IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE YENAGOA JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT YENAGOA

 

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

DATE: THURSDAY 2ND JULY, 2026       SUIT NO: NICN/YEN/21/2024

BETWEEN:

DR. IGORO JOSEPH     -----------------------------------         CLAIMANT

 

AND

 

  1. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, FEDERAL 

UNIVERSITY OTUOKE BAYELSA STATE

  1. THE GOVERNING COUNCIL, FEDERAL                       DEFENDANTS

UNIVERSITY OTUOKE, BAYELSA STATE

  1. FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OTUOKE, 

BAYELSA STATE

JUDGMENT

 

  1. The Claimant commenced this suit by way of a Complaint and Statement of Facts dated and filed on the 18th day of November, 2024, and claims the following reliefs against the Defendants:

 

  1. A declaration that the Claimant’s purported dismissal from the service of Federal University Otuoke Bayelsa State is wrongful, unlawful, null and void and of no effect whatsoever.

 

  1. A declaration that the Claimant as Lecturer 1 Department of History and Int’l Studies, Federal University Otuoke Bayelsa State, still subsists and therefore the claimant is entitled to his salaries and other emolument.

 

  1. An Order directing the Defendants to re-instate the Claimant in the service of the 3rd defendant in the position the Claimant was, prior to his purported dismissal.

 

  1. The sum of Two Million Naira being the cost of this suit.

 

  1. While the Defendants filed their Joint Statement of Defence on the 7th of March, 2025 which was however deemed as properly filed and served on the 18th day of March, 2025, the Claimant filed a Reply to the Joint Statement of Defence on the 2nd of May, 2025 which was deemed to have been properly filed and served on the 5th of May, 2025.

 

  1. Trial in the suit commenced on the 5th of May, 2025 when the Claimant testified for himself as CW by identifying and adopting his witness statement on oath made on 18th of November, 2024, and the Further Deposition he filed on the 2nd of May, 2025. The following documents were tendered by the claimant and admitted by the Court:
    1. The letter of temporary appointment as Assistant Lecturer dated 13th August, 2013------ exhibit CW1A.
    2. The letter of regularization of appointment dated 24th April, 2014 --------- exhibit CW1B.
    3. The bundle of documents issued by NHS England ------- exhibit CW1C.
    4. The letter of upgrading of appointment as Lecturer II dated 3rd February, 2021 -------- exhibit CW1D.
    5. The letter of promotion 2022/2023 appraisal exercise dated 4th April, 2024 ------ exhibit CW1E.
    6. The Certificate of Compliance pursuant to section 84 of the Evidence Act, 2011 as amended filed on 18th November, 2024 --------------- exhibit CW1F.
    7. The Internal Memorandum (Invitation to appear before the Staff Disciplinary Committee) dated 27th March, 2024 ---------- exhibit CW1G.
    8. The Internal Memorandum dated 23rd September, 2024: the Decision of 22nd (Adjourned) Meeting of Governing Council: Dismissal cases ------ exhibit CW1H.
    9. The Reply to Query dated 29th January, 2024 ------ exhibit CW1J.
    10.  The claimant’s application/information to proceed to the United Kingdom for treatment dated 21st August, 2023 ---- exhibit CW1K.
    11.  The Department of History and International Studies Project Supervisors List for 2022/2023 Academic Session -- exhibit CW1L.
    12.  The Department of History and International Studies Allocation of Second Semester PHD/MA Courses ---------- exhibit CW1M.
    13.  The Department of History and International Studies, Faculty of Humanities, Post Graduate Programs Supervisors --- exhibit CW1N.
    14.  The Marking Scheme Course Code: 408; Course Title: Int’l Law; Second Semester exam questions -------- exhibit CW1P.
    15.  The Marking Scheme: Course Code: HIS 210; Course Title: Gender, Culture and Society; Second Semester exams ----- exhibit CW1Q.
    16.  The Allocation of Second Semester Courses (22 Courses) ---- exhibit CW1R.
    17.  The Medical Report issued by the Federal Medical Centre, Yenagoa dated 21st August, 2023 ------- exhibit CW1S.

The witness (CW) was cross-examined by the Defendants’ Counsel B. A. Okeh and discharged on the 6th of May, 2025 without any re-examination. The Claimant closed his case on the same 6th May, 2025.

 

  1. The Defendants opened their defence on 22nd day of October, 2025, by calling their sole witness Mrs. Andabi Benita Amangi-Edomo (the Registrar of the 3rd Defendant) who testified as DW. The witness identified and adopted her witness statement on oath which was filed on the 7th of March, 2025 but deposed to before the Commissioner for Oaths on the 10th of March, 2025. The following documents were tendered by the Defendants through DW and admitted by the Court:
    1. The letter of promotion (2021/2022 appraisal exercise) dated 25th May, 2023 ------- exhibit DW1.
    2. The Staff Medical Report Form 1 together with the attached Staff Medical Examination Form II ------ exhibit DW2.
    3. The Internal Memo (Query for absenteeism) dated 15th January, 2024 ------ exhibit DW3.
    4. The Reply to Query dated 29th January, 2024 ------ exhibit DW4.
    5. The Internal Memorandum dated 8th February, 2024 and signed by Mrs. Tariere Dabipi ------ exhibit DW5.
    6. The Internal Memorandum: Invitation to appear before the Staff Disciplinary Committee dated 27th March, 2024 ------ exhibit DW6.
    7. The Report of the Staff Disciplinary Committee Containing cases of Academic Staff submitted in April, 2024 ------ exhibit DW7.
    8. The Decision of the 22nd Meeting of the Governing Council: Dismissal from service addressed to the Claimant dated 19th September, 2024 ------ exhibit DW8.
    9. The Internal Memorandum: Notice of the 22nd (Adjourned) Meeting of Governing Council dated 6th September, 2024 --- Exhibit DW9.

The witness (DW) was cross-examined by the learned Counsel to the Claimant E. M. Essien before she was discharged without any re-examination. The Defendants closed their case on the 22nd day of October, 2025.

 

  1. With the close of evidence in the suit, the parties were directed to file their final written addresses. While the Defendants’ final written address was filed on the 9th of December, 2025 but deemed as properly filed and served on the 11th of December, 2025, the Claimant’s final written address was filed and deemed as properly filed and served on the 26th day of January, 2026. The Defendants filed a Reply on Points of Law on the 2nd day of February, 2026. These court processes were adopted by Counsel to the parties on the 15th of April, 2026, with Martin O. Nwabali who held the brief of E. M. Essien for the Claimant, while B. A. Okeh appeared for the Defendants.

THE CASE OF THE CLAIMANT:

  1. The claimant who was employed as an Assistant Lecturer on the 13th of August, 2013 had his employment regularized on the 24th of April, 2014. His last position in the Federal University Otuoke was Lecturer 1 in the Faculty of Humanities, Department of History and International Studies. That at a point in his employment he became ill and was severely facing a life threatening health condition which could lead to total blindness and was being managed by the Federal Medical Centre before being advised by the Federal Medical Centre to proceed overseas for treatment.

 

  1. That prior to his departure to the United Kingdom, he informed the University vide a letter dated 21st of August, 2023 which was sent through the Head of Department of History and International Studies and the Dean of the Faculty of Humanities. That even though he was away, he still diligently carried out the functions of his office as assigned to him which include supervision of students assigned to him. That when his salaries were stopped in the month of October, 2023, he made a report to the Head of Department Dr. Ikaonaworio Eferebo who informed him that the management had directed that the nominal roll was to be signed personally by the individuals and not the Head of Department. That even though he continued to perform the duties assigned to him which include all academic activities for 2022/2023 and part of 2024, supervision of 11 undergraduate students (online) who had successfully defended their projects, and also the supervision of Post Graduate students till February, 2024, his employment with the 3rd Defendant was however terminated.

 

  1. According to the Claimant, upon arriving the United Kingdom, he registered with NHS to fully commence the treatment, and was subsequently referred to Dewsbury Health Center for diabetic eye screening. That even though he worked diligently with due care and skill without being found wanting, he was however issued a query dated 15th January, 2024 which was sent to him via WhatsApp by the HOD on 29th January, 2024, and he answered the query vide his response dated 29th January, 2024. That on the 27th of March, 2024 he was invited to appear before the Staff Disciplinary Committee which was sent to his email on the 29th of March, 2024 for him to appear before the Committee on the 3rd of April, 2024. That since he was still in the intensive care and because of the shortness of the notice to the date of appearance, he pleaded with the HOD to appear on his behalf, but it was only on the date of the sitting of the Disciplinary Committee that the HOD informed him that the Committee refused the appearance by proxy, and his plea for further date was refused by the Committee.

 

  1. He pleads further that, having answered the query dated 15th of January, 2024, no other query, invitation or warning was served on him until the 4th of April, 2024 when he was promoted to the rank of Lecturer 1 in the Department of History and International Studies. That no further communication was made to him until his dismissal was published in the Internal Memorandum which was sent to him by the Head of Department of History and International Studies via WhatsApp. That he was not invited to appear before the University Council to make any representation in connection with the allegations leveled against him, hence his dismissal from the University is in gross violation of section 17(1)(b) of the Federal University of Otuoke (Establishment) Act 2015, and a breach of his right to fair hearing as enshrined in the Constitution and Section 9 Schedule 6 of the Public Service Rules 2008. That the failure of the Staff Disciplinary Committee to hear his own side of the story through his HOD is unlawful, wrongful and in violation of his right to fair hearing as contained in section 36(1)(6) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended). The recommendation of his dismissal by the Staff Disciplinary Committee is also invalid and wrongful as the Committee has no such authority under the Federal University of Otuoke (Establishment) Act 2015.

DEFENDANTS’ CASE:

  1. According to the Defendants, the claimant was last promoted to the post of Lecturer II vide the letter dated 25th May, 2023, and he travelled outside the Country without due process for a period exceeding two months from October to the point of his dismissal. That the Claimant did not seek for any sick leave as required by the Rules and Regulations Governing Conditions of Service of Senior Staff. That his salary was stopped in November, 2023 when he failed to show up at work in the months of October and November 2023, and also not present to sign the Nominal Roll which could only be signed by the Claimant himself and not on his behalf. That the claimant did not at any time inform the defendants of any ill-health as from the available records of the claimant in the 3rd defendant’s custody he was in good health condition.

 

  1. He was issued a query for being absent from duty on 15th January, 2024 which he responded to vide his response dated 29th January, 2024. Not satisfied with his response, he was referred to the Staff Disciplinary Committee which sent an invitation to him on the 27th of March, 2024 to appear before the Committee on the 3rd of April, 2024 at 10am. He failed to appear before the Committee and also did not inform the Committee of his unavailability to request for a possible rescheduling of the Committee’s invitation. That since the query was directed at the Claimant, he could not have lawfully authorised the Head of Department of History and International Studies to have represented him. That since he failed to appear before the Staff Disciplinary Committee despite the opportunity given to him to defend the allegations, the Committee after deliberations recommended to the 2nd Defendant that the Claimant be dismissed from service for absence from duty and traveling outside the country without permission sought and obtained. That the 2nd defendant at its 22nd meeting held on the 20th of September, 2024, considered the recommendations in the Report of the Staff Disciplinary Committee and upheld the recommendations. The Claimant was then dismissed for being absent from duty and travelling outside the country without permission. He was notified of his dismissal by the publication of the decision of the Governing Council and personal copy served on him.

DEFENDANTS’ SUBMISSIONS:

  1. The defendants distilled this lone Issue for the determination of the Court: Whether the Claimant has failed to prove his dismissal from the employment of the Defendant to be entitled to the reliefs sought?

 

  1. The Defendants submit on the single Issue that, since relief one (1) is declaratory in nature, the claimant must succeed on the strength of his own case and not rely on the admission or weakness of the Defendants’ case. That declaratory relief cannot be granted merely on default of defence or even on admission. See Adamu V. Nigerian Air Force and Anor (2022) LPELR-56587(SC), Muhammed V. Suleiman (2024) LPELR-61695(CA), Mohammed V. Wammako and Ors (2017) LPELR-42667(SC) and Zaccala V. Edosa and Anor (2017) LPELR-48034(SC).

 

  1. That since the Claimant is challenging the dismissal or termination of his employment, the onus is on him to prove that he is an employee of the Defendants, place before the Court the terms of the contract and who can appoint and remove him, as well as the circumstances the appointment can be determined by the employer. These requirements cannot be proved by the defendants. See ICPC V. Adepoju and Anor (2025) LPELR-80297(CA) (Pp 53-54, paras. F-D), Dr. O. M. Agadas V. The Federal Ministry of Health and Anor (2022) LPELR-56955(CA), Waziri V. BOA Ltd (2023) LPELR-60477(CA), Ovivie and Ors V. Delta Steel Co. Ltd (2023) LPELR-60460(SC) and Anifowoshe V. Wema Bank Plc (2015) LPELR-24811(CA). That as an employee of the Defendants, the claimant’s employment is regulated by the Federal University Otuoke (Establishment) Act 2015 and the Rules and Regulations Governing Conditions of Service of Senior Staff. The Claimant’s employment therefore enjoys statutory flavour.

 

  1. It was further argued that, in a contract clothed with statutory flavour, the Court would look at the law establishing the institution or any other Regulations which contain the terms and conditions of the employment (in this case the Federal University Otuoke (Establishment) Act 2015 and the Rules and Regulations Governing Conditions of Service of Senior Staff) to ascertain whether the dismissal was done wrongly or rightly. See Rector, Kwarapoly and Ors V. Adefila and Ors (2022) LPELR-60890(SC) (Pp. 20 – 23, para. E) and Bayero University Kano V. Hamisu Muhammed (2022) LPELR-56733(CA). That from the claimant’s pleadings and evidence before the Court, he did not plead the terms or any provision relating to the terms of his employment that was breached by the defendants. He also failed to tender the 3rd Defendant’s Rules and Regulations Governing Conditions of Service of Senior Staff, and no part of the said Rules and Regulations was stated or referred to that was breached by the defendants in the dismissal of the claimant. 

 

  1. Learned Counsel reproduced the provisions of Section 17(1) of the Federal University Otuoke (Establishment) Act, 2015, and posited that the claimant’s dismissal was lawful and legal because by section 24(1)(2) of the said Act, the Governing Council of the 3rd Defendant is empowered to carry out by itself the disciplinary powers vested on it or exercise same through a committee set up by it alone or jointly with another body. That the claimant was dismissed on ground of misconduct (absence from duty and travelling outside the country without due permission), and a misconduct is defined in section 27 of the Federal University Otuoke (Establishment) Act 2015 as “any conduct which is prejudicial to the good name of the University and or discipline and the proper administration of the business of the University.” See also Rule 1.4(xliii) of the Rules and Regulations Governing Conditions of Service for Senior Staff of the 3rd Defendant.

 

  1. Learned Counsel also reproduced the provisions of Rule 5.4 sub-rule (a) – (d) and Rule 5.14 sub-rule (a) and (c) of the Rules and Regulations Governing Conditions of Service for Senior Staff of the 3rd Defendant relating to the procedure for sick leave for medical attention within and outside Nigeria, and submitted that, the claimant failed to establish that he sought and obtained the leave of the defendants before travelling or embarking on the journey outside Nigeria. Learned Counsel reproduced some of the answers elicited from the Claimant during his cross-examination and argued that, the Claimant wrote exhibit CW1K to the 1st Defendant through his Head of Department but there is nothing to show that exhibit CW1K was received by his Head of Department or even the 1st Defendant. That exhibit CW1K was never submitted by the Claimant to either the HOD, Dean, The Vice Chancellor or any other person in authority, unlike exhibit CW1J which is his response to the query letter (exhibit CW1D) which showed that it was received by the University. That the Claimant was issued a query for absenteeism (exhibit DW3) which he responded to vide exhibits DW4 and CW1J. He was invited to appear before the Staff Disciplinary Committee (SDC) with a view to affording him an opportunity of being heard but he neither appeared nor did he give any reason to the Committee for the failure to appear or at least reschedule if the Committee’s schedule was not convenient. That in law where a party fails or neglects to avail himself of the opportunity to be heard, such a party cannot complain that his right to fair hearing was denied, relying on the case of Mastay Investment Ltd and Ors. V. AMCON and Ors (2025) LPELR-81475(CA).

 

  1. It was further submitted that even though the Claimant pleaded in paragraph 26 of his Statement of Facts that he pleaded with his HOD to appear on his behalf before the Staff Disciplinary Committee, section 17(1)(b) of the Federal University Otuoke (Establishment) Act 2015 states that the person in question should be afforded the opportunity to appear in person to make a representation on the allegation and no one else. That since the defendants denied the assertion and joined issues with the claimant in paragraph 19 of the Statement of Defence, the Claimant ought to prove the assertion by calling the said HOD pursuant to section 132 of the Evidence Act which he failed to do. He admitted during cross-examination that the said HOD is still alive and still working with the 3rd Defendant, yet failed to call the HOD as a witness. That the failure of the HOD to testify amounts to withholding evidence which this Court can draw assumption on by virtue of section 167(d) of the Evidence Act, 2023.

 

  1. That since the claimant failed to appear before the Staff Disciplinary Committee, the Committee resolved that his actions constitute misconduct and recommended to the A&PC and the Governing Council vide exhibit DW7 for his dismissal, and the Governing Council at its 22nd meeting approved the recommendations through exhibit DW8. That the Claimant has failed to prove his case to be entitled to the reliefs sought.

CLAIMANT’S SUBMISSIONS:

  1. The Claimant’s Counsel identified two (2) Issues for the determination of the Court:
  1. Whether the dismissal of the Claimant was not in gross violation of the provision Section 17 of the Federal University Otuoke (Establishment) Act 2015, Section 9 schedule 6, of the Public Service Rules of the Federal Republic of the (sic) Nigeria 2008.

 

  1. Whether the Claimant was not denied fair hearing in the proceedings leading to his dismissal from the employment of the 3rd Defendant.

 

  1. In arguing issue one (1), the Claimant’s Counsel reproduced the provisions of Section 17 of the Federal University Otuoke (Establishment) Act 2015, and also Section 9 Schedule 6 of the Public Service Rules 2008, and submitted that, where a statute provides for a means or procedure for doing a certain act, that procedure or means alone must be resorted to in doing the said act. See Obasanya V. Babafemi and Ors (2000) 23 WRN CA, Co-operative and Commerce Bank Nig Plc V. A.G. Anambra State (1992) 8 NWLR (Pt. 261) 528, Okolo V. Anyakwo (1999) 3 NWLR (Pt. 594) 289, Sogaolu V. INEC and Ors (2008) LPELR-4966, Ndukwe and Anor V. UBA and Ors (2015) LPELR-40643 pages 42-43, paras. F-B and Amasike V. The Registrar General CAC and Anor (2010) LPELR-456SC at page 54 paras. B-B. That by section 17 of the University of Otuoke (Establishment) Act 2015, the power to invite is that of the Governing Council, and the Governing Council cannot sub-delegate the powers to any other body or authority, relying on the case of Raji V. University of Ilorin (2007) All FWLR (Pt. 345) 325 at 338 paras D-E. That the invitation of the claimant vide exhibit CW1G was not made by the Governing Council, and the maxim delegatus non potest delegare has caught up with the 3rd Defendant because a person to whom power is delegated to cannot delegate same to another person or body. See Bamgboye V. UNILORIN (1999) LPELR-737SC page 36 paras C – D. That exhibit CW1H suffers the same fate because the Governing Council merely upheld the recommendation of the Committee even when the power to dismiss rests on the Governing Council. Learned Counsel referred to the definition of the word ‘upheld’ in the Oxford Advance Learners Dictionary 7th edition, and posited that the Staff Disciplinary Committee cannot make a decision for Council to merely uphold as there is nothing in the defence to suggest that the Claimant was ever invited by the Governing Council or that he appeared before the Governing Council to defend himself.

 

  1. That even though by the combined effect of sections 17 and 24 of the Federal University of Otuoke (Establishment) Act 2015 the Governing Council has power to appoint Committees, when it however comes to the issue of investigation of an academic, administrative or professional staff, it is only the provision of section 17 that applies; and only the Council and Senate that can investigate an erring member of staff.

 

  1. That the Claimant has shown that even while on medical treatment, he was duly performing the functions of his office as assigned to him by the 3rd Defendant through his HOD. This can be evidenced by exhibits CW1L, CW1M, CW1N, CW1P, CW1Q, and CW1R all showing that the claimant was performing the functions assigned to him by the 3rd Defendant through the HOD. The defendants failed to call the HOD who is still their employee to give evidence on the veracity of the Claimant’s assertion. That from exhibit DW5 the University was aware of the medical trip of the Claimant, but merely concerned that there was no evidence of his medical claims authenticated by the University, and that there was no certainty on his return date. That DW1 also stated in his evidence that the Governing Board merely looked at the decision of the Staff Disciplinary Committee which is contrary to section 17 of the Act establishing the University. The Court was urged to resolve Issue one (1) in favour of the Claimant.

 

  1. On Issue two (2), it was submitted that the principle of fair hearing applies with equal force to all proceedings even of a quasi-judicial nature, relying on the case of Usman V. Kaduna State House of Assembly (2008) FWLR (Pt. 397) 78 at 114 paras C – D. That the law requires the claimant to make representation to the Council in person, and the Staff Disciplinary Committee is not the Governing Council to have taken over the duties of the Governing Council and refused to allow the HOD of the Claimant who was abreast of the facts to make representation on behalf of the Claimant. That since the Claimant was an academic staff whose employment is one with statutory flavour, the procedure laid down must be strictly complied with. That since the Claimant stated that he was in intensive care in the UK and the shortness of notice to come over from the UK within 5 days and requested his HOD to appear on his behalf which was refused, the claimant was denied fair hearing, and the decision to dismiss him was premeditated. The Court was urged to resolve Issue two (2) in favour of the Claimant. Learned Counsel finally urged the Court to enter judgment in favour of the Claimant, and grant the reliefs in the suit. 

DEFENDANTS’ REPLY ON POINTS OF LAW:

  1. It is pertinent to note that the Defendants filed a Reply on Points of Law on the 2nd of February, 2026.

 

  1. On the claimant’s arguments at paragraph 4.4 of the Claimant’s final written address that a delegated power cannot be delegated hence exhibit CW1H which is the same as exhibit DW6 inviting the claimant to the Staff Disciplinary Committee was not issued by the right authority pursuant to section 17(1)(b) of the Federal Univeristy Otuoke (Establishment) Act 2015, it was replied that the common law principle of delegatus non potest delegare though a good law does not apply to this case. That the claimant who is advancing the argument that the Governing Council delegated its power to the Staff Disciplinary Committee must prove the existence or non-existence of the fact, relying on sections 131 and 132 of the Evidence Act 2023 and the case of Egbegu V. IGP and Ors (2005) LPELR-7490(CA). That after giving the claimant notice of the allegations against him (exhibit DW3) which he responded to vide exhibit DW4, the 2nd Defendant as part of the powers provided under section 24 of the Federal University Otuoke (Establishment) Act 2015 referred the case to the Staff Disciplinary Committee (SDC). The Committee invited the Claimant vide exhibit DW6 but he refused to appear but opted to send his Head of Department who had no pending allegation against him, and was not invited by the Committee. That after its deliberations, the Staff Disciplinary Committee merely made recommendations to the 2nd defendant vide exhibit DW7 and did not take any decision against the Claimant. It was the Governing Council (the 2nd Defendant) that met and deliberated on the recommendations of the Staff Disciplinary Committee and decided that the claimant be dismissed which was communicated to the claimant vide exhibits DW8 and DW9. That the Committee did not punish or penalize the claimant but merely made recommendations, and the decision of dismissal was done by the Governing Council (the 2nd defendant), relying on the case of Raji V. Unilorin and Ors (2006) LPELR-8242(CA).

 

  1.  That the claimant who admitted that the Governing Council has the powers to appoint committees pursuant to sections 17 and 24 of the Federal University Otuoke (Establishment) Act 2015 cannot turn around to contend that when it comes to investigation of academic, administrative or professional staff it is only the provision of section 17 that applies. That there is nothing in the entirety of the Act that isolates section 17, and a court or counsel is not entitled to read into a provision what it does not contain nor interpret the provision in such a way as to conform with the court or counsel’s view of what they consider the law should be. That a statute should be read or interpreted as a whole in order to understand its ordinary meaning and arrive at the true intent of the legislature, and not in part or isolation. See Amobi V. Nzegwu and Ors (2013) LPELR-21863(SC) and Akpamgbo-Okadigbo and Ors V. Chidi (2015) LPELR-24564(CA), page 28 at paras D – F. The Learned Counsel to the Defendants also relied on sections 6 and 7(7) of the Federal University of Otuoke (Establishment) Act 2015 in arguing that the Governing Council of the University has the power to set up committees to carry out acts on its behalf including that provided in section 17 of the Act.

 

  1. That since the argument of the claimant is hinged on common law principle, the law is that where there seems to be a conflict between a common law position and statute, the common law principle must give way to a statute, hence the common law principle of delegatus non potest delegare cannot stand in the face of the statutory provisions relied upon by the defendants. See Graceland Service and Logistics Ltd and Ors V. AMCON (2022) LPELR-58114(CA).

 

  1. On the claimant’s contention at paragraph 4.6 of the Claimant’s final written address that by the Public Service Rules a person cannot be dismissed at any time if he is unable to perform the function of his office except on grounds of ill-health not caused by his negligence, it was replied that, though the claimant is a member of the Public Service of the Federation, service in the University is however not identical with service in the Civil Service of the Federation. That service in the University is regulated by its own conditions of service, relying on the case of Olaniyan and Ors V. Unilag and Anor (1985) LPELR-2565(SC), page 20 paras B – D.  That in this case it is the Rules and Regulations Governing Conditions of Service of Senior Staff of the University that is operational and not the Public Service Rules 2008. The Court was urged to discountenance the submissions of the Claimant and dismiss the suit.

COURT’S DECISION:

  1. Having carefully considered the pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties, this Court is of the view that in order to avoid proliferation of the Issues for determination, the suit can be adequately determined on the basis of the lone Issue identified by the Defendants. The Issue as modified by the Honourable Court is, Whether the Claimant has proved his case to be entitled to the reliefs being sought in this suit.
  2. It is important to start from the point that the onus or burden of proof in the instant suit is on the Claimant who asserts to establish the claims before the Court by adducing concrete and compelling evidence. Being a civil suit, the law expects the Claimant to prove the case on the balance of probability or preponderance of evidence as required by sections 131, 132, 133 and 134 of the Evidence Act. This well-established legal principle was reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and Anor v Independent National Electoral Commission and Ors (2022) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1863) 653 at 692. Paras B-D thus:

“May I state clearly that, by section 131 of the Evidence Act, 2011 it is the party who desires the court to give judgment in his favour based on a set of facts which he believes entitles him to judgment that must first prove to the satisfaction of the court that those facts exist. By the same token, he who is bound to prove the existence of facts which he alleges, bears the burden of proof in that respect. In the instant case, it is the appellants at whose instance the petition was filed with the allegations raised and the ultimate prayers sought that had the duty first by credible evidence prove to the Tribunal that indeed they are entitled to the prayers sought.”

 

  1. It is also apposite to state that, considering the nature of the claimant’s reliefs ‘a’ and ‘b’ which are declaratory, the Claimant is legally enjoined to rely on the strength of his case and not to depend on any weakness in the defence. The claims cannot be granted for the mere asking, or even on an admission or default of defence. See the case of Mr. Sunday Efere Egwu and Anor v Reuben Anumene (2025) 12 NWLR (Pt. 2000) 329 at pages 375 – 376, paras H – B,  where it was held that: “Now, it is clear that the principal relief(s) claimed by the respondent in his counter-claim are declaratory. By those reliefs, the respondent sought that the court declare that he is the owner of the parcel of land in dispute and entitled to grant of statutory right of occupancy. The appellants who were the plaintiffs in the original claim also sought declaration of title over the said parcel of land. It is settled law that, a person who seeks a declaratory relief has the duty or onus to prove that he is entitled to the declaration by calling sufficient cogent and credible evidence. He will succeed on the strength of his own case and not the weakness of the defence, though there are times when the plaintiff may take the benefit of an aspect of the defence that supports his (plaintiffs) case. Aside that, admission by the defence may not advance the plaintiffs claim as the defendant may decide not to even file a defence and dare the plaintiff to proof (sic) his case since a declaratory relief cannot be granted in the absence of evidence led by the plaintiff.”

 

  1. The Claimant in this suit is challenging his dismissal from the Defendants. He must therefore plead and establish the following to be entitled to the claims before the Court. 
    1. That he is an employee of the Defendants,
    2. He must place before the Court the terms and conditions of the employment. 
    3. He must state who can appoint and who can remove him,
    4. In what circumstances his employment can be determined, and
    5. In what manner the said terms of the employment were breached or

violated by the Defendants.

See the cases of Dr. O. M. Agadas V. The Federal Ministry of Health and Anor (2022) LPELR-56955(CA), Raphael Ogumka V. Corporate Affairs Commission (2010) LPELR-4891(CA), Mr. Eniwomake Richard Ovivie and Ors v. Delta Steel Company Ltd (2023) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1904) 203 and Chief Tamunoemi Idoniboye-Obu V. Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (2003) 2 NWLR (Pt. 805) 589, at page 630 paras. A - B, where the Apex Court held thus, “A servant who complains that his employment has been brought to an end must found his claim on the contract of service and show in what manner the wrong was done. He must plead and prove the contract of service which is the bedrock of his case. It is not the duty of the employer as defendant to prove that the termination was not wrongful. See Amodu v. Amode (1990) 5 NWLR (Pt. 150) 356 at 370; Katto v. Central Bank of Nigeria (1999) 6 NWLR (Pt. 607) 390; Okomu Oil Palm Co. Ltd. v. Iserhienrhien (supra) at 673-674. In the same vein, the court is not entitled to look outside the contract of service as to the terms and conditions. These must be gathered therefrom and/or from other sources which can be incorporated by reference to the contract as the case may be. It is the best and only way of deciding the rights of the parties under the contract: see Adegbite v. College of Medicine of University of Lagos (1973) 5 SC 149 at 162; International Drilling Company Ltd. v. Ajijala (1976) 2 SC 115 at 127.”

 

  1. In the bid to establish his claims before the Court, the Claimant gave evidence vide his witness statement on oath filed on the 18th of November, 2024 and the additional deposition he made on the 2nd of May, 2025, and tendered exhibits CW1A – CW1S. Some of the highlights of the answers elicited from the Claimant during his cross-examination are that, the signature on exhibit CW1K is his signature, and exhibit CW1K is also the original of the document he sent to the University through the HOD who assured him that he had forwarded it. That he applied to travel outside the Country but the approval did not come before he travelled to take care of his health. He affirmed that the Federal University Otuoke has a Health Services Department which is a primary health care provider and he visited the Health Services Department before he was referred to the Federal Medical Centre concerning his eye health challenge. He affirmed being aware of the procedure to apply for leave and that he did apply. That exhibit CW1K was to go to the Vice Chancellor who would ask the Medical/Health Department to ascertain his claim, but since he was almost going blind he had to travel out for medical care, and that he sent a message to them before he travelled. That he was not given a certificate endorsed by the Health Services Department Director or Medical Officer before he travelled. That while exhibit CW1K was made on 21st August, 2023, he however travelled in October, 2023. That he was given visa within one week of his application, and he started with the Federal Medical Centre Yenagoa in respect of diabetes and High Blood Pressure in late 2013, and in November, 2013 he had appendicitis operation at the FMC Yenagoa. He affirmed that prior to late 2013 when he registered with FMC Yenagoa he did not have any of the health issues. That while in the University he usually signed nominal roll, and there is no criteria for an academic staff to sign attendance documents as the HOD could sign for any academic staff that is absent. He affirmed that nominal roll is not like attendance sheet to be signed daily as it is only signed once in a month. That from October 2023 his salary was stopped, and that in the months of October and November 2023 he was not in Nigeria. That the name of the University is reflected in exhibits CW1L, CW1M, CW1N, CW1P, CW1Q and CW1R, and that since it is a departmental matter, the department does not always use the letterhead of the University, and the documents emanated from the HOD who represents the University. He affirmed that the HOD Dr. Ikaonaworio Eferebo is still alive and in the employment of the University but he is not his witness in the case. He further informed the Court that his primary duty as an academic staff is to conduct research and lecture, and that courses are assigned to him, but that he had finished his lectures for the 2022/23 session before he travelled, and what was left was the examination. That while he was not on ground to lecture physically, he however continued with project supervision. That from 2013 to the point of his dismissal he spent 12 years in the University, and he is familiar with the hierarchy in the University. That while he is aware of the Appointment and Promotions Committee and the Staff Disciplinary Committee, he is however not aware whether they report back to the Governing Council. He affirmed that a query was issued to him and he responded to the query, and he was invited to appear before the Staff Disciplinary Committee which was sent to him via WhatsApp. That he spoke with the then Acting HOD now Prof. Edna Adagogo-Brown to appear on his behalf and explain his condition, but when she went there they did not allow her to speak. That he did not appear before the Committee and also did not respond to the mail nor asked for extension because the time was very short and it was just about four days to when he was asked to appear. He affirmed that the reason for inviting him to appear before the SDC was stated in the invitation letter, and that his dismissal was communicated to him via WhatsApp by his HOD.

 

  1. The Defendants’ sole witness who gave evidence vide her witness statement on oath filed on the 10th of March, 2025 tendered exhibits DW1 – DW9. Some of the highpoints of the answers elicited from the witness are that, exhibit CW1E is a document of the 3rd Defendant the Federal University Otuoke, and she affirmed that from exhibit CW1E the last promotion of the Claimant is Lecturer I. That she did not know that the Claimant was promoted to Lecturer I because exhibit CW1E was issued by the Acting Registrar before her appointment. That she was not the Registrar as at 2023, and that prior to the Claimant’s dismissal he was in the Department of History and International Studies in the Faculty of Humanities. That the question of whether a lecturer of any department is working directly under her as the Registrar of the University will depend on the matter at hand. That even if she was not the Claimant’s HOD she would know if he was performing the functions of his office while overseas because the nominal roll is issued by a Department under the Registry, and all staff are to sign the nominal roll as proxy is not allowed. That monthly reports are given to the Registrar by the representatives of the Registrar at the Faculty Board Meetings on those that attended the Faculty Board Meetings. She affirmed that while the issue of nominal roll is assigned to her office, the issue of assigning students for projects supervision is exclusively that of the Head of Department, but that the issue of setting examination questions and marking of scripts is moderated by the Faculty Board. That while the HOD chairs the Departmental Board, the Dean of the Faculty chairs the Faculty Board. That reasons for the claimant’s dismissal are in the dismissal letter and by exhibit DW8 the reason is absent from duty and travelling outside the country without due permission. She also affirmed that by exhibit DW5 the minutes is that there is no evidence that his medical claims were authenticated by the University Medical Services. She also confirmed that the reason for the continuous suspension of the claimant’s salaries was because there is no certainty as to the date of his return from medical treatment abroad. That exhibit DW2 was made at the time of the employment of the claimant, and after the employment there is no provision for another medical examination. That as an academic staff the claimant’s line of communication is to send to the HOD, the Dean and then the Vice Chancellor. She affirmed that Dr. Akaonaworia Eferebo is a staff of the University and is still alive, but she does not know if he was at the time the claimant’s HOD because the HOD changes from time to time. That even though the Staff Disciplinary Committee invited the Claimant to appear before the Committee, she however does not know when the invitation letter was sent to the claimant which he got by email. That between 27th of March, 2024 and 3rd of April, 2024 is a gap of 5 days but that when the invitation was made on the 27th of March, 2024 the University was not aware that the claimant was in the UK. That the letter of invitation was sent to the claimant after the query for absenteeism and his reply. That even though the Claimant stated in his response that he was in the UK receiving medical care, that does not imply that he officially informed the University and the University was officially aware. That even though she saw a letter that his HOD was to represent him, he was invited to appear in person and not the HOD. That the Governing Board of the University does not send invitation to accused staff to appear before it as it is the Staff Disciplinary Committee for fair hearing. The Governing Board only looks at the decision of the Staff Disciplinary Committee and take a decision.

 

  1. From the state of the pleadings and the evidence on record, it is obvious that the appointment of the Claimant by the Defendants is not in issue in this suit. The Defendants are not disputing the appointment of the Claimant as an academic staff of the Federal University Otuoke, Bayelsa State. His appointment are evidenced by exhibit CW1A which is the letter of temporary appointment as Assistant Lecturer dated 13th August, 2013; exhibit CW1B which is the letter of regularization of appointment dated 24th April, 2014; exhibit CW1D which is the letter of upgrading as Lecturer II dated 3rd February, 2021; exhibit CW1E which is a letter of promotion to the rank of Lecturer I dated 4th April, 2024; exhibit DW1 which is a letter of promotion to the post of Lecturer II dated 25th May, 2023 and exhibit DW2 which is the Staff Medical Report Form 1 filled by the Claimant when he was employed in the year 2013.

 

  1. It is also important to make the point that the parties in this suit are in agreement that the employment of the Claimant is one clothed with statutory flavour. This is because the employment is one regulated by the Federal University Otuoke (Establishment) Act 2015, and also the Rules and Regulations Governing Conditions of Service for Senior Staff of the University. I have however seen that the Claimant who has the burden of placing before the Court the terms and conditions of his employment did not tender or produce before the Court the Rules and Regulations Governing Conditions of Service for Senior Staff. This is not what the Court can take judicial notice of and rely upon in determining the suit pursuant to section 122 of the Evidence Act. Since the Claimant failed to produce the terms and conditions of the employment before the Court, the decision shall be based on the provisions of the Federal University Otuoke (Establishment) Act 2015 which this Honourable Court is permitted to take judicial notice of under section 122(2)(a – c) being an Act of the National Assembly. No wonder, the Claimant never referred to any provision of the Rules and Regulations Governing Conditions of Service for Senior Staff, but based his arguments strictly on the provisions of the Federal University Otuoke (Establishment) Act 2015.

 

  1. What spurred the issues that led to the dismissal of the Claimant by the Defendants and the subsequent institution of this suit by the claimant is his decision to travel to the United Kingdom for medical treatment. While he contends that he wrote to the Defendants vide exhibit CW1K which was submitted to his Head of Department for transmission to his Dean of the Faculty of Humanities and then the Vice Chancellor, the defendants contend that he did not apply for sick leave, and no leave was granted to him for the trip to the United Kingdom.

 

  1. I have pored over exhibit CW1K and seen that there is no indication that it was submitted to the Defendants through the Claimant’s Head of Department. The said document was not acknowledged as having been received by the Defendants or even the Claimant’s Head of Department, and to hold otherwise is to speculate which is not within the real of the duties of a Court of law. I have also seen that while exhibit CW1K was written by the Claimant on the 21st of August, 2023 (the same date exhibit CW1S was issued by the Federal Medical Centre Yenagoa referring the Claimant to Mid Yorkshire Teaching Hospital, Pinderfield, England), it is however in evidence as stated by the Claimant during his cross-examination that he left Nigeria for the United Kingdom in the month of October, 2023. Even the NHS England Registration Confirmation Letter (exhibit CW1C) is dated 11th October, 2023. It is obvious that whatever arrangement the Claimant had with his Head of Department Dr. Ikaonaworio Eferebo, he did not follow up to ensure that exhibit CW1K was duly submitted for the approval of the Vice Chancellor, and he did not obtain the requisite approval even in principle before he left for the United Kingdom. He should have called the said Head of Department or obtained a court subpoena on the said Head of Department to testify as to whether he received the application from the claimant, and what happened to the application. The onus to prove that is solely on him who asserts that the application was given to the Head of Department. There is also nothing before the Court to show that he liaised with the University’s Medical Director concerning his health challenge and the need to seek further medical care outside the Country. I hold on this point that the Claimant travelled outside the Country and absented himself from duty without the requisite leave or permission of his employer.

 

  1. It is in evidence that the Claimant was issued a written query for absenteeism vide exhibit DW3 dated 15th January, 2024 which he responded to vide exhibit CW1J dated 29th January, 2024 (which is the same as the Defendant’s exhibit DW4). While exhibit DW5 dated 8th February, 2024 is the Defendants’ Memo authorizing the continuous suspension of the Claimant’s salary until his return, the Claimant was however invited to appear before the Staff Disciplinary Committee vide exhibit CW1G which is the same as exhibit DW6 dated 27th March, 2024. It is in evidence as stated by the Claimant that he did not appear before the said Committee, but rather requested his Head of Department to appear on his behalf since he was outside the Country, but that the Committee did not listen to the Head of Department. Again, the Claimant failed to call the Head of Department to substantiate this assertion. If the time was too short for him to travel from the UK to appear before the Committee as alleged by the Claimant, there is nothing before the Court to show that he requested for the postponement of his appearance and same was declined by the Committee. Any other holding other than that he did not appear before the Staff Disciplinary Committee (SDC) will only amount to speculation or conjecture which I have held that is that within the realm of the duties of a Court of law. Page five (5) of exhibit DW7 which is the Report of the Staff Disciplinary Committee is very clear that the Claimant did not appear before the Committee after several invitations through text messages, emails and letters of invitation.

 

  1. It was as a result of his refusal to appear before the Staff Disciplinary Committee that the Committee recommended in exhibit DW5 that the Claimant should be dismissed from service for misconduct pursuant to Page 52 Chapter 3 Section 3.2 (F)(f) of the Condition of Service Guiding Senior Staff. This recommendation was then forwarded to the Governing Council of the University which affirmed same vide exhibits DW9 and CW1H, and the Claimant’s dismissal was communicated to the Claimant vide exhibit DW8 dated 19th September, 2024.

 

  1. Having taken the pains to evaluate in details the evidence on record, it is apposite to at this juncture make the point that, since the employment of the Claimant is one with statutory flavour, the law enjoins the defendants to comply strictly with the provisions of the statute or regulation in question, otherwise the dismissal may be declared unlawful and set aside. See Bayero University Kano V. Hamisu Muhammad (2022) LPELR-56733(CA), where the Court of Appeal per Ita George Mbaba, J.C.A. held as follows on pages 15-18, paras. E – B on the nature and effect of an employment clothed with statutory flavour:

“The Respondent’s employment was one that enjoyed the protection of statute, and an employment with statutory flavor cannot be left at the whims and caprices of the employer to kick out the employee as any officer of the employer elects, without full compliance with the law/rules set down in the statute that established the organization/institution. See Olufeagba Vs Abdul-Raheem (2010) All FWLR (Pt.512) 1033 at 1093: “Where contract of service enjoys statutory protection, it can only be terminated in the manner prescribed by the governing statutory provisions, a breach of which renders the act ultra vires and void. The contract cannot be discharged on the agreement of parties without compliance with the enabling statutory provisions.” See also FRSC & Anor Vs Chand & Ors (2016) LPELR-43806(CA); Comptroller General of Customs & Ors Vs Gusau (2017) LPELR-42081(SC); and Cosmos C. Nnadi Vs National Ear Care Center & Anor (2014) LPELR-22910(CA) where this Court held:

“In determining what an employment with statutory flavour means, this Court and the apex Court have held several times that it relates to employment in the public or civil service of the Federation, States or Local Governments, or agencies of government, including institutions and parastatals wherein the civil service or public service rules apply or are made relevant or incorporated. See the case of Kwara State Polytechnic Ilorin vs Shittu (2012) 41 WRN 26. In the case of University of Ilorin vs Abe (2003) FWLR (Pt. 164) 267 at 278, this Court held: “It is now firmly established by a long line of decided cases by apex Court that when an office or employment has statutory flavour, in the sense that the conditions of service of the employee are provided for and protected by a statute or regulation made thereunder, a person holding that office or is in that employment enjoys a special status over and above the ordinary master/servant relationship. In order to discipline such a person, the procedure laid down in the relevant statute or regulation must be complied with, strictly. Consequently, the only way to terminate such a contract of service with a statutory flavour is to adhere strictly to the procedure laid down in the statute or regulation made thereunder.” The above was followed in the case of New Nigeria Newspapers Ltd vs Atoyebi (2013) LPELR-21489(CA) where we said this of employment with statutory flavour: “In employment with statutory flavour, that is, employment governed by statute wherein procedure for employment and dismissal of employees are clearly spelt and the employment cannot be terminated other than in the way and manner prescribed by the statute concerned and any other manner of termination inconsistent with the statute is null and void… such is applicable in contract of employment under the public and civil service of the Federation, States, Local Government and agencies of Government…” See also the cases of Benue State University V. Dr. Andrew Abiodun Mogaji (2022) LPELR-56729(CA) and Mr. Eddy H. B. Oko-Jaja V. Federal Civil Service Commission and Others (2022) LPELR-57627(CA).

 

  1. I have seen that the provision of Section 17(1) of the Federal University Otuoke (Establishment) Act 2015 requires the defendants to take three (3) steps with respect to disciplinary proceedings against any academic, administrative or professional staff of the 3rd defendant for allegations of misconduct or inability to perform the functions of his office:
    1. Give notice of the reasons to the employee in question.
    2. Afford the person an opportunity of making representation in person on the matter to the Council.
    3. Take a decision to terminate or not to terminate the appointment.

 

  1. The grouse of the claimant in alleging that the Defendants failed to give him fair hearing before his dismissal from service is that since the powers to discipline is vested on the Governing Council (the 2nd Defendant), the said Governing Council cannot sub-delegate the said powers to any other body including the Staff Disciplinary Committee of the Defendants. That he should have been invited to make representation before the University’s Governing Council, and not the Staff Disciplinary Committee, and he relied heavily on the cases of Raji v. University of Ilorin (2007) All FWLR (Pt. 345) 325 at 338, paras D – E and Bamgboye v. University of Olorin (1999) LPELR-737SC page 36 paras C – D.

 

  1. I have gone through the cases referenced by the Claimant. In the case of Dr. Tunde Bamgboye V. University of Ilorin and Anor (supra), the appeal by the Appellant was dismissed by the Apex Court which affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeal that had dismissed the appeal against the decision of the trial Court. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Senior Staff Disciplinary and Appeals Committee (SSD&AC) of University of Ilorin could exercise the statutory powers of the Governing Council. The Learned Counsel to the Claimant only quotes a short portion of the Apex Court decision. If he had taken his time to reproduce in details the said decision, he would not have made the submissions that the University of Otuoke Staff Disciplinary Committee (SDC) exercised the powers of the Governing Council in this case. Learned Counsel ingeniously added the words ‘by that section’ which is not part of the Supreme Court decision. For the avoidance of doubt, the Apex Court held as follows at pages 35 – 37, paras B – B of the report:

“Undoubtedly, the power of Council under Section 15(1) of the University of Ilorin Act Cap. 455, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990 is a statutory disciplinary power to remove and discipline an erring academic, administrative and professional staff of the University. In this regard, it is trite law that a statutory disciplinary power cannot be delegated. See Vine v. National Dock Labour Board (1956) 3 All E.R. 939, where in the final appeal to the House of Lords it was held that the Plaintiff’s dismissal by a Committee set up by the Local Board under a delegated power to the Committee set up by the Local Board was a nullity because the Local Board had no power to delegate its disciplinary powers.

By virtue of Section 3(2) of the University of Ilorin Act Cap. 455, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990, (ibid) what the University of Ilorin Council set up under Section 5(1) of the Act is an agent of the University. So also is the Registrar who by his appointment is the Chief Administrative Officer of the University vide Section 5(1), under the 1st Schedule to the Act. See also Carlen v. UNIJOS (1994) 1 NWLR (Pt. 323) 631 where Ogundere, J.S.C. held at page 654 of the Report as follows:

“It is clear from the above provisions of the Act that the Council, the Vice-Chancellor and the Registrar are creation of the University of Jos Act and each is assigned specific functions as provided for in the Act and in the exercise of such functions.”

See Black’s Law Dictionary which defines ‘agent’ as: “A person authorised by another to act for him, one entrusted with another’s business…..” “One authorised to transact all business of principal, all of principal business of some particular kind, or all business of some particular place” etc.

An agent, in my view, means more or less the same thing as a delegate. Similarly, I hold that SSD&AC is a Committee of Council and an agent or delegate of Council of University. The principle of law is that the person to whom an office or duty is delegated cannot lawfully devolve the duty upon another, unless he be expressly authorised so to do. See Huth v. Clarke (1980) 25 QBD J91 and Barnard v. National Dock Labour Board (1983) 1 All E.R. 1113.’

In the instant case, the power of Council to discipline administrative, academic and professional staff of the University under section 15(1) of University of Ilorin Act (ibid) was delegated to it by the University of Ilorin. The Council cannot therefore delegate this power to the SSD&AC which is itself a delegate of the Council.

Under Section 15(1)(c)(i) of the Act, Council in appropriate cases can constitute a joint committee of Council and Senate to investigate the matter and report on it to the Council. Be it noted however that the Committee can only investigate the matter and report it to the Council. The Committee has no power to take a final decision; it is the Council that can do so.”

  1. I have also considered the Court of Appeal decision in the case of Dr. Ajewumi Bili Raji V. University of Ilorin and Others (2006) LPELR-8242(CA), and seen that the decision of the trial Court that the employee was not denied fair hearing under section 15 of the University of Ilorin Act and section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution was affirmed by the Court of Appeal which dismissed the Appeal. Suffice it to add that, his further appeal to the Supreme Court as reported in (2018) LPELR-44692(SC) was struck out on the basis of the Respondents’ Notice of Preliminary Objection that the Notice of Appeal was not signed by any person or Legal Practitioner. The merit of the appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal was not considered by the Apex Court.

 

  1. There is nowhere in these two cases where it was held that a University cannot set up disciplinary committee or panel for the purpose of investigating any erring employee and make recommendations to the Governing Council of the University which has the final say on disciplinary issues relating to Academic, administrative or professional staff. What the Defendants in the instant suit did was to set up a Staff Disciplinary Committee (SDC) which investigated the allegation against the Claimant and made recommendation to the Governing Council. It was the Governing Council that took the decision to dismiss the Claimant from service vide exhibits CW1H, DW8 and DW9. In fact, in Dr. Raji’s case, the Court of Appeal affirmed the powers of a University to set up an investigating panel thus:

“It only stands to reason, that where an allegation of misconduct has been made against an employee, the employer is entitled to set up a panel to investigate the allegation or in this case to refer the allegation to a committee established for such purpose.” The Defendants’ Counsel has argued that the 2nd Defendant has powers to constitute committees pursuant to sections 6, 7 and 24 of the Federal University Otuoke (Establishment) Act 2015, and I cannot agree more with Learned Counsel on this point.

 

  1. I have also seen that the Claimant is relying on exhibits CWIL, CW1M, CWIN, CW1P, CW1Q and CW1R ostensibly as proofs that even when he was in the United Kingdom he was still being assigned students for the purpose of supervision. In the first place, exhibits CW1P and CW1Q do not carry the name of any officer of the University and are also not dated. I do not know how the Claimant intends to place reliance on an unsigned and undated document knowing that in law such document is worthless and not deserving of any probative value. Also, for exhibits CW1L, CW1M, CW1N and CW1R, while I have seen that they carry the name of Dr. Ikaonaworio Eferebo (Acting HOD), the documents are however not dated to indicate that they were indeed issued to the Claimant when he was in the United Kingdom. To hold that the claimant received the documents during the period of his absence is to speculate, and Courts of law take decisions only on the basis of verifiable facts.

 

  1. With respect to his contention that the defendants promoted him in the year 2024 vide exhibit CW1E, let me state that, exhibit CW1E dated 4th April, 2024 is the promotion for the 2022/2023 appraisal exercise, and the promotion was with effect from 1st October, 2019. Having been appraised and qualified for promotion before the disciplinary processes started, it was not out of place to issue the promotion letter to him on the 4th of April, 2024. In any case, since his dismissal from service was with effect from 19th September, 2024, he was still an employee of the defendants albeit on suspension when the promotion letter exhibit CW1E was issued to him on the 4th of April, 2024. This contention by the Claimant is also of no moment.

 

  1. It is therefore the considered view of the Court that the Claimant was duly afforded the opportunity of being heard by the query issued to him which he responded to, and also the invitation to appear before the Staff Disciplinary Committee (SDC). In the case of Dr. Samuel A. Daramola V. Federal University of Technology, Yola (FUTY) and Anor (2026) 4 NWLR (Part 2033) 181, the Supreme Court held as follows with respect to the requirement of fair hearing in disciplinary proceedings at pages 204 - 205, paras. B – C:

“As I have earlier noted, the appellant was given notification of the allegation against him via exhibit F. He have his reply and told his side of the story via exhibit G. Due to the unsatisfactory nature of his response; his case was taken up by the Appointments and Promotions Committee of the University Council. After duly looking into his case, the committee considered a dismissal as the appropriate punishment and recommended same to the council, which in turn approved the decision. In my view, notifying the appellant of the allegations against him, requesting him to respond to the query issued to him and considering his response, satisfied the fair hearing requirement. What is important is that an employee to be dismissed ought to be afforded an opportunity to tell his side of the story, be it orally or in writing. Having been allowed to present his case in writing, there is no basis upon which the appellant can mount his challenge or complaint of lack of fair hearing. 

Learned Counsel for the appellant has complained that it was wrong for the appellants case to have been considered by the Appointments and Promotions Committee rather than the council. With due respect, I do not agree with this position. By the unchallenged evidence on record, the Appointment and Promotions Committee is a committee of the university council. As the council has the responsibility of considering the case of a member of the academic staff whose dismissal is contemplated, there is nothing wrong in the council setting up a committee to look into such cases, provided that the overriding provisions of the enabling Act have not been violated and the committee at all times does not violate the sacred principle of fair hearing. Furthermore, while it was the appointments and promotions committee that deliberated over the case of the appellant, it was the council that made the ultimate decision to dismiss him after considering the report of the committee. This is borne out by exhibit B, which informed the appellant that the council had taken the decision to dismiss him. Can it then be said in the overall circumstances that the council did not consider the appellant’s case? I do not think so.”  

 

  1. There is no doubt that the allegation against the Claimant for being absent without official permission constitutes a misconduct, and having been heard via his response to the query and also invited to appear before the Staff Disciplinary Committee (SDC), the Claimant cannot now be heard to complain that he was not given fair hearing before he was dismissed from service.

 

  1. In the final result, the lone Issue identified for determination is resolved against the Claimant. The suit lacks merit and same is hereby dismissed for want of proof. Judgment is entered accordingly. The parties are to bear their respective costs.

 

 

Hon. Justice P. I. Hamman

Presiding Judge

 

REPRESENTATION:

 

Martin O. Nwabali holding the brief of E. M. Essien for the Claimant.

B. A. Okeh for the Defendants.