IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE AWKA JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT AWKA.

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE J. I. TARGEMA, PhD

 

DATE: JULY 30, 2026                             

SUIT NO: NICN/AWK/07/2022

 

BETWEEN  

Dr. Albert Tobechukwu Nwamaradi                           -                  Claimant 

 

AND

  1. Federal College of Education (Technical) Umunze
  2. The Governing Council, Federal College of 

Education (Technical), Umunze 

  1. Dr. Tessy Okoli (Provost)  
  2. Mrs. B.C. Nkah (Registrar)                                                -                  Defendants

     

 

REPRESENTATION

C.K. Idenyi, Esq., for the Claimant.

P.U.P. Onuorah, Esq., with Obinwa Ezeife, Esq., for the Defendats

 

 JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

  1. The claimant filed this case on 5th April 2022 against the defendants vide a complaint together with accompanying statement of facts, statement on oath, list of documents and copies of the documents. By the complaint and statement of facts, the claimant is praying for the following reliefs:
  2. The declaration by the Honourable Court that the actions of the defendants as enumerated in the paragraphs of the claimants (sic) statement of claim, constitutes acts which constructively coerced the claimant into resigning his appointment from the services of the 1st defendant.
  3. A declaration by the Honourable Court that the claimant was constructively dismissed from the service of the 1st defendant by the actions of the 3rd and 4th defendants.
  4. A declaration by the Honourable Court that the constitution and use of ad hoc committees to try the claimant while in the service of the 1st defendant for offences not known to law is wrong and same to be condemned.
  5. A declaration by the Honourable Court that the 3rd defendant had no capacity to discipline the claimant being that the claimant was a Chief Lecturer in CONPCASS 09 as at 2016.
  6. A declaration by the Honourable Court that the entire proceedings conducted by the Ad Hoc Committee and Senior Staff Disciplinary Committees of the 1st defendant who tried the claimant while in the services of the 1st defendant, grossly violated the claimants (sic) fundamental human right to fair hearing and same should be roundly condemned.
  7. A declaration by the Honourable Court that the actions of the defendants against the claimant was tainted with malice.
  8. A declaration by the Honourable Court that the registration letter of the claimant was duly accepted by the defendants and as such, the defendants do not have any capacity and power to further try the claimant having resigned his job appointment with the 1st and 2nd defendants. 
  9. A declaration by the Honourable Court that the defendants refusal to transfer the service of the claimant to his new place of employment amounts to serious act of malice and withholding of document.
  10. A declaration by the Honourable Court that the letters of the defendants dated 29/10/2021, 14/12/2021 and 1/4/2022 after the claimant has resigned his appointment with the 1st and 2nd defendants amounts to act of ultra vires, same done without capacity, being null, void and of no effect.
  11. A declaration by the Honourable Court that any recommendation and decision on and after the 7th day of April 2022 or so soon thereafter against the claimant during the pendency of this suit is done without capacity, same being null, void and of no effect.
  12. An order of Court compelling the defendants to tender an unalloyed apology to the claimant and same to be published in two national newspapers for constructively dismissing the claimant from the services of the 1st defendant.
  13. A declaration by the Honourable Court that the 3rd defendant defamed the claimant in her publication of 8th October 2019 as contained in the joint counter affidavit in Suit No. HOS/MISC12/2020.
  14. A declaration by the Honourable Court that the 3rd defendant defamed the claimant in her oral publication of Thursday 11th day of November 2021 during an emergency College Management briefing with all staff of Federal College of Education (Technical), Umunze at Dr. Alex Ekwueme Auditorium, Campus 1 when she made the following defamatory publications to wit:
  15. “Sunday Okeke and Dr. Churchill Okonkwo whatever they are writing is Nwamaradi list, they are writing on behalf of Nwamaradi, everything they are writing is Nwamaradi , Nwamaradi, Nwamaradi”. (36:34-36:57).
  16. That is what we want to let the entire College to know, that these two people, I don’t know, those that are fanning them is trying to paint our college in black again. All the things we are trying to clean up our name outside there, since Nwamaradi became the chairman of COEASU with Sunday Okeke, Churchill Okonkwo with all those of them that are in that committee, now in the past, they don’t want to see this College in good light (38:01- 38:31) 
  17. “Since Nwamaradi became the chairman of COEASU with Sunday Okeke, Churchill Okonkwo with all those of them that are in that committee, now in the past, they don’t want to see this College in good light” (38:18-38:44)
  18. “I don’t think that six of them or ten of them is much more than 1000 of us here. Are we going to allow them to do that?” (38:35- 38:43) etc; imputing the claimant as an outlaw which defamed the claimant and instigates staff against the claimant.
  19. An order of Court compelling the defendants transfer the service of the claimant to Nnamdi Azikiwe University Awka with immediate effect.
  20. An order of this Honourable Court restraining the defendants, their privies, cronies, surrogates or any person who takes instructions from them in further interfering with the rights and privileges of the claimant.
  21. An order of Court awarding the claimant the sum of Nine Hundred Million naira (?900,000,000.00) only as damages for the intimidation, harassment, loss of earnings, psychological and emotional trauma suffered by the claimant as a result of his constructive dismissal.
  22. An order of Court awarding the claimant the sum of One Hundred and Fifty Million naira (?150,000,000.00 only to the claimant as damages for the constructive dismissal of the claimant, breach of the claimants (sic) fundamental human right to fair hearing among other reliefs.
  23. And for such order or further orders as the Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances of justice.

 

THE CASE BEFORE THE COURT

  1. The case of the claimant is that he is a Nigerian Citizen and was an employee of the 1st defendant with File No. FCE(T)/UMZ/REG/SP.67 attached to the school of Sciences, Department of Mathematics Education, Federal College of Education (Technical) Umunze until the 10th day of February 2020 when due to the activities and actions of the 3rd and 4th defendants; that he was constructively coerced and forced to resign his appointment with the 1st defendant and secured another appointment with Nnamdi Azikiwe University Awka; that it is the claimant’s case that he was employed by the 1st defendant on 26th day of April, 1991 as an Assistant Lecturer on Temporary Appointment and the appointment was subsequently confirmed vide a letter of confirmation dated 25th day of October, 2007 and to take effect from the 6th day of May 1993. That the claimant was sometime erroneously removed from the services of the 1st defendant via a rationalization exercise of April 1999 and was recalled to the service of the 1st defendant on 22nd day of August 2007 vide a letter captioned “Recall to the Service of Federal College of Education (Technical) Umunze” and was promoted over the years from Assistant Lecturer to the rank of Lecturer II to the rank of Senior Lecturer to the rank of Principal Lecturer and finally to the rank of Chief Lecturer vide the following letters:
    1. “Notification of Promotion” from Assistant Lecturer to Lecturer II dated 28th day of December 1994
    2. “Notification of Promotion” from Lecturer II to Senior Lecturer dated 23rd April, 1996.
    3. “Reduction in rank arising from double Promotion twice” from the rank of Senior Lecturer to Lecturer I dated 5th March 1998.
    4. “Notification of Promotion” from Senior Lecturer I to Senior Lecturer dated 20th July 2009
    5. “Notification of Promotion” from Senior Lecturer to Principal Lecturer dated 25th April 2013.
    6. “Notification of Promotion” from Principal Lecturer to Chief Lecturer dated 6th April 2018 to take effect from 1st October, 2016. 

 

  1. The claimant continued that his promotions with the 1st defendant went through due process and was never found wanting by any of his credentials by the 1st and 2nd defendants, he was not found wanting and continue in the service of the 1st defendant without any interruption. That it is the claimant case that his employment with the 1st defendant is governed by the Regulations Governing the Conditions of Service of Staff of Colleges of Education in Nigeria, herein referred to as “Terms and Condition of Service for Colleges of Education” as contained in the Federal Republic of Nigeria  Revised Condition of Service for Colleges of Education 2015 which made the claimant’s appointment with statutory flavor; that the claimant has served the 1st defendant for Twenty-Nine years without any valid query; that even queries and warnings maliciously issued by the 3rd defendant were withdrawn without reasons by the College management upon the 2nd defendant’s intervention on claimant’s appeal, same was officially communicated to the claimant. That claimant as a staff of 1st defendant was the chairman of College of Education Academic Staff Union (COEASU), of the 1st defendant, and at the same time, the South East Zonal Coordinator of the national Union (COEASU) to the full knowledge of the defendants; that during the claimant tenure as the Chairman of COEASU while in the services of the 1st defendant, in year 2017, there was a notice of industrial action COEASU of the 1st defendant owing to illegal deduction of Peculiar Academic Allowance from the salaries of the academic staff; that owing to this notice of industrial action by COEASU of the 1st defendant, the management of the 1st defendant employed divide-and-rule strategy and split the Union leading to the emergence of “Aggrieved Members of COEASU”.  

 

  1. The claimant submitted that Dr T.O. Okoli (the 3rd defendant) was one of the leading members of the said “Aggrieved Members of COEASU”; that the 3rd defendant midwifed the (sic) petition captioned “Conduct likely to cause Breach of Public Peace: An Appeal for Police Urgent Action” alongside others to the Divisional Police Officer (DPO) against the claimant for alleged “Criminal Abuse of Office” dated 11th April, 2017, just in a bid to destabilize the claimant’s office. That the constitution of the COEASU (as amended 2016) provided for the right of an individual member in article 17 on grievances procedure which was not complied with by the 3rd defendant and her cohorts; that the police never found the claimant guilty of any of the offences raised in the petition herein afore cited; that the Constitution of College of Education Academic Staff Union (COEASU) (as amended 2016) provided for the right of an individual member in article 17 on grievances procedure which was not complied by the 3rd defendant and her cohorts; that the 3rd defendant shortly became the Provost of the 1st defendant and took over administration on 28th May, 2018 from where the 3rd defendant decided to unduly use her office and power to witch hunt the claimant against the provisions of Chapter 18.1.2(iii) of the Terms and Conditions of Service for Staff of Colleges of Education; that in September 2018, there was a national industrial action by the national union of COEASU in respect of stalled renegotiation of a           new national minimum wage which all chairmen of chapters were required to monitor compliance and the claimant as the chairman of COEASU of the 1st defendant was actively involved.

 

  1. The claimant went on that some members of the “Aggrieved members of COEASU” namely: Mr. Chidi Uzor, Mr. K.C. Agajelu and Dr. D.I. Okoli (brother in-law to the 3rd defendant) sabotaged the strike conditions and were queried by the Chairman of COEASU (who is the claimant); that these queried members of the union reported their case to the Provost (the 3rd defendant) who in reaction threatened to deal with the Chairman of the union (the claimant); that when the matter got to the national leadership of the union, it endorsed the queries issued by the chapter chairman (the claimant) as union’s internal disciplinary measures which was neither intended to undermine the 1st defendant’s administrative machinery nor a witch hunt of members of the union issued with the queries; that the national union regretted reporting the matter to the 3rd defendant and stated in its letter dated 2nd January 2019 to the 3rd defendant that the union could not, under the circumstances, have referred the matter to the 3rd defendant for adjudication; that the 3rd defendant has no respect and regard for the statutory guidelines of committees as provided by the “Revised Conditions of Service for Colleges of Education (RCSCE)”. That in line with the democratic culture in the College, representatives of Unions are normally invited by the 1st defendant whenever decision(s) which will affect staff either in promotions, discipline, or any other matter is being taken and despite the fact that the Civil Services rule provide for statutory committees charged with the responsibility of discipline and promotions of staff, the 3rd defendant resorted to constituting ad hoc committees for offences that are not known to the Terms and Conditions of Service for Colleges of Education against the claimant, all in a bid to constructively put the claimant out of service; that the Civil Service Rule provides that the members of a Committee or panel shall be selected with due regard to the status of the officer involved in the disciplinary case but the 3rd defendant selects Committees for the claimants trial from members of the defunct “Aggrieved Members of COEASU without regard to the claimant’s rank as a chief lecturer.

 

  1. The claimant further submitted that on 11th October 2018, the claimant was summoned to appear before an Ad hoc Committee against an alleged letter of complaint written against the claimant by one Oselu Christopher C. with registration number NCE/FAA/2015/15991; that the 3rd defendant in constituting the Ad Hoc Committee to try the Claimant appointed Dr. Mrs. Okafor and Dr. Ifenyinwa Udegbe who were members of the defunct “Aggrieved Members of COEASU” and signatories to the petition herein afore stated in paragraph 17(d) against the claimant and the 3rd defendant’s brother in-law, Dr. Dave Okoli; including Ms Obiageli Odika who are avowed enemies to the claimant and no Union representative was invited during the claimant’s trial by the ad-hoc committee on the alleged letter of complaint by Oselu Christopher C, which is a denial of the claimant’s fundamental right to fair hearing; that the claimant orally reminded the Ad-Hoc Committee that by the conditions of service that the 3rd defendant does not have the power to discipline officers on CONPCASS 07 and above and that such power rest solely with the 2nd defendant as provided in Chapter 5.0.4 of the conditions of service; that the claimant requested to see the alleged complaint letter of Oselu Christopher C from the ad-hoc committee for which he is being tried, which the ad-hoc committee refused to oblige claimant. That the claimant applied to the 3rd defendant for a copy of the alleged complaint letter of Oselu Christopher C. for which he was standing trial vide a letter dated the 16th day of January 2019 and captioned Re: Application for letter of complaint of one Oselu Christopher C.; that the claimant was denied opportunity of sighting or reacting to the alleged letter of complaint of Christopher Oselu C. with registration number NCE/FAA/2015/15991.

 

  1. The claimant went on that in reply his application for the letter of complaint by one Oselu Christopher C, the 3rd defendant refused the said application on the grounds that it was a college classified document via a letter dated the 16/01/2019; that the ad-hoc committee without fair hearing denied the claimant, the opportunity of seeing his accuser, asking him question(s) if any and without allowing the claimant a glance of the purported complaint found the claimant guilty in fantastic offence tagged as “involvement in a matter that did not concern you”. That the 3rd defendant without capacity issued the claimant with a letter of advice for an unknown offence in respect of Oselu Christopher C. alleged complaint without regards to the provisions of the Terms and Conditions of Service of Staff of College of Education; that the claimant reacted against the letter of advice via a letter dated the 7th day of January 2019 wherein the claimant raised some issues bothering on the breach of his fundamental human right to fair hearing; that the claimant applied for the Certified True Copy of the Record of proceedings by the Ad-Hoc Committee report on The Alledged (sic) Letter of Complaint Written by Oselu Christopher C. NCE/FAA/2015/15991  which was disregarded by the defendants. That in yet another development, students called the claimant as Academic Board Representative in the 6th Governing Council of the 2nd defendant on 31/7/2019 and complained of the irregularity in the student union election processes; and the claimant advised them in his capacity as the academic board representatives to officially route their complaint to the 3rd defendant.

 

  1. He claimant submitted that shortly after answering students’ call on 31/7/2019 the claimant in his capacity as an academic board representative sent a text message to the 3rd defendant and informed her of students’ complaint on the election processes; that on Thursday 1st August 2019, the student copied the claimant a letter captioned “Marginalization of Anglicans in Federal College of Education as Regards Student Union Politics”. That on the 2nd day of September 2019, the claimant was again copied in another letter by the students captioned “Lack of Confidence and Trust in the 5- Man (sic) College Committee on the Suspended SUG Election set up by the College Management.” The claimant was copied alongside others as college representative in council; that in another development, on the 14th September 2019, one Mrs Nnubia Callistus C. on the instruction of the 3rd defendant sent the claimant a text message to wit: “Good morning Dr. Nwamaradi. I am directed to inform you that the committee on the suspended SUG election wish to have a session with you as College/COEASU representative in College Council on Monday, 16th September 2019 at 10 am in the office of the Dean, Agri/Homec. Thanks, Mrs Nnubia Callistus C. at about 6:50 am” inviting the claimant to a session with the Ad-Hoc Committee on suspended SUG election in his capacity as College/COEASU representative in the College Council. That the claimant honoured the informal invitation and observed by way of oral questions to wit:
    1. Why he was not officially invited.
    2. The type of Committee to enable him respond appropriately.
    3. The Committee was meant for student union and no student representative. was in the membership of the Committee.
    4. Why his invitation.

That after the claimant’s session with the Ad-Hoc Committee on the suspended SUG election as COEASU representative on the 16th day of September 2019, the claimant attention was drawn by a friend to a false allegation in a publication as contained in paragraph 7(iii) and 7(vi) of the 3rd, 12th and 13th defendants joint counter affidavit dated 8th October 2019 deposed to by the Secretary to the Ad-Hoc Committee on the suspended SUG election with an alleged authority and oral consent of the 1st to the 3rd defendants.

 

  1. The claimant went on that his attention was equally drawn to the attachment in the joint counter affidavit being a report of the Committee on the suspended SUG election dated 2oth Sept 2019 marked as Exhibit R6 and Exhibit R9 as contained in paragraph 7(iii) and &(vi) respectively; that after the publication by the defendants as contained in the joint counter affidavit date 8th October 2019 exhibiting the Report of the Committee on SUG election, the claimant received a query dated 9th December 2019 which claimed that the claimant’s meeting with the Ad-Hoc Committee on SUG election metamorphosed into student’s crises that took place on 2nd August 2019. The query was no longer to the claimant as COEASU representative but the said query was issued to the claimant in his personal capacity without specifying particular acts of wrongdoing as provided in the conditions of service; that the claimant was never communicated either orally or in writing as to have been indicted after his session with the Ad-Hoc Committee on the suspended SUG election and was never tried by any committee prior to the publication of the defendants as contained in the joint counter affidavit of 8th October 2019. That the defendant hurriedly met on the 20/9/2019 for the purposes of receiving the report of the Committee on suspended SUG election which was submitted the same day and same acted upon by the defendants for the purposes of attaching same as an exhibit in Suit No. Hos/Misc 12/2019; that the claimant replied the query of the defendant wherein he raised some very fundamental issues as to his being denied fair hearing in a letter dated the 11th day of December 2019. That on 20th January 2020, the claimant was invited by the Senior Staff Disciplinary Committee in his personal capacity for an alleged interaction as regard the case of an alleged involvement in students’ politics against him; that the claimant attended the invitation by the Senior Staff Disciplinary Committee, and observed before that his indictment and recommended punishment had already been published in the joint counter affidavit filed at the High Court of Anambra State of Nigeria, In the High Court of Orumba South Judicial Division holden at Umunze in Suit No. HOS/MISC.12/2020 and that he did not feel comfortable in defending himself in a matter which decision and punishment had been recommended by the Ad-Hoc Committee on suspended SUG election.

 

  1. The claimant further submitted that the COEASU representative during his trial by SSDC told the claimant and he verily believed him that he was tried using a pre-record audio played on the 30th January 2020 claimed by the 2nd defendant as the claimant’s voice without recourse to hearing from the claimant; that the claimant was never confronted by the defendants with the purported audio record purporting to be his voice before or after the use; that the claimant applied through his counsel for the certified true copy of the records of proceedings of the Senior Staff Disciplinary Committee dated the 9th March 2020 to the 3rd defendant and his Union (COEASU). The management of the 1st defendant ignored the application. That the Chairman of COEASU forwarded a copy of the union’s minority report on the SSDC trial of the claimant dated 5/2/2020 made to the 3rd defendant; that following the concomitant panels on fabricated offences without due process and libels to the claimants hard earned image, he was coerced to resigned his appointment from the service of the 1st defendant with effect from 10/2/2020 via a letter dated 6th February 2020; that equally owing to the concomitant fraught abuse of the claimant’s fundamental rights especially rights to fair hearing, freedom of speech and oppressive work environment the claimant resigned his membership of the 2nd defendant via a letter dated 7th February 2020 wherein he stated his reasons for resigning his appointment with the 1st defendant which amounts to constructive dismissal.

 

  1. The claimant continued that owing to the concomitant threats, witch hunt, vendetta and fraught abuse of the claimant’s fundamental human rights he was coerced to resign and take up a rank and monthly financial take home that is very below his rank in Nnamdi Azikiwe University Awka without negotiation; that the claimant letter of resignation from the services of the 1st defendant was noted by the defendants via a letter dated 17th February 2020; that the claimant shell contend that the defendant haven noted his resignation vide a letter dated the 17/2/2020 has no powers and capacity to entertain and handle any other issue(s) concerning the claimant haven resigned from the services of the 1st defendant. that the claimant, by way of reply to the letter of 17/2/2020 vide a letter dated 9th March 2020 demanded to know what allegations that were pending against him as raised in paragraph 3 of the defendants’ letter of 17/2/2020 which said letter was never replied till the claimant applied for his transfer of service to Nnamdi Azikiwe University Awka his new place of employ, and was ignored by the defendants; that on the 14th day of May 2020, he 3rd defendant wrote a false petition to the Commissioner of Police captioned “Re: Arson in the College and Threat to Kidnap Members of the College Management and their Family Members” against the claimant without primary investigation. That petition was written the same day the alleged arson happened; that following the Police invitation and arrest of the claimant in 2020 and the subsequent grant of administrative bail, the case has since remained in abeyance, notwithstanding several letters written by the claimant to the Police urging the conclusion of investigation into the matter.

 

  1. The claimant submitted that until date police has not done anything nor invited the claimant in respect of the alleged arson and kidnap by the 3rd defendant; that the National leadership of the claimant’s union demanded to know how the claimant being a former Zonal Coordinator and Chapter Chairman was alleged to be involved in arson and kidnap through the Union Chairman and Secretary of the 1st defendant; that the reply by the defendants to that demand of the Union’s National  Leadership was a query to the person of the Secretary for holding brief for the claimant who is a non-staff of the College; that the claimant petitioned to the Presidential Visitation Panel to the 1st defendant, via a letter of 7th May 2021 and captioned “arbitrary use of power leading to: abuse of my rights, libel to my person & constructive dismissal”; that on 5th October 2021, the claimant applied for the transfer of his service from the 1st defendant to Nnamdi Azikiwe University Awka; that rather than the defendants complying with the claimant’s letter of 5/10/2021, the 3rd defendant scheduled an emergency briefing of the 2nd defendant with all her staff on Thursday 11th November 2021, and there at the meeting, made some defamatory publications against the claimant in the following words:
  2. “Sunday Okeke and Dr. Churchill Okonkwo whatever they are writing is Nwamaradi list, they are writing on behalf of Nnwamaradi, everything they are writing is Nnwamaradi, Nnwamaradi, Nnwamaradi, Nnwamaradi” (36:32)
  3. “Nnwamaradi want to use them to destroy this our college peace”
  4. “Since Nnwamaradi became the chairman of COEASU with Sunday Okeke, Churchill Okonkwo with all those of them that are in that committee, now in the past, they don’t want to see this College in good light (38:18)
  5. I don’t think that six of them or ten of them is much more than 1000 of us. Are we going to allow them to do that?” (38:31) etc. by accusing me of being the cause of the problems in the 1st defendant institution imputing me as an outlaw which defamed me.

That the defendants suddenly woke up and issued the claimant with a letter dated the 29th day of October 2021, dated the 14th December 2021 and a letter dated the 14/2/2022 purporting to be a reply to claimant letter of 5th October 2021 on transfer of service and an invitation with session with the Senior Staff Disciplinary Committee of the 1st defendant in respect of his NYSC discharged Certificate which had never been in issue until the claimant resigned from the services of the 1st defendant and applied for the transfer of his service with the 1st defendant.

 

  1. The claimant further submitted that even after he has successfully resigned from the services of the defendants while awaiting his transfer of service from the defendants, the 4th defendant in active connivance with the 3rd defendant has continued to annoy, intimidate and derogate the claimant by issuing him with query dated the 3rd March 2022 alleging that he was wrongly employed with the 1st defendant; that the actions of the defendants in using ad hoc committees in trying the claimant for offences not known to the Terms and Conditions of Service for Colleges of Education amounts to forcing the claimant to carry out his work in an unsafe or substandard environment; that the refusal of the defendants to deal with the claimant’s grievances raised timeously and failure to carry out a disciplinary process fairly or in line with procedure establishing the claimant’s relationship has made it impossible for the claimant to continue in his job with the defendants which by implication has denied the claimant duty of trust and confidence and as a result of the claimant been bullied in his workplace has left with no other option but to resign; coupled with their refusal to transfer the claimant’s record of service to his new place of work hence this suit.

 

THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE DEFENDANTS

  1. The defendants submitted four issues for determination, namely:
  2. Whether claimant has a valid appointment with 1st defendant, from which he is capable of resigning or being constructively dismissed.
  3. Assuming without conceding that the claimant has a valid appointment with the 1st defendant; whether the defendants can be compelled to transfer claimant’s file/service to any institution, being a discretionary responsibility of the defendants and having in mind the resignation notice of the claimant (Exhibit CW40)
  4. Whether in the circumstances of this case, claimant has proved his case on the preponderance of evidence to be entitled to judgment
  5. Whether the defendants are entitled to their counter-claim

 

  1. For issue (1), the defendant answered the above issue in the negative and submitted that the claimant does not have a valid appointment with the 1st defendant from which he is capable of resigning and/or being constructively dismissed; that Exhibits CW1 and CW2 juxtaposed with Exhibit DW1 are null and void; that Exhibits CW1 and CW2 are claimant ‘s letter of offer of Appointment and Letter confirmation of appointment, both dated 26/4/1991 and 25/10/2007 respectively. Exhibit DW1 is claimant’s National Youth Service Corp (NYSC) Certificate dated 1st May, 1993; that it is important to note that the claimant was employed in the services of the 1st defendant more than two years before he possessed the qualification NYSC Certificate for the employment; that claimant’s employment/appointment with the 1st defendant is fundamental irregular and void abi ni tio (sic).

 

  1. The defendants further submitted that Chapter 2, Regulation 2.1.1 (ii) of revised terms and conditions of service for colleges of Education, 2015 (Exhibit CW11) provides that an applicant employment in Federal College of Education (including 1st defendant) must possess the requisite qualifications provided in the Scheme of Service or as may be specified from time to time. The defendants’ counsel referred the Court to the provision of Scheme of Service for the Federal Colleges of Education and Federal Polytechnic, 1989 on method of entry/appointment/employment of Assistant Lecturer (which claimant applied for and was employed); that the said provision specifically provides thus:

“By appointment of a holder of good honors degree or equivalent recognized qualification with NYSC Certificate plus evidence of Post-Secondary Teaching Qualification.”

The defendants continued that the claimant never had any of the above mandatory requirements as at the time of his employment with the 1st defendant to wit:

  1. A holder of good honors degree or equivalent recognized qualification.
  2. A holder of NYSC Certificate.
  3. A holder with evidence of Post-Secondary Teaching Qualification.

The defendants submitted that one of the requisites for the appointment into service of the 1st defendant is the National Youth Service Corp (NYSC) Certificate; that section 12 of NYSC Act Cap N84, LFN, 2004 made it mandatory for every employer to demand from an applicant, an evidence that he has completed his youth service, to show the seriousness of this requirement, section 13 of the said NYSC Act, criminalize the contravention of any provisions of the Act. In the instant case, it is in evidence that the claimant was appointed into the service of the College on 26th April 1991 (Exhibit CW1) before he obtained his NYSC Certificate in May 1993 (Exhibit DW1). The defendant further submitted that none possession of the said NYSC Certificate at the time of employment renders the claimant employment void ab inito.

 

  1. The defendants went on that when the claimant was confronted under cross-examination on 6/2/2024 with this fundamental mischief on his appointment/employment in the service of the 1st defendant, the claimant 2024 (sic) admitted, he was aware he had no NYSC Certificate, but claimed his appointment was probationary. The defendants’ counsel cited NICN/ABJ/138/2015 Anthony Achi Ikor v. Bureau of Public Procurement, published on https://www.nicnadr.gov.ng/judgment/details.php?id=8005, in considering the status of an employment without the requisite NYSC Certificate or exemption held thus:

“By section 12(1) of the NYSC Act and paragraph 7.1 of the staff condition of service; possession and presentation of either NYSC discharge certificate or the exemption certificate is a prerequisite for employment in the defendant. the fact that the claimant did not possess either NYSC discharge certificate or exemption certificate at the time of his employment made him unqualified for employment by the defendant. The claimant’s employment was therefore faulty and irregular ab initio. It was entered into in contravention of the NYSC Act. The employment was not a valid or lawful employment. A contract entered into contrary to provisions of a statute is illegal and the Courts cannot enforce such a contract. See Felix George and Company Ltd v. Afinotan (2015) All FWLR (Pt. 778) 920 at 951.” Underline supplied for emphasis.

 

  1. On the effect of Exhibit CW2 (Claimant’s Confirmation of Appointment). The defendants submitted that it is settled that one cannot place something on nothing and expect it to stand. See the dictum of Lord Denning in Macfoy v. United Africa Co. Ltd. (1961) 3 All ER 1169. The defendants contended that the void status of claimant’s Exhibit CW1 cannot be remedied by Exhibit CW2, especially where Exhibit CW2 attempts to act in retrospect, by purporting to confirm claimant’s earlier appointment as an Assistant Lecturer; that mention must be made that before Exhibit CW2 in 2007 (sic), the claimant had on the strength of Exhibit CW1, climbed the promotion ladder as Assistant Lecturer and Lecturer II, among other promotions. The defendants contended that an employment entered in violation of mandatory statutory requirements for such an employment is invalid null and void. Thus, where a statute prescribes requirements for validly of any act, failure to comply with the requirements vitiates and voids the act. The defendants referred the Court to Okwuosa v. Gomwalk (2017) All FWLR (Pt. 882) 1182 at 1209. That the claimant’s employment with the defendant is void ab initio. Its implication is that there was no valid employment in the first place from which the claimant can resign or constructively dismissed as alleged by the claimant. The defendants urged the Court to so hold, thereby resolving this issue in favor of the defendants.

 

  1. For issue (2), Assuming without conceding that the claimant has a valid appointment with the 1st defendant; whether the defendants can be compelled to transfer claimant’s file/service to any institution, being a discretionary responsibility of the defendants and having in mind the resignation notice of the claimant (Exhibit CW40). The defendants answer the above in the negative and submitted that the defendants in the circumstances of this case, cannot be compelled to transfer the claimant’s file to Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka or any Institution; that this is because the decision or recommendation for transfer of file/service of any staff, like the claimant is the responsibility of the Management Committee as provided in Regulation 4.0.2 of the Revised Civil Service Rules, 2015 (Exhibit CW11); that in doing so, the committee looks at the record of the applicant to determine, whether there are pending disciplinary issues against such applicant; accounts for college’s property among others. See Exhibit CW48. This recommendation of the relevant committees, leave the discretion on whether or not to transfer with the 2nd defendant. 

 

  1. The defendants continued that the claimant’s resignation from the service of 1st defendant terminates any inherent right of transfer (if any), as it affects his service to any other institution. The defendants referred the Court to Elukpo v. MD, FMC, Lokoja (2021) LPELR-53104 (CA), the Court of Appeal at Pp 10-12 paras E-A in considering the meaning of mandamus and instance in which order of mandamus will not be granted held thus:

“Furthermore, when an applicant approaches a Court to compel a Court, Tribunal of authorities, he is like in the instant case calling for order of mandamus. Mandamus has been classically defined as a writ issued from a Court of competent jurisdiction commanding inferior Tribunal, board or corporation to perform a purely ministerial duty or mandatory duty where there is a clear legal right in the plaintiff and a corresponding duty on defendant and a want of any other appropriate and adequate remedy. See Ayida & ors v. Town Planning Authority & anor (2013) LPELR; Amasike v. The Registrar General CAC (2010) LPLER-456 (SC) and Associated Discount House Ltd v. Minister of FCT 2013) LPELR-20088 (SC) where Ariwoola, JSC, gave the nature of mandamus to include the facts that the order of mandamus will only issue to a body, person(s) or co-operation requiring him or them to do some particular thing therein special which pertains to his or their office and it is in the nature of a public duty. There must be a public duty and not merely a discretionary right in the proposed recipient of the order. A situation where the appellant is seeking for a confirmation of an information not within the domain of the respondent cannot be subjected to an order of mandamus. The learned trial judge in all the circumstances of this case cannot be faulted for the decision he gave refusing the order of mandamus.”

The defendants submitted that by the provisions of Exhibit CW11 (Revised Civil Service Rules, 2015, Regulation 4.0.2 thereof) it is the discretionary power of defendants to recommend such a transfer of file. The recommendation starts with Appointments and Promotions Committee to the Management Committee, then to the Council (2nd defendant). The defendants contended that there is no such legal right in the claimant, nor a concomitant responsibility on the defendants to warrant the order from the Court.

 

  1. The defendants went on that the claimant has not shown that the Management Committee of the 2nd defendant, through the Appointments and Promotions Committee, in compliance with Exhibit CW11, have recommended the transfer of his files to Nnamdi Azikiwe University, but for the refusal of 2nd defendant to approve same. Exhibit CW48 and 49 (sic) are clear on what the claimant must do to have his file transferred. The defendants cited the case of CBN v. System Application Product (Nig) Ltd (2004) LPELR-5432 (CA) the Court, Per Ibrahim Tanko Muhamad, JCA (Pp 23-24, Paras D-E) in answering the question “at what point will a Court not make an order of mandamus” held thus:

“There are also circumstances were order of mandamus cannot be granted. These circumstances are- (i) where there is a discretion to act. See Akintemi & ors. v. Prof Onwumechili & ors (1985) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1) 68, (1985) 1 SC 132 at page 173. (ii) where the order asks for something which is impossible of performance. (iii) where the doing of the act ordered would involve contravention of the law. See The Republic v. Registrar of Trade Marks (1967) NMLR 324. (iv) where there is alternative specific remedy at law which is not less convenient beneficial and effective. See R v. Registrar of Joint Stock Companies (1888) 21 QBD 131; Prof Onwumechill’s case (supra). (v) where there has been undue delay by the applicant before bringing his application. See Broughton v. Com. of Stamp Duties (1889) AC 25. Vol. II, Pg. 84 of Halbury Laws of England provides thus: "Mandamus is an order of a most extensive remedial nature and is, in form, a command issuing from High Court of Justice, directed to any person, corporation, or inferior tribunal requiring him or them to do particular thing therein specified which appertains to his or their office and in the nature of public duty. Where a statute, which imposes a duty, leaves discretion as to the mode of performing duty in the hands of the party, on whom the obligation is laid, mandamus cannot command the duty in question to be carried out in a specific way.” (Underline Ours) 

That the compliance with the provisions of Revised Terms and Conditions of Service for Colleges of Education should be encouraged in the circumstances; that the defendants cannot be compelled to act, where the provisions of chapter 4 of the Revised Terms and Condition of Service for Colleges of Education, 2015, have not been complied with. The defendants urged the Court to so hold and resolve this issue in favour of the defendants.

 

  1. On issue (3), Whether in the circumstances of this case, claimant has proved his case on the preponderance of evidence to be entitled to judgment. The defendants answer the above in the negative and submitted that the claimant has not prove his case on the preponderance of evidence as to be entitled to judgment; that the law is settled that he who asserts must prove his assertion, founded in the latin maxim: ‘Affirmanti non neganti, incumbit probotio.’ The Supreme Court relied on section 131(1) of Evidence Act 2011 and reiterated this principle in the case of Sharing Cross Educational Services Ltd v. Umaru Adamu Enterprise Ltd & ors (2020) LPELR-49567 (SC), Per Ejembi Eko, JSC (Pp 7-8, Paras F-A) where it held that: 

“Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right/liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those empirical facts exist.” 

That the crux of the claimant’s case is that he was constructively coerced to resign from the service of the 1st defendant and that despite his resignation from the service of the 1st defendant, the defendants have refused to transfer his file and/or service to Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka; that the summary of the case of the claimant can be said to be the alleged willful refusal by the defendants to transfer his file or service to another public service. That the question now left to be answered by the Court, is whether on the strength of Exhibits CW48 and CW49, the defendants willfully refused to transfer the claimant’s file to his new place of service?”

 

  1. The defendants went on that neither Exhibit CW48 and CW49 nor any other piece of evidence placed before the Court by claimant established the alleged willful refusal on the part of the defendants to transfer claimant’s file/service to Nnamdi Azikiwe University. That by the combine reading of Regulation 2.6 and 4.0.2 of Revised Terms and Conditions of Service for Colleges of Education, 2015 (Exhibit CW11), and sections 6(1(j), 12(1), 15 and 17 of Federal Colleges of Education Act, CAP. F8 LFN 2004, the defendants are empowered to keep records and look into the files of its staff, including the claimant; that the claimant admitted this, when he was confronted on the issue during cross examination on 6th February, 2024 as follows:

“It is true as suggested to me that the 2nd defendant is empowered to regularly review and audit files of staff of the college, including me.”

That the claimant was not honest about his service records or relationship with the defendants. When confronted during cross-examination in respect of queries issued to him, the claimant admitted he had been issued series of queries and was also indicated by the disciplinary committee, alongside one Dr. Churchill, over their unruly activities and actions in the college. The defendants referred the Court to Exhibit DW2 (report on the work history of the Claimant with the 1st defendant); that Exhibit CW48, CW49, CW50 and CW51 showed the reason for the delay in the transfer of the claimant’s file/service to Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka. 

 

  1. The defendants submitted that Exhibits CW48, CW49, CW50 and CW51 showed there are pending issues and queries between the claimant and the defendants. That the said exhibits further confirmed that the claimant was duly invited by the defendants to come and clear the issues, but the claimant bluntly refused. The defendants further submitted that there is nothing the claimant has set out to achieve in this suit, other than to shield himself from investigation, over the offence committed in his employment with the 1st defendant. it is settled law that a party cannot use the Court as a shield from investigation. The defendants cited the case of Omereonye v. Asst. IGP. Zone ll & ors (2019) LPELR-50690 (CA) where the Court held thus:

“I don’t think it is open t the Appellant to seek to use the judicial process to forestall his being investigated by the Police. The law is that a person should not go to Court in order to be shielded against criminal investigation as that will be on interference with the powers given to law officers in respect of criminal investigation. The Court is not to issue a judicial fiat preventing law enforcement agencies from the exercise of their statutory powers. See AG Anambra State v. Chris Uba (2005) 15 NWLR (Pt. 947) 44 at 67.”

That the claimant has two options, either to clear the ambiguity in his employment with the 1st defendant or forgo the transfer of the said file/service; that the claimant has not proved his case on preponderance of evidence to warrant the Court issue an order of mandamus against the defendants to transfer the claimant’s service to Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka or in the alternative, be entitled to judgment. The defendants urged the Court to so hold, thereby resolving this issue in favor of the defendants and also urged the Court to dismiss the case of the claimant in its entirety with punitive cost being an abuse of the process of Court.

     

  1. On issue (4), is Whether the defendants are entitled to their counter-claim? The defendants answer this question in the positive and submitted that the defendants are entitled to their counter-claim having proved their case on the balance of probability. It is the case of the defendants that the claimant was employed in the service of the 1st defendant in absolute disregard of the provisions of the relevant Public Service Rules; Terms and Conditions of Service for Colleges of Education as well as the provisions of the NYSC Act, Cap N84 LFN, 2004. That this was possible mischievously crafted because the claimant was assisted by his relation, Mr. Titus Eze, who was the then Provost of the 1st defendant; that the claimant admitted this fact when he answered as follows during cross-examination:

“Yes, I do know one Mr. Titus Eze, He was one time my Provost. It is true as suggested to me by counsel to the defendants that at one time in April 1991, Titus Eze was the provost of the 1st defendant. Mr. Titus Eze was the provost, who employed me. Mr. Titus Eze is from the same Local Government with me. As at the time of my employment, I had not yet gone for NYSC with a reason.”

The defendants submitted that a contract entered into contrary to provisions of a statute is illegal and the Courts cannot enforce such a contract; that this mischief in the employment of the claimant was discovered by the audit/review of the record of staff recently conducted by the defendants, which compelled claimant to tender his resignation, knowing that he has been exposed; that section 12 of the NYSC Act, Cap N84, LFN, 2004 made it mandatory for every employer to demand from an applicant, an evidence that he/she has completed his youth service. The defendant continued that to show the seriousness of this requirement, section 13 of the NYSC Act, Cap N84, LFN, 2004 went further to criminalize the contravention of any provisions of the Act. In the instant case, it is in evidence that the claimant was appointed into the service of the College (1st defendant) on 26th April, 1991 (Exhibit CW1) before he obtained his NYSC Discharge Certificate in May, 1993 (Exhibit DW1).

 

  1. It is the defendants’ contention that the entirety of the claimant’s confirmation, promotion and service in the 1st defendants is null and void. The defendants rely on the decision of this Court in Anthony Achi Ikor v. Bureau of Public Procurement (supra) and also on the judgment of this Court in Suit No. NICN/ABJ/20/2023 Saifullah Muhammad Aliyu v. Nigeria Ports Authority published at https://www.nicnadr.gov.ng/judgment.php?id. That the claimant is bound therefore, to refund all renumeration received while in the service of the 1st defendant from 1991 till the date of his resignation; that the case of the defendants remained unchallenged and uncontroverted. It is trite that uncontroverted and unchallenged evidence stands and should be accepted by the Court as long as such evidence is credible and admissible; that in such a situation there is nothing to put on the imaginary scale and it is the duty of Court to rely and act on such evidence. The defendants rely on SPDCN Ltd v. Edamkue (2009) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1160) Pg. 1 at 33; Amadi v. Orlu (2023) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1904) 319. That the evidence of defendant’s (sic) witness even during cross examination remained unshaken. The defendants urged the Court to rely on it in entering judgment for the defendants and resolve this issue in favor of the defendants and also enter judgment for the defendants as per their counter-claim.

 

  1. In conclusion, the defendants submitted that it is manifest from the evidence before the Court that the claimant did not prove the case of constructive dismissal from employment or the willful refusal of the defendants to transfer his file/service to Nnamdi Azikiwe University; that the claimant is not entitled to judgment as per the reliefs in his claim and the defendants urged the Court to dismiss the claimant’s case with heavy costs and enter judgment in favour of the defendants as per their counter-claim.

 

THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE CLAIMANT

  1. The claimant submitted four issues for determination, namely:
    1. Whether the claimant has a valid appointment with the 1st defendant.
    2. Whether the defendants can be compelled to transfer claimant’s service records.
    3. Whether considering the totality of all that transpired between the claimant and the defendants, if the claimant was given fair hearing.
    4. Whether the claimant as proved his case on the balance of convenience to entitle him to his claims/reliefs sought in this suit.

 

  1. For issue (1), the claimant submitted that for the purposes of this final written address on the issue of the validity of the claimant’s appointment, it is posited that by the provision Federal Republic of Nigeria Revised Conditions of Service for Colleges of Education 2015 at Chapter 2 page 7 which bothers on appointment particularly at 2.5 1(b) the appointment of the claimant was made in accordance with the same Rules guiding Colleges of Education which by the same rules as provided at 13 2.7 the appointment was confirmed which now made same appointment with statutory flavor. That by the provision of section 2.7 of the Condition of Service for Colleges of Education which provides for procedure for the confirmation of appointments Article 2.7.1 provides thus: “To be eligible for conformation of appointment in the College, an officer appointed on probation is required to pass the prescribed examination during his probationary period and to complete his probationary period to the satisfaction of the authority empowered to appoint him at the end of the period of probation and passing the prescribed examination the offer will be confirmed in his appointment .” it is submitted by counsel to the claimant that the claimant satisfied the statutory appointment authority, to earn confirmation, any irregularity at inception of the claimant’s appointment as cured once the Governing Council confirmed same.

 

  1. Learned counsel to the claimant referred the Court to Exhibits CW2, CW4, CW5, CW6, CW7, CW8 and CW9 in urging the Court to find issue (1) in favour of the claimant. Counsel to claimant further commended the Court to the case of Olaniyan v. UNILAG (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 9) 599; Musa Yunusa v. Kogi State College of Education (sic) wherein the held (sic) that employment with statutory flavor cannot be terminated except in strict compliance with the laid down procedure in the enabling statute.

 

  1. For issue (2), on whether defendants can be compelled to transfer claimant’s service records, the claimant answered in the affirmative on grounds that transfer of service records (it is submitted) that it is a statutory duty not discretion, once employment is valid; that the claimant haven (sic) commenced his appointment with the defendant (sic) up to his resignation is as of a right entitled to the transfer of his record service to his new place of employ; that the defendants are bound to transfer same on the application of the claimant.

 

  1. The claimant referred the Court to the case of Olufeagba v. Abdul-Raheem (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 384; where the Supreme Court held that: 1. Where employment is governed by statute, the employer must comply with the statute. That mandamus lies to compel performance of statutory duties, especially where refusal is malicious or oppressive; applied in this the defendants have a statutory duty under the Federal Colleges of Education Act to maintain and transfer service records they cannot refused (sic) arbitrarily. Based on the cited authority, the claimant urged the Court to hold that the defendants are bound to transfer the record of service of the claimant to his new place of employ.

 

  1. On issue 3, the claimant’s answer is in the negative that the claimant was not given fair hearing and fair trial; that in prove (sic) of the facts, the Court was referred to Exhibits CW13, CW14, CW16, CW21, CW26, CW28, CW30, CW34, CW35, CW38, CW43, CW40, CW41, CW44, CW47, CW50, CW52, CW55, CW56, CW57, CW58 and CW59 which demonstrated systemic bias and denial of fair hearing, proving refusal to hear the claimant was malicious. Exhibit CW16 shows that the 3rd defendant on record (Dr. T.O. Okoli was (Serial No. 2), while Dr. Mrs. E.N. Okafor (Serial No. 28), Mrs. Nkem Okafor (Serial No. 58) and Dr. G.I. Udegbe (Serial No. 24) signed the petition to the DPO Umunze against the claimant. These same individuals later sat in judgment against the claimant in the Ad-hoc Committee and SSDC proceedings. This establishes clear bias and conflict of interest, violating the cordial principle of justice “nemo judex in causa sua”.

 

  1. It is submitted by the claimant that Exhibit CW28 shows the claimant’s good faith advice to the 3rd defendant to handle student union election complaints dispassionately contradicting allegations of interference. That Exhibit CW40 shows lawful registration under duress, with receipt of ?410, 620.00 paid in lieu of notice made by the claimant in good faith; that Exhibit CW47 contains certified audio of the 3rd defendant inciting staff against the claimant, proving malice and reputational injury. The claimant continued that Exhibit CW55, a COEASU letter dated 14 November 2022, signed by Comr. Dr. A.T Nwamaradi as chairman and Comr. C.C. Okonkwo as secretary, confirms that tax matters were union-related and legitimately handled by COEASU leadership. That this corroborates Exhibit CW56 and CW57 (queries issued against the claimant on 28 June 2017) and proves that management maliciously converted union matters into disciplinary prosecution.

 

  1. The claimant continued that Exhibit CW56 and CW57, both dated 28 June 2017 and signed by Deputy Registrar Ukeje A.C for Registrar, addressed to the claimant as COEASU Chairman, demonstrate persecution through trivial queries- on tax meeting invitation, the other on alleged absence from meeting; that the fact that both were issued on the same day and on the person of the claimant when the invitation was on the union proves deliberate harassment of the claimant. The claimant went on that Exhibit CW58, the Nigeria Police Statement of Accused, certified true copy, confirms that the allegations were purely union matters and not criminal abuse. That this collapses the defendants’ misconduct narrative and taints DW5 (SSDC report).

 

  1. Exhibit CW59 shows certificate verification chaired by Dr. J.C. Madichie with NCCE officials which cleared the claimant but suppressed by defendants; that it is submitted that withholding the report of the Certificate Verification Committee constituted by the defendants amounts to withholding evidence as provided by section 167(d) of the Evidence Act 2011. That the Court may presume that evidence which could be and is not produced would, if produce be unfavourable to the person who withholds it meaning that the defendants in refusing to produce the said certificate report would have gone against the defendants’ case. The same applies to the case of complaint by one Oselu Christopher C. in 2018, whose report has been withheld by the defendants in spite of several letters of application.

 

  1. It is the claimant submission that flowing from the above exhibits, it is crystal clear that the claimants’ (sic) accusers became judge in their own case for which their proceedings are void as enunciated in the case of Prof. B.J. Olufeagba v. Prof. S.O. Abdul-Raheem & ors 2009 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) at 389 (supra)  it is held that any disciplinary action or termination taken by any other authority, or without following the laid down statutory procedure is illegal null and void and we so urge the Court to hold that all the disciplinary actions meted on the claimant by the defendants are illegal, null and void. The claimant further submitted that phantom and fabricated cases under Macfoy v. UAC. (sic) which provided that one cannot place something on nothing and expect it to stand. That once foundation is incurably bad it is bound to collapse. The claimant prayed the Court to find in favour of the claimant based on issue that the claimant was not given fair hearing as provided by section 36 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended.

 

  1. On issue (4) is whether the claimant has proved his case on the balance of convenience to entitle him to his claims/reliefs sought in this suit. The claimant submitted that he has proved his case on the balance of convenience to entitle him to his claims/reliefs sought in this suit. That looking at Exhibit DW2- Registrar’s document authored by the 4th defendant, biased, fabricated and inadmissible under section 83(1) of the Evidence Act 2011. Exhibit DW3 – Letter authored by Dr. D.I. Okoli (3rd defendant brother in-law), biased and irrelevant. Exhibit DW5- SSDC report, is tainted by bias since CW16 signatories sat as judge; collapses under Olufeagba v. Abdul-Raheem (supra). Exhibit DW6- Minority report and affidavit on suspended SUG election, irregular and fabricated; 4 of 9 members were very junior staff. Exhibit DW10- Solicitor’s petition alleging wrongful employment, authored externally is inadmissible and worthless in law as it has no nexus to the claimant’s case as the claimant had long tendered his resignation before the said petition. Exhibit DW10- is inadmissible, that no proper foundation was laid prior to its being tendered and was not made by any of the defendants. The claimant’s counsel refer the Court to section 83(1) of the Evidence Act 2011 which provide thus: In a proceeding where direct oral evidence of a fact would be admissible, any statement made by a person in a document which seems to establish that fact shall on the production of the original document, be admissible as evidence of that fact if the following conditions are satisfied:
    1. If the maker of the statement either-
  2. Had personal knowledge of the matters dealt with by the statement; or 

Applying the provision of section 83 (1a-b) of the Evidence Act to Exhibit DW10 renders it inadmissible and worthless in law. That from the above cited Exhibits, malice and bad faith is deducted and this justify the grant of aggravated and exemplary damages as provided under UBA v. Oranuba (2014) LPELR- 24208 (CA) and Rookes v. Bernard (1964) AC 1129 wherein it was held that exemplary damages may be awarded in Nigeria in limited circumstances, particularly: where the defendants conduct is oppressive, arbitral or unconstitutional, it is our submission that the defendants conduct is oppressive, arbitral or unconstitutional. It is our submission that the defendants if not in malice, ought to have allowed the claimant exit to his new place of employ without necessarily trying to hold him back, as can be seen in Exhibit CW42, CW44, CW45, CW48, CW49 and CW50 after the claimant has resigned his appointment with the 1st and 2nd defendants. 

 

  1. The claimant went on that all the defendants exhibits collapse under CW2, CW4, CW5, CW6, CW7, CW8, CW9, CW28, CW40, CW41, CW47, CW55, CW56, CW57, CW58 and CW59 which suggests constructive dismissal: persecution, fabricated petitions, systemic bias, hostile environment forced the claimant’s resignation. The claimant referred the Court to the case of Emodi v. Diamond Bank Plc (2016) LPELR-40093 (CA) where the Court held that constructive dismissal arises when an employee resigns due to hostile or intolerable conditions created by the employer even though the employee resign, the law treats it as if the employer wrongfully terminated the employment which means that employers cannot arbitrarily force employees out through persecution and hostile conditions. Were (sic) resignation is compelled by the employer’s oppressive conduct, the employee is entitled to remedies for wrongful termination including damages. The claimant submitted that the defendants had made the claimant’s place of work intolerable and unconducive which coerced the claimant into resigning his appointment.

 

  1. The claimant submitted that his statutory employment and career progression are fully and valid; that the defendants acted ultra vires their powers, maliciously and oppressively, fabricating petitions and suppressing exonerating evidence; that the defendants’ case against the claimant collapses under Exhibits CW2, CW4, CW5, CW6, CW7, CW8, CW9, CW28, CW40, CW41, CW47, CW55, CW56, CW57, CW58 and CW59. That the claimant’s exhibits establish a consistent pattern of malice, suppression of exonerating evidence and constructive dismissal CW28, CW40, CW41, CW47, CW55, CW56, CW57, CW58 and CW59 demonstrate lawful resignation under duress, defamatory, persecution and reputational injury, confirming constructive dismissal. That the defendants’ reliance on Exhibits DW2, DW3, DW5, DW6 and DW10 collapses under the weight of the claimant’s statutory promotions (Exhibit CW5- CW9), Governing Council approvals (Exhibits CW2 and CW4), union documents (Exhibits CW55-CW57), and independent Police clearance (Exhibit CW58); that the law and equity demand an apology to the claimant, transfer of the claimant’s records and damages both general, aggravated and exemplary- to punish the defendants’ conduct and deter future abuse.

 

  1. The claimant’s counsel prayed the Court to dismissed the defendants’ counter-claim in its entirety in declaring that the claimant was constructively dismissed while compelling the defendants to transfer the claimant’s service records to the appropriate authority and granting general damages for constructive dismissal and reputational injury, as well as granting aggravated damages for proven malice, persecution with exemplary damages to punish the oppressive conduct of the defendants and deter future abuse; that the claimant has proved constructive dismissal, persecution and reputational injury. The defendants’ address and counter-claim should be dismissed and the claimant’s reliefs granted in full.

 

  1. It is the final submission of the claimant that the elements and ingredients of constructive dismissal to wit:
  2. That the behavior of the defendants was bad enough which made the claimant remaining in his job impossible.
  3. That the actions of the defendants in using ad hoc committees in trying the claimant for offence not known to the Terms and Conditions of Service for Colleges of Education amounts to forcing the claimant to carry out his work in an unsafe or substandard environment.
  4. That the refusal of the defendants to deal with claimant’s grievances raised timeously and failure to carry out a disciplinary process fairly in line with procedure establishing the claimant’s relationship has made it impossible for the claimant to continue in his job with the defendants.
  5. That the behavior of the defendants against the claimant by implication has denied the claimant duty of trust and confidence.
  6. That the claimant has been bullied in his workplace
  7. That the defendants committed a repudiatory breach of the claimant’s employment contract.
  8. That the unscrupulous behavior of the defendants against the claimant in using ad hoc committees to try him for offences that are not known to law has subjected the claimant to intimidation in the hands of the defendants.
  9. That the claimant relationship with the defendants cannot be reconciled which left the claimant with no other option but to resign.

 

  1. In conclusion, the claimant urged the Court to resolve the 4th issue, alongside with all the other issues in favour of the claimant and also to enter judgment for the claimant on all the reliefs sought and dismissed the defendants counter-claim.

 

DEFENDANTS’ REPLY ON POINTS OF LAW

  1. In reply to claimants’ final written address, the defendant contended that the submissions of the claimant’s counsel in paragraph 2.2 of his final address to the effect, that the moment claimant appointment is confirmed by the Authority, any irregularity at inception was cured. That is not the position of the law. The law is that you cannot place something on nothing and except it to stand. Section 12 and 13 od NYSC Act, did not distinguish as per probationary or confirmed employment; that the said sections specifically made acquisition of NYSC Discharge or Exemption Certificate at the time of any public service employment mandatory; that employment means work, especially when it is done to earn money. The defendants cited the case of Coca-Cola (Nig) Ltd v. Akinsanya (2013) 18 NWLR Pt. 1386 @ 225. The defendant submitted that Exhibit CW1 clearly spelt out terms of the claimant’s employment, which included renumeration the claimant is entitled to, within the period of the employment. The defendants rely on the decision of this Court in Suit No. NICN/ABJ/138/2015 Anthony Achi Ikor v. Bureau of Public Procurement, published on https:www.nicnadr.gov.ng/judgment/details.php?id=800 that the employment of the claimant in the service of the 1st defendant was void ab initio having not complied with the provisions the Regulation 2.1 of Exhibit CW11, the Scheme of Service and NYSC Act; that there was nothing to confirm by Exhibit CW2.

 

  1. The defendants submitted that the argument of counsel on issue 2, ‘whether the defendants can be compelled to transfer claimant service records’ is misconceived, as counsel did not appreciate the meaning of Regulation 4.0.2 of Revised Civil Service Rules, 2015 (Exhibit CW11). That the case of Olufeagba v. Abdul-Rahem cited does not apply, as the law is that while a public officer vested with public duty can be compelled to perform such duty, it is not so where such duty is discretionary. The defendants cited the case of CBN v. System Application Products (Nig) Ltd (2004) LPELR-5432 (CA). the defendant further submitted that duty to transfer the claimant’s service records is discretionary and not mandatory. That Regulation 4.0.2 of Exhibit CW11 clearly made the transfer of the service records discretionary, where a staff of the 1st defendant is still in active service; that this is done on the recommendation of the Management Committee of 2nd defendant through the Appointments and Promotions Committee. That what this presupposes is that where the Committee do not recommend same; no transfer takes place. Even where such recommendation for transfer of service is made by the Management Committee but it is not approved by the 2nd defendant, no transfer takes place. The Court of Appeal in Tangale Traditional Council v. Fawu (2001) 17 NWLR Pt 742 @ 293 P. 327, Paras D-F, while considering the meaning of recommendation had this to say:

“Recommendation is the act of one person in giving to another a favourable account of the character, responsibility, or skill of a third. Recommendation refers to an action which is advisory in nature rather than one having any binding effect. In the instant case, the use of the word recommendation in Exhibit “Q1” connotes that Tangale/Waja Traditional Council in preparing Exhibit “Q1” sought to advise Military Government of the mode and procedure of selecting and appointing an Emir/Chief of Tangale.”

That the argument do not apply in this case as claimant voluntarily resigned from the service of the 1st defendant and he cannot sort for his records to be transferred to Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka as he is no longer a staff of 1st defendant. the question of whether or not he was granted fair hearing in his previous dealings with 1st defendant is of no moment as the claimant as same had been overtaken by the voluntary resignation of the claimant (See Exhibits CW40 and CW41) and thus the issue remains academic. See PDP V. Jarigbe (2021) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1796) 239.

 

  1. The defendants went on that even where same is relevant, the Committee set up by the defendant were set up in compliance with the rules/terms and conditions of service; that there is no iota of evidence showing the claimant was not given an opportunity to state his case before the committees; that mention must be made that these committees are headed by persons qualified to do so within the wall s of the 1st defendant, who may play an advisory role to the defendants; and are not capable of taking final decisions.

 

  1. The defendants submitted that there is no evidence that the claimant was constructively dismissed in the employment of the 1st defendant, rather there is an evidence that claimant voluntarily, but mischievously resigned to shield himself from investigation of alleged commission of crime (his employment contrary to the provisions of the NYSC Act). That the case of Emodi v. Diamond Bank Plc relied on by the claimant does not apply to the facts of this case, as same are distinguishable from the instant case; that the Emodi’s case was decided based on the terms and conditions in a private employment or contract of service; that the claimant’s case is one with statutory flavor with its modus guided by Revised Terms and Conditions of Service among others.

 

  1. In conclusion, the defendants urged the Court to dismiss the claim of the claimant in its entirety and enter judgment for the defendants as per their counter-claim.

 

COURT’S DECISION

  1. I have carefully considered the processes filed and the submissions of the parties.  By issue (1) the claimant is praying for “Whether the claimant has a valid appointment with the 1st defendant.”  issue (2) is whether defendants can be compelled to transfer claimant’s service records.  issue (3) Seeks whether considering the totality of all that transpired between the claimant and the defendants if the claimant was given fair hearing.  issue (4) is whether the claimant has proved his case on the balance of convenience to entitle him to his claims/reliefs sought in this suit.

 

  1. It is submitted by the claimant that by the provisions of Revised Conditions of Service for Colleges of Education at Chapter 2 page 7 which bothers on appointment particularly at 25.5 1(b) the appointment of the claimant was made in accordance with the same Rules guiding Colleges of Education.  By the provision of Section 2.7 of the Condition of Service for Colleges of Education which provides for procedure for the confirmation of appointments.  It is submitted that the claimant satisfied the statutory appointment authority to earn confirmation, any irregularity at inception of the claimants (sic) appointment was cured once the Governing Council confirmed same.  The claimant then referred to Exhibits CW2, CW4, CW5, CW6, CW7, CW8 and CW9 in urging the Court to find issue (1) in favour of the claimant.  See also the case of Olanyan v. UNILAG (1985) 2 NWLR (pt 9) 599; Musa Yunusa v. Kogi College of Education (Uncited).  

 

  1. Exhibit CW2 is claimant’s confirmation of appointment; Exhibits CW3 which is claimant’s withdrawal from the Federal Civil Service by the Head of State, Commander- in-Chief of the Armed Forces, Federal Republic of Nigeria was skipped by the claimant.  Exhibits CW5, CW6, CW7, CW8 and CW9 however were notification of promotions.  In suit No NICN/LA/2019 between Oyebola & ors v. Federal Airport Authority of Nigeria the Judgment of which was delivered on May 12, 2019, the Judgment of which was delivered by His Lordship Hon. Justice B.B. Kanyip, PhD, the Court held thus:

“… The interpretation of document is not the function of a witness.  It is a function of law meant for the Court.  See Ambassador D.C.B. Nwanna v. NationaI Intelligence Agency & 2 ors unreported Suit No NICN/ABJ/123/2011, the judgment of which was delivered on 16th December 2013, Mr. Ugochukwu v. First Guarantee Pension Ltd, unreported Suit No NICN/ABJ/2/2011, the judgment of which was delivered on 2nd February, 2011 and Mr. Akinade Adeleke (2) v. Oracle Software Nigeria Limited unreported Suit No NICN/LA/211/2016; the judgment of which was delivered on 15th May 2019.   It is not in DW’S place to tell the Court whether a document is applicable or not.  That question can only be determined upon a proper interpretation of the words of the documents itself.  How did DW come by the fact that Exhibits C20 and C21 only apply to Organizations and Parastatals that do not have conditions of service?  Is DW not in the guise of giving evidence, interpreting these documents?  I think so.   The defendant is an agency of the Federal Government and so especially Exhibit C21 is applicable to Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDA) is applicable to this case.  I so find and hold.

 

  1. On whether the claimant has a valid appointment with the 1st defendant, the position of the law is that when an employment or Contract of Service has statutory flavour in the sense that its terms and conditions of service are specifically provided for by statute or regulations made there under, it is said to be protected by statute and any person in that employment enjoys a special legal status over and above the ordinary common law master and servant relationship. In matters of termination or discipline under such a contract the procedure laid down in the applicable statute or regulations made there under must be religiously followed as any breach would render the exercise null and void.   In such a case, the determination of the contract by termination or other disciplinary measure should be based not on the agreement between the parties but on the terms as stipulated in the statute or regulations made there under.  In Olaniyan & Ors v. University of Lagos (1985) 2 NWLR (Part 9) 509 and Eporekun v. University of Lagos (1986) 4 NWLR (Part 34) 162 the decisions were predicated on the provision of section 17(1) of the University of Lagos Act No. 3 of 1967.

 

  1. On the issue of appointment, the document(s) which regulates the relationship between employee is the service agreement or the contract of service and not a collective agreement. A collective agreement, is not binding on an individual employee and the employer unless such collective agreement is incorporated into the contract of service or adopted as part of the contract or condition of service. See U.B.N Plc v. Soares. Suit No. CA/L/396/2000. Also cited in (2012) 11 NWLR P. 50. See also A.C.B (Nig) Ltd v. Nwodikes (1996) 4 NWLR (Pt 443); UBN Ltd v. Edet (1993) 4 NWLR (Pt. 287) 288; Shiaubi v. UBN Plc (1995) 4 NWLR (Pt. 388) 173.

 

  1. The term “employer” is stated to mean “any person who has entered into a contract of employment to employ any other person as an employee (worker) either for himself or for the service of any other person and includes the agent, manager, or factor of that first mentioned person and other personal representative of a deceased factor…” Exhibit CW1 dated 26th April 1991 and headed: “OFFER OF APPOINTMENT states that with reference to the claimant’s application for employment, the Governing Council of FCE Technical, Umunze to offer the claimant temporary appointment as Assistant Lecturer on salary grade level USS 7/2 per annum at the Federal College of Education (Technical) Umunze Anambra State. Notwithstanding that the claimant tendered his letter of resignation from the services of Federal College of Education (Technical) Umunze dated 6th February 2020 to the Provost of the College (Exhibit CW40), it still stands to reason that the claimant had a valid appointment with the 1st defendant. I so hold.

 

  1. On issue (2) whether the defendants can be compelled to transfer the claimant’s service records, the claimant answered in the affirmative that transfer of service records is a statutory duty not discretion, once employment is valid; it is submitted by the claimant that haven (sic) commenced his appointment with the 1st defendant up to his resignation is as of right entitled to the transfer of his record of service to his new place of employ; that the defendants are bound to transfer same upon the application of the claimant.

 

  1. To the claimant, the law is settled that where a public authority has a clear duty, mandamus will lie. The claimant referred the Court to the case of Olufeagba v. Abdul-Raheem (2009) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 384, where the Supreme Court held that: (1) where employment is governed by statute, the employer must comply strictly with the statute. (3) That mandamus lies to compel performance of statutory duties, especially where refusal is malicious or oppressive applied in this the (sic) defendants have a statutory duty under the Federal Colleges of Education Act to maintain and transfer service records they cannot refused (sic) arbitrarily. That based on this authority, the claimant urged the Court to hold that the defendants are bound to transfer the record of service of the claimant to his new place of employ.

 

  1. Exhibit CW11 is the 1st defendant’s Revised Conditions of Service for Colleges of Education. Chapter 15 on Cessation of Service states that a senior member of staff on permanent appointment may resign his appointment by giving three months’ notice in writing to the Governing Council or by payment of one month’s salary in lieu of notice unless his terms of appointment provided otherwise. Where it becomes necessary for the College to discontinue with the services of a member of staff on permanent appointment, the College shall discontinue with the services of such member of staff by giving three months’ salary (lump sum) in lieu of notice. The claimant did not cite any provision of Exhibit CW1. The claimant’s submission that haven (sic) commenced his appointment with the 1st defendant without referring to Exhibit CW1 (Revised Conditions of Service) without reference to the Revised Conditions of Service without citing any provision therefore goes to no issue. I so hold.

 

  1. I so hold because in the case of Olufeagba v. Abdul-Raheem, the appellants who were engaged as lecturers of, the University of Ilorin were actively involved in ASUU strikes when they disrupted academic activities and examinations. The ‘respondents’ refusal to honour an invitation by the University authorities to iron out the matter, they were dismissed from the services of the University on the ground of misconduct, to wit failure to discharge their academic responsibilities and to comply with Council directives. The appellants then sued the respondents for declarations, inter alia, that the termination of their appointments with 3rd respondent is null and void and that the respondents were bound to comply with the directives of the Federal Government of Nigeria to reinstate them.

 

  1. The case of Olufeagba v. Abdul-Raheem (2009) 12 SC Part II had everything to do with termination of appointment and 10 reliefs sought by the appellants had everything to do with reinstatement of the appellants. The claimant in the case at hand has nothing to do with termination of employment.

 

  1. Exhibit DW8 dated 6th February 2020 and headed thus by the claimant: Resignation from the Services of Federal College of Education (Technical), Umunze” in which the claimant wrote to officially notify the Provost of F.C.E (T) Umunze of his resignation from the services of Federal College of Education (Technical) Umunze as a chief lecturer from Monday 10th day of February 2020. Having voluntarily resigned from the College of Education (Technical) Umunze, it is my determination that the defendants cannot be compelled to transfer claimant’s service records. I so hold. 

 

  1. Issue (3) is whether considering the totality of all that transpired between the claimant and the defendants, if the claimant was given fair hearing. To the claimant, the avalanche of 22 exhibits establishes clear bias and conflict of interest, violating the cardinal principle of justices “nemo judex in causa sua”. To the claimant, it is submitted that Exhibit CW28 shows the claimant’s good faith advice to the 3rd defendant to handle student union election complaints dispassionate, contradicting allegations of interference. To the claimant, a cursory look at Exhibit CW41 shows persecution, phantom complaints, irregular, Ad-hoc Committees, expulsion from Council deliberations and SSDC trial relying on fabricated evidence. It is the claimant’s submission that phantom and fabricated cases collapse under Macfoy v. UAC. Which provided that one cannot place something on nothing and expect it to stand. That once the foundation is incurably bad it is bound to collapse.

 

  1. The claimant prayed the Court to find in favour of the claimant based on issue (3) that claimant was not given fair hearing as provided for by section 36 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended. On section 36 of 1999 Constitution, this Court held in Suit No. NICN/LA/351/2013 between Prince Benjamin Saliu Ikani v. Chairman/Chief Executive National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA) & 2 ors, the judgment of which was delivered by Justice B.B. Kanyip PhD held in paragraph 32 thus: 

“Part of the claimant’s case especially in terms of his relief (1) is that he was retired without being heard especially as the claimant was said to be a product of petitions against him; as such section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution was breached. The flip side as regards this submission is that it runs foul of the Supreme Court in Rev. Paul Emeka v. Chidi Okoroafor & ors (2017) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1577) 410. In that case, the Supreme Court relying on Bakare v. LSCS (1992) 218 NWLR (Pt. 266) 699-700 and Ekunola v. CBN (2013) 15 NWLR (1377) 224 at 262-263, held that breach of a fundamental right under section 36(1) of the Constitution arises only where the denial of fair hearing has been charged against a Court of Tribunal established by law and not before domestic or standing ad-hoc tribunal raised departmentally by parties. In other words, there would be no case of infringement of the right to fair hearing under section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution by the claimant would accordingly be uncalled for since the disciplinary process the claimant complains of in the instant case is one composed of a body that is not a Court or Tribunal established by law as to enable the claimant assert that the defendants did not comply with section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution. Because the claimant is relying on section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution it cannot succeed in its relief (1) giving the authority of Rev Prof Paul Emeka v. Rev Dr. Chidi Okoroafor & ors. Relief (1) accordingly fails and is dismissed.”  

 

  1. In the case of University of Uyo v. Essel (2006) AFWLR (Pt. 315) 80 at 100 para C-E the Court of Appeal held per Adamu JCA thus: Courts do not interfere with the internal administration of an institution or university. Fair hearing need not be oral, written forms equally good and sufficient hearing. All that is required is for the Committee/Panel to write to the party and confront him with the allegation made against him. He need not be allowed to remain around at the alteration of the Committee/Panel where his fate was determined. Abubakar Tafari Ali Polytechnic v. Maina (2005) 10 NWLR (Pt. 934) Page 487 at page 516 Paras D-F per Ogbuagu, JCA (as he then was). Going by the authorities cited it is clear and evident that the claimant was given fair hearing by the defendants. I so hold. Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and going by the cases cited, the claimant was given fair hearing by the 1st defendant. I so hold.

 

  1. Issue (4) is whether the claimant has proved his case on the balance of convenience to entitle him to his claims/reliefs sought in this suit.  It is the submission of the claimant that he has proved his case on the balance of convenience to entitle him to his claims/reliefs sought in this suit. That looking at Exhibit DW2 – Registrar’s document authored by the 4th defendant, biased fabricated, and inadmissible under section 83 (1) of the Evidence Act 2011; that Exhibit DW3 – Letter authored by Dr. D.I. Okoli (3rd defendant brother-in-law) biased and irrelevant.  That Exhibit DW5 – SSDC report is tainted by bias since CW16 Signatories sat as judge; collapses under Olufeagba v. Abdul Raheem (supra); that Exhibit DW6 – Minority report and affidavit on suspended SUG election, irregular and fabricated; 4of 9 members were very junior staff.

 

  1. It is the claimant’s submission that all the defendants exhibits collapse under CW12, CW4, CW5, CW6, CW7, CW8, CW9, CW28, CW40, CW41, CW47, CW55, CW56, CW57, CW58 and CW59 which suggests that constructive dismissal persecution, fabricated petitions, systemic bias, hostile environment forced the claimant’s resignation.  The claimant referred the Court to the case of Emodi v. Diamond Bank Plc (2016) LPELR – 400093 (CA) where the Court held that constructive dismissal arises when an employee resigns (sic) due to hostile or intolerable conditions created by the employer, even though the employee resigns due to hostile or intolerable conditions created by the employer, even though the employee resigns”, the law treats it as if the employer wrongfully terminated the employment which means that employers cannot arbitrarily force employees out through persecution and hostile conditions.  That were resignation is compelled by the employer’s oppressive conduct, the employee is entitled to remedies for wrongful termination including damages. The claimant submitted that the defendants had made the claimants place of work intolerable and inconducive which coerced the claimant into resigning his appointment.

 

  1. Having dismissed issues (2) and (3) of the claimant’s claim. I am of the firm view that the proceeding to consider issue (4) tantamounts to a hypothetical/academic exercise. See Imegwu v. Okolocha & ors (2013) LPELR-19886 (SC), Olafisoye v. FRN (2004) 4 NWLR (Pt. 864) 580 at 654-655, Mamman v. Salaudeen (2005) 125 SCM 260; (2005) 18 NWLR (Pt. 958) 478 at 500

 

  1. Claimant’s case fails and is hereby dismissed. I so order.

 

  1. Judgment is entered accordingly. I make no order as to cost.

 

Hon. Justice J.I. Targema, PhD