Color

IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT ABUJA

ON WEDNESDAY 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: HON. JUSTICE SINMISOLA O. ADENIYI

SUIT NO: NICN/ABJ/394/2022

BETWEEN:

 

MR. YASAR AKTEKIN……………………………………. CLAIMANT

 

AND

 

NILE UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA …………………………. DEFENDANT

 

J U D G E M E N T

In summary, the case of the Claimant is that, his employment as the Registrar of the Defendant was terminated before the fixed term; that his removal from the Office as the Registrar of the Defendant was without due regard to the University Law and thereby the termination of his appointment is unlawful, null and void. His further contention against the Defendant is that, the purported notice of termination issued by the Defendant, prior to the termination of his appointment  is suggestive that a disciplinary action was conducted but that the Defendant did not afford him the opportunity to defend the allegations that were levelled against him.

2. Being thereby aggrieved by the actions of the Defendant, the Claimant instituted the instant action; vide Complaint and Statement of Facts filed in this Court on 15/12/2022, whereby he claimed against the Defendant, the reliefs set out as follows:

A.    A DECLARATION that the appointments and tenure of the University Principal Officers particularly that of the Registrar occupied by the Claimant (Mr. Yasar Aktekin) is statutory with fixed term, but same was untimely terminated by the Defendant for no justifiable reason.

B.     A DECLARATION that the appointment and removal of the Claimant as the Registrar of the Nile University being a Principal Officer is guided by the Nile University Law 2016.

C.    A DECLARATION that the removal of the Claimant (Mr. Yasar Aktekin) from the office as the Registrar of the Nile University of Nigeria without due regard to the Nile University Law, 2006 is unlawful, null and void.

D.    A DECLARATION that the content of the Termination Notice issued by the Defendant to the Claimant is suggestive of disciplinary action while in fact, no disciplinary committee was set up to enable the Claimant appear before any committee to defend himself of any allegation(s).

E.      A DECLARATION that the Claimant is entitled to the payment of

his expected earnings for the full period of his appointment.

F.      AN ORDER of this Honourable Court mandating the Defendant to tender written apology to the Claimant for the wrongful and slanderous reasons stated in the purported Termination Letter issued to the Claimant by the Defendant.

G.   AN ORDER of this Honourable Court mandating the Defendant to pay to the Claimant’s expected salaries and allowances for the remainder of 32 months and 10 days to make up the Claimant’s statutory period of appointment calculated at N47,921,388 (Forty-Seven Million, Nine Hundred and Twenty-One Thousand, Three Hundred and Eighty-Eight Naira) only.

H.    AN ORDER awarding the sum of N50,000,000.00 (Fifty Million Naira) only as General Damages for the wrongful termination of the appointment of the Claimant which has caused disgrace to the personality and reputation of Claimant and his family members.

I.        The cost of this suit.

3. Expectedly, the Defendant disputed the case of the Claimant. The gist of the defence advanced in the Statement of Defence deemed filed on 07/03/2023 is that, the Defendant was duly incorporated as a private educational institution under the Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA); that the position of the Claimant as Registrar of Nile University is not by statutory appointment but a contract of employment; that the Claimant’s employment was not for a fixed term. The Defendant contends that as contained in the Expatriate Policy and the terms and conditions of the Claimant’s employment, it has the right to terminate his employment irrespective of the duration.

4. At the plenary trial, two subpoenaed witnesses, one Professor Gylch Jelilov, the Vice Chancellor of Philomath University and one Suleiman H.J. Abba, a former employee of the Defendant testified as CW1 and CW2. They both adopted their respective Statements on Oath as their respective evidence-in-chief. The Claimant as CW3, also adopted his Statements on Oath as his-evidence-in-chief and fourteen (14) sets of documents were tendered in evidence to further support of his case. The witnesses were all duly cross-examined by the Defendant’s learned counsel.

The Defendant in turn, fielded one David Ayokunle Olowola, the Registrar, as the sole witness in support of her defence. He equally adopted his Statement on Oath and tendered sixteen (16) documents in evidence. The Defendant’s witness was also subjected to cross-examination by the learned senior counsel.

5. At the close of plenary trial, parties filed and exchanged their written final addresses as prescribed by the provisions of Order 45 of the Rules of this Court.

In the final address filed on 15/07/2024, learned counsel for the Defendant, Olujoke Aliu, Esq., raised five issues as having arisen for determination in this suit, namely:

a.      Whether the Claimant’s employment was one with statutory flavor.

b.     What document(s) guided the Claimant’s employment with the Defendant.

c.      Whether the Claimant’s employment was validly terminated by the Defendant.

d.     Whether the Claimant is entitled to the monetary reliefs claimed.

e.      Whether the Claimant is entitled to an apology.

In the final address of the Claimant deemed filed on 26/09/2024, learned senior counsel, Ishaka M. Dikko, SAN., distilled two issues as arising for determination in this suit, namely:

1.     Whether in view of the facts of the case, the Claimant was afforded fair hearing before his appointment was terminated?

2.     Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought?

The Defendant’s Reply on Points of Law was filed on 30/09/2024.

6. I have painstakingly examined the totality of the pleadings filed by both parties in contention; the reliefs claimed, the totality of the admissible and relevant evidence adduced at the trial; and the totality of the written addresses and oral summations of learned gentlemen for the two parties; it is my considered view that this suit must be decided on a lone issue, without prejudice to the issues severally formulated by learned counsel to the respective parties, that is:

            “Whether or not the Claimant established his entitlements to the reliefs claimed in this suit against the Defendant?”

In proceeding to determine the issue, I must state that I had carefully considered and taken due benefits of the totality of arguments canvassed by the respective learned counsel in their written final submissions; to which I shall endeavor to make specific reference as I consider needful in the course of this judgment.

7. I should also remark that the case put forward by the Claimant is substantially documentary evidence. In that circumstance, the focus of the Court is directed principally at the documents tendered by parties as the yardstick to access the oral evidence adduced by the witnesses on either side of the divide. This course is in consonance with the established legal proposition that documentary evidence, being the best evidence, is the yardstick or hanger by which to access the veracity or credibility of oral testimony and that extrinsic evidence cannot be admitted to contradict it, add or vary the provisions contained in a document. See Section 128(1) of the Evidence Act 2011 on the issue. See also Skye Bank PLC Vs Akinpelu [2010] 9 NWLR (Pt 1198)179; Ndubueze Vs Bawa [2018] LPELR 43874.

8. I should restate the position of law that in an action for declaratory reliefs such as the present case, the Claimant is duty bound to prove his claim on the strength of his own case. This is essentially so, because declaratory reliefs are not granted on a platter of gold. They are only granted as products of credible and cogent evidence proffered at the instance of the Claimant. See Col. Nicholas Ayanru (Rtd) Vs Mandilas Ltd [2007] 4 SCNJ 388; Nweke Vs Okorie [2015] LPELR 40650.

9. As disclosed in the Statement of Facts, on 14/10/2016, the Claimant was appointed for four years as the Registrar of the Defendant and that thereafter, he was re-appointed on 21/10/2020 for a second tenure, subject to ratification by the Council. The testimony of the Claimant as CW3 is that, by the provision of the University Law and Regulations, the position of the Registrar of the Defendant is a statutory appointment for a fixed period of four (4) years. He testified that at a Council meeting held on 19/01/2021, the issue of the ratification of his appointment was discussed and was approved. The Claimant’s letters of appointment as Registrar dated 14/10/2016 and 21/10/2020, the Minutes of the Governing Council Meeting of 19/01/2021 and the Nile University Law were respectively admitted in evidence as Exhibits C1, C1A, C7 and C4.

10. In his further testimony, the Claimant narrated the issues relating to the pay-offs of the members of staff of the Defendant that were relieved of their appointments; that an email was sent to him by the Pro- Chancellor in respect of the issue; that in his prompt response to the email, he stated the efforts he had made to resolve the issue. The Claimant further narrated in his testimony that, he expressed his concerns to the former Vice Chancellor when he received information about the proposed recruitment of a new Registrar for the Defendant when his second tenure just started and was subsisting. The Claimant testified further, that in August 2021, he was made to sign a contract in which all the conditions including a renewed salary structure was reflected. The letter of offer of employment and understanding of expatriate assignment, Exhibit C2, the email of Mr. John Vermaaten of 15/09/2021, Exhibit C5 and the Claimant’s reply to the email, Exhibit C5A, were admitted in evidence.

11. It is the further testimony of the Claimant that, towards the end of October 2021, he requested for a letter of introduction, Exhibit C3 from the Vice-Chancellor; that on 29/10/2021, he was invited by an email, Exhibit C6, to a Zoom meeting with the Pro-chancellor and the HR Manager, that the topic of the Zoom meeting was staff pay-off but at the commencement of the scheduled Zoom meeting, he was informed by the Pro Chancellor that his employment has been terminated; that by an email of 02/11/2021, Exhibit C8, his appointment was subsequently terminated with a purported letter of termination attached to the email and that an announcement was made to members of staff for the pay-off benefits – Exhibit C8A, shortly after the Zoom meeting.

12. The Claimant’s contention is further that, he was never invited to face any disciplinary committee of the Defendant and no disciplinary report was made against him to warrant the termination of his appointment. As a result of the action of the Defendant, he instructed his solicitors to write the Defendant to make demands but the Defendant in its reply refused to yield to his demand/request, hence, the institution of this case. Letter written by Claimant’s solicitors was admitted in evidence as Exhibit C10.

13. CW1 and CW2 as subpoenaed witnesses testified that they were former employees of the Defendant and they became acquainted with the Claimant in the course of their duties. They both testified that the Claimant was dedicated, hard-working, dutiful, result-oriented, always insisted on doing the right thing and it was as a result of his qualities that pay-off benefits of members of staff of the Defendant were paid. According to the witnesses, the appointment of the Claimant was terminated prematurely as his tenure was supposed to end in 2024. CW2 tendered his Employment Agreement with the Defendant as Exhibit C11.

14. Basically, the defence put forward by DW1is that, the Defendant is not established by an Act of National or State Assembly but a private educational institution duly incorporated under the Companies and Allied Matters Act; that the employment of the Claimant is a contract employment and his position as the Registrar of the Defendant is not statutory appointment. DW1testified further, that the Claimant’s contract includes terms and conditions as contained in the Offer of Employment, Expatriate Policy, the Global Honoris Code of Conduct; that his contract is not for a fixed term and did not contain a tenure/duration to serve as Registrar of the Defendant. Contract of employment between the Defendant and the Claimant and the Offer of Employment and Understanding of Expatriate Assignment, Code of Conduct of Honoris United Universities and Expatriate Policy of the Defendant were respectively admitted as Exhibit D6, Exhibit D2, Exhibit D13 and Exhibit D14.

15. In his further testimony, DW1 narrated the controversy relating to the issue of pay-off benefits of members of staff of the Defendant and the involvement of the Claimant. According to DW1, the Claimant as the Registrar had prepared and signed several letters of employment; that the Defendant discovered that these contracts were not standardized as regards pay off benefits; that in 2021, the Defendant decided to standardize the contract of employment of all its employees; that subsequently, the Defendant was inundated with complaints from some of the employees who stated that the Claimant had told them that they were entitled to pay off benefits; that an email was sent to the Claimant requesting for his explanation but the Defendant was surprised at the Claimant’s response because there was no general policy for pay off benefits for all of members of its staff. The list of disengaged members of staff of the Defendant, the Human Resource Announcements of 24/08/2021 and 29/10/2021, the email correspondences between one John Vermaaten and the Claimant of 15/09/2021 were tendered and admitted in evidence respectively as Exhibit D9, Exhibit D7, Exhibit D8, Exhibit D7A and Exhibit D7B.

16. DW1 testified further, that as a result of the false and unauthorized representation that the Claimant made to the members of staff, the Defendant suffered a loss of N91,397,340 (Ninety-One Million, Three Hundred and Ninety-Seven Thousand, Three Hundred and Forty Naira) as payment for pay-off benefits to employees who had no provision for pay off benefits in their contracts of employment. DW1 also testified that the Claimant’s appointment was terminated as a result of his misrepresentation and the manner he handled the issue of pay off benefits. DW1 further testified that, in spite of his conduct, the Defendant paid the Claimant the sum of N5,968,666.00 (Five Million, Nine Hundred and Sixty-Eight Thousand, Six Hundred and Sixty-Six Naira) which includes, his three months’ salary in lieu of notice and other allowances. The debit advice of Zenith Bank with a list of members of staff, the letter of termination of appointment of the Claimant, letter of Defendant stating the terminal benefits of the Claimant were tendered and admitted as Exhibit D12, Exhibit D10 and Exhibit D11 respectively. Letters of appointment of some of the members of staff of the Defendant were also tendered and admitted as Exhibits D1 – D1C in support of the Defendant’s case.

The Defendant maintained that the Claimant is not entitled to any of the

reliefs sought against the Defendant.

17. Now, the general principles guiding the proof of a claim for wrongful or unlawful termination or dismissal of employment have remained sacrosanct. It is a universal evidential principle that the burden of proof in any case is on the person who desires a Court to give judgement as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which that person asserts or who will fail if no evidence were given on either side. In labour law, it is equally settled that the onus is squarely on a Claimant, in an action for unlawful dismissal or termination of appointment to prove the existence of the contract of employment, the terms and/or conditions thereof and how those terms and/or conditions were breached by the employer.

18. Flowing from the above principles, the Claimant herein must not only plead and prove the terms and conditions of his appointment, he must also prove that there was a departure from the prescribed procedure or that in applying the procedure there was violation of the rule of natural justice so as to render the formal compliance a travesty. See Iwuchukwu Vs Nwizu [1994] 7 NWLR (Pt 357) 379 at 412; WAEC & Ors Vs Ikang [2001] LPELR 5098; Nigerian Gas Co Ltd Vs Dudusola [2005] 18 NWLR (957) 292; Oloruntoba - Oju Vs Abdul - Raheem [2009] All FWLR (Pt 497) 1; Imasuen Vs University of Benin [2011] All FWLR (Pt 572) 1791.

19. The task the Court is to undertake is to examine the evidence on record as adduced by the Claimant, in order to determine whether or not, the

evidence has satisfied the requirement of proof imposed by the provisions of Sections 131 and 132 of the Evidence Act 2011 (as amended), to substantiate the Claimant’s claims as endorsed in paragraph 35 of the Statement of Facts against the Defendant. By my understanding, the entire case of the Claimant is predicated on his employment relationship or status with the Defendant. His contention is that his employment with the Defendant enjoyed statutory flavor and as such, he was entitled to a right of fair hearing before his employment could be terminated. The argument of learned counsel for the Claimant is that under its enabling Act, the Nigerian University Commission (NUC) is authorized to set conditions for establishing private universities in Nigeria, which inter alia includes the requirement for such institutions to have a law regulating the affairs of private universities as the Defendant in the present case. Learned counsel argued further, that Exhibit C4, the Defendant Law, is the subsidiary legislation created pursuant to NUC Act and thereby makes statutory the employment of the Claimant. The cases of Shitta-Bey Vs Public Service Commission [1981] LPELR 3056; Ogunke Vs National Steel Development Authority [1974] NMLR 128; Fakuade Vs OAUTH Management Board [1993] 5NWLR (Pt 291) 47; Olaniyan Vs University of Lagos [1985] 2 NWLR (Pt 9) 59, in support of his propositions.

20. On the flip side, learned Defendant’s counsel argued that the Claimant's employment was not one with statutory flavor and contends that mere compliance with NUC requirement does not confer statutory status as posited by learned Claimant’s counsel. Learned counsel submitted that for statutory employment, the regulations or law or statute must also specifically provide for the procedure and conditions under which the employment can be terminated. Learned counsel further submitted that Exhibit C4 is not a statute or subsidiary legislation that can confer the Claimant’s employment into one with statutory flavor with the Defendant, a private institution incorporated under CAMA. Learned counsel placed reliance on the cases of Registered Trustees of Association of Tippers and Quarry Owners of Nigeria Vs Yusuf & Ors [2011] LPELR 5024; Comptroller General of Customs & Ors Vs Gusau [2017] LPELR 42081; Katto Vs CBN [1999] 6 NWLR (Pt 607) to buttress her submissions.

21. Now, in a plethora of legal authorities, the Courts have given a clear distinction between employment with statutory flavor and other employments. An employment is said to have a statutory flavor when the appointment and termination or discipline of employee is governed by statutory provision. In other words, where an employment is governed by provision of statute or where the conditions of service are contained in regulation derived from statutory provisions, they invest the employee with a legal status higher than the ordinary one of master and servant. Such contract of employment is said to have statutory flavor. See Longe Vs FBN Plc [2010] 6 NWLR (Pt 1189)1; Imoloame Vs WAEC (supra); Olaniyan Vs University of Lagos (supra). The cases of Adegoke Vs Osun State College of Education [2010] LPELR 3601; Nnadi Vs National Ear Care Centre & Anor [2014] LPELR 22910; Osumah Vs Edo Broadcasting Service [2005] All FWLR (Pt 253) 773, cited by learned Defendant’s counsel are apposite.  

22. The pleadings and evidence presented by the Claimant indicate that he predicated his claims for unlawful termination and the four -year fixed term of his employment on Exhibit C4. Therefore, he is duty bound to prove the facts alleged by him that entitles him to the reliefs sought. The question here now is, was the Claimant’s employment statutory as claimed? It is settled that in consideration and determination of the rights and obligations of the parties or the conditions of service, the letter of employment must be resorted to. See N.I.I.A. Vs Ayanfalu [2007] LPELR 5960.

23. I had undertaken a careful perusal of the pleadings and evidence of the Claimant. At paragraphs 2 and 5 of the Statement of Facts, the Claimant averred that the Defendant is an educational institution registered in Nigeria and that he was appointed as Registrar of the Defendant on 16th October, 2016. In support of his case as CW3, he tendered his letters of appointment as Exhibits C1 and C1A.

Paragraph 2 of Exhibit C1 reads:

“This appointment is effective from 14th October, 2016 and is subject to the Nile University of Nigeria’s Rules and Regulations.”

By Exhibit C1A, his appointment as Registrar of the Defendant for a second tenure became effective from 16th October, 2020 subject to ratification of the Governing Council. The further evidence on record is that the Claimant’s appointment was ratified by the Council at its meeting held on 19th January, 2021 – Exhibit C7, the Minutes of the meeting of the Council.

24. The testimony of the Claimant is further that, on 1st August, 2021, he executed another contract with the Defendant in Exhibit C2. I have taken liberty to reproduce the relevant portion of Exhibit C2 as follows:

“This document expresses our mutual understanding of the terms and conditions applicable to your assignment and is effective upon your acceptance of our offer of employment.

This assignment is subject to obtaining any appropriate permits for employment and residence in Nigeria, as well as your acceptance of the terms and conditions outlined in this document.

We are pleased to offer you a contract as a Registrar for Nile University of Nigeria. Your duties will be related to the experience that you have acquired, which we have accepted in good faith, and which we therefore consider to be authentic.”

25. Exhibit C2 further states:

“Please be informed that the agreement in this document supersedes all previous contracts or arrangements whether written or oral relating to your employment. The terms and conditions contained in this Offer of Employment, our Expatriate Policy, Global Honoris Code of Conduct and any changes or updates made to them by the institution from time to time are the basis of your contract of employment with the institution.” (Underlining for emphasis).

As endorsed on the said exhibit, the terms and conditions of this contract was accepted by the Claimant on 20th August, 2021. While answering questions under cross examination by learned Defendant’s counsel, the Claimant testified as follows:

"While I was the staff of the Defendant, I worked as an expatriate. I started work with Philomath University on 1st December, 2021. Nile University is a private University.”

26. I should further state that, paragraph 6.0 of the Expatriate Policy – Exhibit D14, provides for the standards for assignment duration. It provides as follows:

Paragraph 6.1

“The duration of each Expat’s Assignment will be determined by the nature of the Expats responsibilities and performance over the course

of their working with the Institution.”

Paragraph 6.2

“The duration of an Expats assignment would be dependent upon the needs of the function/institution and the assignments requirement. However, this arrangement is subject to budget limits, excellent performance, and the approval of the Pro-Chancellor.”

These are the terms and conditions that are binding on the Claimant and the Defendant in relation to the contract they freely executed.

27. It is elementary law that where parties have entered into a contract or an agreement, they are bound by the provisions of the contract or agreement.  This is because a party cannot ordinarily resile from a contract or agreement just because he later found that the conditions of the contract or agreement are not favorable to him. This is the whole essence of the doctrine of sanctity of contract or agreement. Where parties have reduced the terms and conditions of service into an agreement, the conditions must be observed. The Court is bound to construe the terms of the contract or agreement and the terms only, in the event of an action arising therefrom.

His Lordship Nnaemeka - Agu, J.S.C opined; 

"That parties enjoy their freedom of contract carries with it the

inevitable implication of sanctity of their contracts. This means that if any question should arise with respect to the contract, the terms in any documents which constitute the contract are invariably, the guide to its interpretation.”

See  Baba Vs Civil Aviation [1991] 2 NSCC 145 at 152; Oduye Vs Nigeria Airways Limited [1987] 2 NWLR (Pt 55) 126.

28. From the foregoing therefore, and as correctly submitted by learned Defendant’s counsel, it is clear that the contract of employment in the present case is governed by Exhibit C2 -his letter of appointment, Exhibit D13 – Honoris Code of Conduct and Exhibit D14 – Expatriate Policy and not by the provision of Exhibit C4, or any statute and or regulation derived from statutory provisions as posited by the Claimant. In effect, it is indubitable that this is a case of master and servant which is governed by the terms under which parties agree and not a contract of employment with statutory flavor. And I so hold.

In that regard, the extensive arguments and submissions of learned counsel on contending sides on the status of the legal framework governing the Defendant as a private university, the validity of the Laws of the Defendant – Exhibit C4 and the duration of the contract, are not relevant to this present case and the arguments are hereby discountenanced. And I so further hold.

29. The next question is: whether or not the termination of the appointment of the Claimant was unlawful as alleged? The Claimant’s contention is that, he was not given fair hearing before his appointment was terminated. As earlier stated, the Claimant’s employment was regulated by Exhibits C2, D13 and D14.  As correctly submitted by learned Defendant’s counsel, the right to terminate the Claimant’s employment does not require any disciplinary process prior to termination. Clause 11 of Exhibit C2, the Conditions of Employment Agreement and Clause 9.2 of Exhibit D14, on contract terminations and professional expectations, provide that the contract may be terminated by either party irrespective of the contract duration and if this occurs, the Expat Employee shall be compensated with three months’ net monthly income in lieu of notice.

30. The Claimant’s terminal benefits, inclusive of three months’ salary in lieu of notice was stated in his letter of termination of appointment, Exhibit C8. The evidence on record is that, the Defendant paid the Claimant, the sum of N5,968,666.00 (Five Million, Nine Hundred and Sixty-Eight Thousand, Six Hundred and Sixty-Six Naira) as terminal benefits, inclusive of three months salary in lieu of notice - Exhibit D11.  This fact was not specifically denied by the Claimant.    

31. The question arises; having collected the terminal benefits, inclusive of the three months’ salary in lieu of notice as provided in his contract of employment, can the Claimant reasonably complain or be heard to say that his termination was wrongful? I suppose not.

The law is trite that where parties to a contract mutually agree that the condition for determination is the giving of notice or payment of equivalent salary in lieu of notice, once the employer gives the notice or pays the equivalent salary in lieu of notice, he has discharged his obligation under the contract.

32. Ordinarily and consistent with common law principle, the Court will not impose an employee on an employer. A willing and able employee (servant) cannot be imposed on an unwilling employer (master). Where the employer decides to discharge the obligation of an employee by giving the due notice or paying the equivalent salary in lieu of notice, an unwilling employer cannot be compelled to have a willing employee remain in his/its employment and vice versa. Thus, termination of a contract of service even if unlawful brings an end the relationship of master and servant, employer and employee. See Garuba V K.I.C. Ltd & Ors [2005] LPELR 1310 (SC); Morohunfola Vs Kwara State College of Technology [1990] 4 NWLR (Pt 145) 506; Dr. O. Ajolore Vs Kwara State College of Technology [1986] 2 SC 277.

Having accepted three months’ salary in lieu of notice, it seems to me the Claimant has put to rest any claim real or imagined which he has or thought that he had with the Defendant. The contract was validly and mutually determined in accordance with the terms and conditions prescribed in Exhibits C2, D13 and D14. And I so hold.

The Claimant is not entitled to the amount being claimed for expected salaries and allowances for the remainder of the statutory period of appointment and general damages since these claims are hinged on his claim for wrongful termination of his appointment. And I so further hold.

33. On the basis of the foregoing analysis therefore, I must and I hereby resolve the sole issue for determination in this suit against the Claimant. It is therefore, the conclusion of the Court that the Claimant has failed to lead credible evidence in support of the declaratory and other reliefs claimed against the Defendant in this action. Accordingly, it is the judgment of this Court that the Claimant’s claim is unmeritorious. It shall be and it is hereby accordingly dismissed. Parties shall bear their respective costs.

SINMISOLA O. ADENIYI

(Hon. Judge)

20/11/2024

 

Legal representation:

Ishaka Mudi Dikko, SAN with Fred K. Aduwak Esq., J.T. Manasseh Esq. for Claimant

Olujoke Aliu Esq. for Defendant