contract of employment to the Claimants individually. The terms and conditions of the contract are clearly stated in the letters of employment given to the Claimants.    


31. The law is well settled as enunciated by Oyewole, JCA) (as he then was) (now Hon JSC) in Chikeluba v. Stephens Global Recovery & Financial Network Ltd (2025) LPELR-80374(CA) citing A-G Nasarawa State v. A-G Plateau State (2012) LPELR -9730 (SC) and Gum v. Alhaji Dash (Nig.) Ltd (2021) LPELR-56279(CA) & C & N Investment Ltd v. Sterling Bank Plc & Anor (2024) LPELR-62863(SC) at 70-72 that in accordance with the principle of pacta sunt servanda that parties are bound by the contract freely entered into by them and the Court will enforce the terms thereof unless it is shown that one of the parties was misled by fraud, mistake or misrepresentation. It goes without saying that a party who is not party to such contract cannot take an action under it. The contract agreement between the Claimants and the Defendant did not include the Hon Minister of Health and Social Welfare as a party and hence can neither take benefit nor bear a burden under it. The Hon Minister was not the employer of the Claimants. Can the Honourable Minister then validly terminate the employments of the Claimants made under a contract to which he was not a party? I answer in the negative.


32. While by paragraph 4 of Exh. C2 which is the same in all letters of appointment Claimants may terminate the appointment by giving a month’s notice in writing to that effect the power to cancel the instant contract is conferred on the Defendant by legislation. In this wise, University Teaching Hospitals (Reconstitution of Boards Etc) Act, 2013 Sections 9 & 10 make robust provisions of the steps to take by the Defendant. Accordingly, with respect to senior members of staff, Section 9(1) states that –

(1). If it appears to the Board that there are reasons for believing that any person employed as a member of the clinical, administrative or technical staff of the hospital, other than the Chief Medical Director, should be removed from his office or employment, the Board shall require the secretary to-

(a) give notice of those reasons to the person in question;

(b) afford him an opportunity of making representations in person on the matter to the Board; and

(c) if the person in question so requests within a period of one month beginning with the date of the notice, make arrangements- (i) for a committee to investigate the matter and report on it to the Board; and (ii) for the person in question to be afforded an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by the investigating committee with respect to the matter, and if the Board, after considering the report of the investigating committee, is satisfied that the person in question should be removed as aforesaid, the Board may so remove him by a letter signed on the direction of the Board.


33. The procedure for the purpose of disciplining junior staff members is contained in section 10 of the same legislation. It provides that - 

(1). If any junior staff is accused of misconduct or inefficiency, the Chief Medical Director may suspend him for not more than three months and forthwith shall direct a committee-

(a) to consider the case; and

(b) to make recommendations as to the appropriate action to be taken by the Chief Medical Director.

(2). In all cases under this section, the officer shall be informed of the charge against him and shall be given reasonable opportunity to defend himself.

(3). The Chief Medical Director may, after considering the recommendation made pursuant to subsection (1) (b) of this section, dismiss, or take such other disciplinary action against the officer concerned.

(4). Any person aggrieved by the Chief Medical Director's decision under subsection (3) of this section may, within a period of 21 days from the date of the letter communicating the decision to him, address a petition to the Board to reconsider his case


34. There is nowhere in this legislation a power is conferred on the Hon Minister of Health and Social Welfare to exercise any disciplinary powers or control over the employees of the Defendant. The law is trite, as Awotoye, JCA held in EKSU & Ors. v. Fajembola (2022) LPELR, citing Federal Medical Centre Ido-Ekiti & Ors v. Kolawole (2012) FWLR (Pt. 653) 1999, Cadbury (Nig.) Plc v. Oni (2013) All FWLR (Pt. 665) 251 at 275 that when a legislation provides for the mode or method of doing a thing, it is that mode or method that must be complied with in the performance of the said act. Any other method will amount to a violation of statutory provision and null.


35. The alleged cancellation of the employment of the Claimants by the Hon. Minister of Health & Social Welfare is thus unlawful. It is also illegal having offended the provisions of University Teaching Hospitals (Reconstitution of Board Etc) Act, 2013.  It is null. It is void. Accordingly, I hold that Claimants remain employees of the Defendant. I resolve the second issue in favor of the Claimants.


36. The 3rd issue for determination is whether the Claimants are still workers of the Defendant, despite the cancellation of their employment. In the resolution of the 2nd issue above, this Court has held that the cancellation of the employment of the Claimants is both unlawful and illegal. The Court also held that the Claimants remain employees of the Defendant. Accordingly, I resolve this issue in favor of the Claimants. I hold that the Claimants remain workers of the Defendant notwithstanding the alleged cancellation of their employments. 


37. Considering the findings of this Court thus far, I grant the first reliefs sought. I declare that the termination by the Defendant of the appointment of 108 employees of Obafemi Awolowo University Teaching Hospital Complex OAUTHC, listed in the Schedule to the Complaint (referred to as “Claimants”) by a Circular issued 31st January 2024, is grossly irregular, unlawful and violate the letters of appointment issued to the Claimants by the Defendant, the express provision of the University Teaching Hospital (Reconstitution of Boards etc) Act 2013 under which the Claimants were employed as staff of the OAUTHC. I further declare that the Claimants are still bona fide employees of the OAUTHC and by reason thereof are entitled to their salaries, emoluments, benefits, rights, and entitlements due and ascribe to their respect positions and to continue to exercise their duties as staff without let or hinderance or any form of harassment or limitation whatsoever from the Defendant, their servant, agents, privies, or how- whatsoever.


38. The 3rd relief sought is for an Order directing the Defendant to reinstate the Claimants into their respective position as bona fide staff of the OAUTHC as of 31st January 2024 and to date. This Court has declared the alleged cancellation of the employment of the Claimants unlawful, illegal, null and void for being in violation of statutory provisions. In Benue State University v. Mogaji (2022) LPELR-56729(CA) the Court of Appeal restated the position of the law that where an employment with statutory flavour is wrongly terminated, the only option open to a trial Court is to order a reinstatement of the employees. I therefore grant the 3rd relief sought. I order the Defendant to immediately reinstate the Claimants into their respective positions as bona fide staff of the OAUTHC as of 31st January 2024 and to date.


39. The 4th relief is for an Order directing the Defendant to immediately pay to each of the employees listed as numbers 1-108 in the schedule to this Complaint, their respective outstanding remunerations and entitlement for the month of February 2024 (when the Defendant stopped paying their remuneration which, in the aggregate, amounts to =N=33,653,921.98 (Thirty-Three Million, Six Hundred and Fifty-Three Thousand, Nine Hundred and Twenty-One Naira Ninety-Eight Kobo). The sum claimed here is a sum certain. It amounts to a claim in special damages which requires that it be pleaded and strictly proved. How did the learned Counsel arrive at the sums of money as the total amount due to each of the Claimants? I do not have answer to this enquiry which I consider germane to be able to award same. In the absence of sufficiently cogent and credible evidence, I am inclined to and here refuse and dismiss this head of claim. 


40. The 5th relief is for an Order (in the alternative to relief 4 above) directing the Defendant to immediately compute and pay to each of the Claimants their respective outstanding remuneration and entitlements from the time the Defendant stopped paying the Claimants’ remuneration up to the time of instituting the suit and until the judgment of the Honourable Court is delivered and thereafter until the enforcement of the judgment of this honourable Court. Once a Court finds that the termination of a statutory employment is wrong and null as in the instant case, it portends that the wrongful termination never took place. It then becomes customary or as a matter of course for the Court to order reinstatement and payment of all outstanding salaries and emoluments. This Court has ordered the reinstatement of the Claimants to their various offices which they occupied before the Hon Minister of Health cancelled their employment. Once therefore reinstatement is ordered, the issue of payment of arrears of salaries and emoluments becomes a mere formality. According to Walter Samuel Nkanu Onnoghen, JSC (as he then was) (later Hon. CJN) in 'Ex'-Capt Charles C. Ekeagwu v. The Nigerian Army & Anor. (2010) LPELR-1076(SC) -


“.... upon reinstatement the plaintiff/party is entitled to be paid all his arrears of salary/emoluments including fringe benefits up to the point/time of reinstatement and thereafter as and when due and payable."


41. Accordingly, I grant this head of claim. The Defendant is ordered to immediately compute and pay to each of the Claimants their respective outstanding remuneration and entitlements from the time the Defendant stopped paying the Claimants’ remuneration up till the date of this Judgment.


42. I find no sufficient proof of the 6th relief which is for payment of interest on the outstanding remuneration and entitlements of the Claimants and any other sum due to them at the rate of 21% from 31st January 2024 to judgment is delivered and thereafter at the same rate until final liquidation of the said judgment sum. Accordingly, I refuse and dismiss same.


43. The last relief sought by the Claimants is for an award of cost of this suit against the Defendant in the sum of =N=5,000,000.00 (Five Million Naira). This case was filed in 2024. Both time and resources have been expended in the prosecution of same especially by the impoverished Claimants who have been out of employment since 2022. The Rules of this Court in Order 55 allow award of cost to a successful party. In any event, it is trite as the appellate Courts have reiterated in numerous decisions that Costs follow event and a successful party is entitled to his costs except in rather rare situations. Costs are awarded at the discretion of a trial Court. Such discretion must however be exercised both judicially and judiciously. Accordingly, the Defendant is ordered to pay to the Claimant the cost of this action, assessed at Five Hundred Thousand Naira (=N=500,000.00) only.

6. Counterclaims

44. The Defendants sought the following counterclaims (1). A declaration that employers have the power to hire and fire workers without needing to give a specific reason as in the instant case. (2). An Order dismissing the suit for being speculative, vexations(sic) and lacking in merit with reasonable cost against the Claimants and (3). And for such further Order(s) the Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances. I have carefully examined the counterclaims sought by the Defendant. I find that the Defendant failed to discharge the burden of adducing sufficiently cogent, credible and admissible evidence in support of any of these counterclaims. Accordingly, I dismiss all the heads of counterclaims for lack of proof as required by law.


7. Conclusion

45. Finally, for the avoidance of doubt and for all the reasons as contained in this Judgment the case of the Claimants succeeds as follows –

  1. I declare that the termination by the Defendant of the appointment of 108 employees of Obafemi Awolowo University Teaching Hospital Complex OAUTHC, listed in the Schedule to the Complaint (referred to as “Claimants”) by a circular issued 31st January 2024, is grossly irregular, unlawful and violate the letters of appointment issued to the Claimant by the Defendant, the express provision of the University Teaching Hospital (Reconstitution of Boards etc) Act 2013 under which the Claimants were employed as staff of the OAUTHC. 

  2. I further declare that the Claimants are still bona fide employees of the OAUTHC and by reason thereof are entitled to their salaries, emoluments, benefits, rights, and entitlements due and ascribe to their respect position and to continue to exercise their duties as staff without let or hinderance or any form of harassment or limitation whatsoever for the Defendant, their servant, agents, privies, or how-whatsoever. 

  3. I order the Defendant to immediately reinstate the Claimants into their respective positions as bona fide staff of the OAUTHC as of 31st January 2024.

  4. I refuse and dismiss relief 4 sought for absence of sufficiently cogent and credible evidence. 

  5. The Defendant is ordered to immediately compute and pay to each of the Claimants their respective outstanding remunerations and entitlements from the time the Defendant stopped paying the Claimants’ remuneration up till the date of this Judgment. 

  6. I refuse and dismiss claim for award of pre-Judgment interest on the Judgment sum.

  7. The Defendant is ordered to pay to the Claimant the cost of this action, assessed at Five Hundred Thousand Naira (=N=500,000.00) only.

  8. I refuse and dismiss all the counterclaims sought for lack of proof.


46. Judgment is entered accordingly.




____________________

Hon. Justice J. D. Peters

Presiding Judge