Color

IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE IBADAN JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT IBADAN

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE J. D. PETERS

 

DATE: 4TH MAY 2026                                    

SUIT NO: NICN/IB/01/2024

 

BETWEEN

Dr. Raymond Rahaj Adegboyega                                 -                              Claimant                                                                                 

AND

1.         Olabisi Onabanjo University, Ago-Iwoye, Ogun State

2.         The Governing Council, Olabisi Onabanjo University, 

Ago-Iwoye, Ogun State                                                        -                        Defendants

REPRESENTATION 

Osuolale Ishola Asanike for the Claimant

Felix Ogunmade with Daniel O. Ola for the Defendants

 

 

JUDGEMENT

1.         Introduction

1.         The Claimant filed this action on 2/1/2024 and by his amended statement of facts dated and filed 9th December 2024 sought the following reliefs –

 

1.         Declaration that the Claimant employment being of statutory flavour and academic in nature, therefore, is entitled to promotions, financial upgrading and necessary emoluments of his academic and professional status, till the period of his retirement from the University, having engaged in research etc.

2.         Declaration that the promotion of the Claimant should be used to calculate, measure and state his pensions and gratuity which he is entitled to and according to his academics and professional attainments which are known to all the Defendants.

3.         Declaration that payment for deferred of all his ANNUAL LEAVE, which never paid him, till his date of retirement be calculated in accordance with his periodical promotional status.

4.         Declaration that all his Payment for Post Graduate outstanding Claims, should be paid.

5.         Declaration that the Claimant is equally entitled to outstandings for all ODL, BFN … 116 Foundation of Finance which the Claimant produced for 1st Defendant OPEN DISTANCE LEARNING.

6.         Declaration that the Claimant CMS - Co-operative OOU - the deducted CONTRIBUTIONS from his monthly salary, over the years, which never remitted to Cooperative Society of OOU, be paid to him at the period of retirement from the University.

7.         Declaration that balance of ASUU welfare contribution deducted from his monthly salary, which never remitted to ASUU, which amounts to millions of Naira be paid to him.

8.         An Order that the Defendants should pay a damages to the Claimant in the sum of =N=2,000,000,000.00 (Two Billion Naira) only for failure to promote the Claimant and accordingly subject him to alien in his own country, due to the Defendants nepotism, segregation, ethic colorations which made the Claimant suffered psychological trauma and hara-kiri.

 

2.         The amended statement of facts was only accompanied by Additional Written Statement on Oaths of Claimant Witness. List of witness as well as list and copies of documents to be relied upon at trial were not included. 

 

3.         The Defendants filed their statement of defence dated 12/3/2024 denying all the reliefs sought in their entirety.  

 

2.         Case of the Claimant

4.         Claimant opened his case on 7/4/2025 when he testified in chief as CW1. Claimant adopted his witness deposition of 2/1/2024 as his evidence in chief and tendered 32 documents as exhibits. The documents were admitted in evidence and marked as Exh. RA1 – Exh. RA32 respectively.

 

5.         On 21/5/2015 while being cross examined, CW1 testified that he was a member of the senior staff of the 1st Defendant; that for over 30 years that he served the 1st Defendant he was not promoted because he was not an indigene of Ogun State; that he discovered the reason after he joined the 1st Defendant; that he disclosed to 1st Defendant that he was not from Ogun State at the point of his appointment; that 1st Defendant knew he was not from Ogun State when he was promoted from Lecturer II to Lecturer I and that he did not protest in writing to 1st Defendant that his non-promotion was due to tribal reasons. 

 

6. CW1 added that his employment was guided by the Rules and Conditions of the University; that he knew the conditions of service applicable to his employment very well and that he would recognise the conditions of service of his employment as shown to me.

 

7.         Witness testified further that the authority to promote him is the Appointment and Promotions Committee of the 1st Defendant; that the Committee found him worthy of promotion beyond Lecturer I; that he complained of his non-promotion to the Dean through the Head of Department; that there is no rule of the 1st Defendant that says he could be given compensation or damages for not being promoted; that it is the quality of publications that counts for promotion; that the Appointment and Promotions Committee determines the quality of publications for purposes of promotion; that membership of professional bodies is a requirement for promotion; that he expected his application for deferment of his annual leave to be granted by 1st Defendant; that all applications for deferment of leave were granted except for 2019 though and 2018; that 1st Defendant said no staff should apply for deferment again.

 

8.         It is the evidence of the CW1 under cross examination that he was a member of ASUU; that ASUU is controlled by the University; that 1st Defendant can control ASUU as to who to pay its money to; that he was not compelled to join ASUU; that ASUU is a corporate body of its own; that he does not know of how many cooperative societies are in the 1st Defendant; that he does not have the statements of all of his cooperative savings before the Court; that he does not have a proof that he requested for his statement before the Court and that the unprintable names he called the 1st Defendant that he served for 30 years and his claims before this Court are not afterthought.

 

9.         In re-examination, CW1 stated that since he retired from 1st Defendant, he was not paid any pension or gratuity.

 

3.         Case of the Defendants

10.       The Defendants entered their defence of this suit on 24/6/2025. One Florence Oluyomi Onayinka testified as their sole witness (DW1), adopted her witness deposition of 12/3/2024 as her evidence in chief and tendered 45 documents as exhibits. The documents were admitted in evidence and marked as Exh. D1 – Exh. D45.

 

11.       While being cross examined, DW1 testified that he knew the know the Claimant as a former academic staff of the 1st Defendant; that he has retired; that he retired at the age of 65; that he gave Defendants notice of his retirement; that the Defendant congratulated Claimant on his retirement; that Claimant served 1st Defendant for 30 years and that Claimant was treated well by the Defendants. DW1 testified further that Claimant is entitled to gratuity and pension when he retired; that Claimant has not been paid; that Ogun State Bureau of Pensions pays pensions of 1st Defendant retirees; that the Ogun State Bureau of Pensions returned Claimant’s file due to anomalies with respect to his Birth Certificate; that Claimant was requested to bring his Birth Certificate from National Population Commission; that the Bureau of Pensions called the Claimant and told him what to do; that all that the Claimant needs to do is just to comply with the directive of the Ogun State Bureau of Pensions; that it is not the 1st Defendant that would pay Claimant his money with ASUU and Cooperative society; that Claimant should approach these other bodies to claim his money with them; that there is an established procedure for the Claimant to follow in order to receive money due to him from the University; that 1st Defendant has since stopped monetising annual leave; that Claimant did not apply for payment for his Annual Leave; that promotion at 1st Defendant is based on merit to be initiated by Department to the Faculty; that during the promotion process, some allegations were made against the Claimant which led to the promotion exercise being halted and that the Defendants are not liable to the Claimant.

 

4.         Final Written Addresses

12.       At the close of trial and pursuant to the directive of the Court, learned Counsel on either filed their final written addresses.

 

13.       A 24-page final written address was filed on behalf of the Defendants on 9/9/2025. It was dated same day. In it, learned Counsel set down these issues for the just determination of this case thus –

  1. Whether the Claimant’s retroactive claim of entitlement to promotion is valid and sustainable in law.
  2. Whether in the overall circumstances of the case, there is merit in the Claimant’s suit.

14.       On issue 1, learned Counsel submitted that for the Claimant to succeed in proving his entitlement to promotion in paragraph 25 of his amended statement of facts, his employment contract must be basis citing Akinfe v. UBA Plc (2007)10 NWLR (Pt. 1041) 185; that Claimant is expected to plead the facts and particular of the terms of his employment citing Organ & Ors. v. NLNG (2013) LPELR-2094(SC); that Claimant not only failed to plead the facts of how and where terms were agreed in his employment contract and the conditions of his service to justify his claims, he also failed to tender the employment documents he claimed to have at trial of the action and that such failure is fatal to the case of the Claimant; that Claimant’s appointment, promotions and benefits are subject to the laws setting up the Defendants; that promotion is not earned as a matter of course but subject to the fulfilment of qualifications and conditions stipulated in Exh. RA32 citing Nwoye v. FAAN (2019) LPELR-46402(SC) and that an employer cannot be compelled to promote his employee no matter the good opinion the employee might have of himself. Learned Counsel submitted that Claimant failed to meet the conditions for promotion as stipulated in Exh. C14; that he also failed to prove the retroactive claims of entitlement to promotions sought and hence same are invalid and unsustainable. Counsel urged the Court to resolve this issue in favor of the Defendants.

 

15.       On issue 2, whether there is a merit in the case of the Claimant, learned Counsel submitted that the reliefs sought by the Claimant in his amended statement of facts are declaratory reliefs which can only be granted upon proof of the facts relied on citing Matanmi v. Victoria Dada (2013) LPELR-9929(SC); that Claimant failed to adduce cogent evidence in support of his claims; that the law is settled that a Claimant who does not give particulars of specific claims in his pleadings and lead evidence thereon is not entitled to a grant thereof and that the Court cannot embark on a voyage of discovery or speculative mission to find information and evidence for the Claimant just to make up for what is not before the Court citing Agbi v. Ogbeh (2006)11 NWLR (Pt. 990) 65 at 135. Counsel urged the Court to dismiss all the declaratory reliefs sought.

 

16.       Learned Counsel submitted further that Claimant’s claims for ancillary relief of damages based on the declaratory reliefs sought must fail the declaratory reliefs not having been proved.

 

17.       With respect to claims for pension and gratuity, Counsel submitted that by virtue of Pension Reforms Act, 2014, Claimant’s pension contributions were to be paid to his Pension Funds Administrators (PFA); that the onus is on the Claimant to prove otherwise; that Claimant is expected to voluntarily tender his pay slips, Bank statements, pension accounts statement or any other information which may demonstrate that the Defendants are obliged to pay him pensions and gratuities and that Claimant failed to do so.

 

18.       On the issue of Annual Leave, learned Counsel submitted that by Exh. D1 to Exh. D35 Claimant continually requested for deferment of his annual leave; that having not requested for leave, Claimant led the Defendants to believe that he was happy not to go on leave he cannot turn around to use the approval thereof against the Defendants; that the Defendants are not under any obligation to monetise Claimant’s leave citing Exh. RA32. Learned Counsel submitted that the claims of the Claimant are spurious, baseless, unproved, unsubstantiated and lacking in merit. Counsel urged the Court to dismiss same with substantial cost in favor of the Defendants.

 

19.       The 13-paragraph final written address of the Claimant was dated 18/10/2025 and filed on 20/10/2025. In it, learned Counsel set down a lone issue for determination thus –

 

“Whether on the totality of the evidence before the Court the Claimant was able to prove that his pension and gratuity as well as other entitlements have not been paid till date by the Defendants as well as non-promotion was deliberate, whether the Defendants defence justifies and or is enough for them – (1st and 2nd Defendants) not pay the Claimant, his pension gratuity and all other entitlements having worked with the Defendants for 30 years meritoriously, and only promoted once”.

 

20.       Arguing this lone issue, learned Counsel submitted that the case of the Claimant before the Court was that he was never promoted since his last promotion of 1998 to Lecturer Grade 1 despite all his academic laurels and numerous publications. Counsel submitted that the kind of employment between the Claimant and the Defendants could be categorised as employment with statutory flavour citing KSJSC v. Tolani (2019)7 NWLR (Pt. 1671) 382 at 39-400; that Claimant was not promoted and his pension and gratuity not paid; that the issue of discrepancies allegedly noticed in the Claimant’s age and the need to get a Birth Certificate from the National Population Commission was an afterthought  and merely face saving remedy for the Defendants citing CBN v. Igwillo (2007)14 NWLR (Pt. 1054) 393 & Shitta Bay v. The Federal Public Commission (1981)2 NCLR 372. Learned Counsel urged the Court to discountenance the submission of the defence as their sole witness agreed under cross examination that the Claimant has not been paid his entitlements and grant all the reliefs sought by the Claimant.

 

5.         Decision

21.       The case of the Claimant, in brief, as revealed by his pleadings is that he was employed by the Defendants in 1982 as a Lecturer Grade 11 in the Department of Finance and Banking of the 1st Defendant; that he was promoted in 2001 by a letter dated 2/3/2001 and was never promoted  till he retired in 2022; that he was never granted Annual Leave; that he was never found wanting or involved in any atrocity whatsoever throughout his teaching career with the Defendants; that a petition dated 9/7/2019 was written against him by a Postgraduate student; that same was referred to him by a letter dated 24/7/2019 and he replied to same. It is the case of the Claimant that he was on 22/4/2021 subsequently invited to Staff Professional Ethics and Discipline Committee; that he appeared before the Committee on 11/5/2021 and did not receive anything from the Committee till the date of his statutory age of retirement in December 2022. In this action Claimant contended that he sought retroactive promotion and some other entitlements. 

 

22.       The Defendants argued that although Claimant was recommended for promotion to the position of Senior Lecturer by the Departmental Appraisal Committee during the 2019 promotion exercise, the exercise was stalled by a petition in which a student levelled allegation of abuse of office against the Claimant; that while the investigation into the allegation was in progress by the Staff Professional Ethics and Discipline Committee, Claimant voluntarily retired from service of the Defendants. The Defendants denied liability in whatever form to the Claimant. It is on the basis of the above that the Claimant approached this Court on 2/1/2024 via his General Form of Complaint.

 

23.       I have carefully read and understood all the processes filed by the parties in this case. I listened attentively to the testimonies of all the witnesses called at trial, watched their demeanor and patiently reviewed and evaluated all the exhibits tendered and admitted. I, in addition, heard the oral submissions of learned Counsel for parties at the stage of adopting their final written addresses. Having done all this, I set down this lone issue for the just determination of this case –

 

“Whether considering the extant pleadings before the Court the Claimant has proved his case to be entitled to all or some of the reliefs sought”.

24.       It is imperative that before I consider and determine the sole issue set for determination, I consider it imperative that I bring to the fore and highlight the relevant processes which define the controversies between the parties in this case.

 

25.       Claimant filed this case on 2/1/2024. By a Motion on Notice dated 30/10/2024 brought under the inherent jurisdiction of the Court and filed on 9/11/2024, Claimant sought, inter alia –

 

“An Order of the Court granting the Claimant/Applicant to amend the Statement of fact and Written Statement on Oaths of the Claimant witness, as per the schedules of Amendment accordingly attached, as Exhibit ‘A’.”

26.       The aim of an amendment, as decided by Adesanoye v. Adewole (2004) 11 NWLR (Pt. 884) 414 & Ehidimhen v. Musa (2004) 4 SC. (Pt. II) 116 at 184, is usually to prevent the manifest justice of a cause from being defeated or delayed by formal slips which may arise from inadvertence of Counsel. Amendment in the nature as sought by the Claimant would usually be granted as a matter of course in the absence of any serious objection. In absence of any objection, the Motion was granted as sought on 9/12/2024. 

 

27.       Pursuant to the amendment granted by the Court, it was incumbent on the Claimant to file and serve an amended processes as sought. The amended processes expected to be filed by the Claimant are Statement of Facts, Witness statement on oath as well as list and copies of the documents to be relied upon at trial.

 

28.       However, learned Counsel to the Claimant on 9/12/2024 filed Amended Statement of Facts, and Additional Written Statement on Oaths of Claimant Witness. The Defendants did not file any consequential amendment. With the leave to amend granted and the amendment effected by the Claimant, the processes which define the issues between the parties in this case remained the amended pleadings of the Claimant of 9/12/2024 that is Amended Statement of Facts, and Additional Written Statement on Oaths of Claimant Witness and the Defendants’ processes of 12/3/2024

 

29.       Thus, the originating processes filed by the Claimant on 2/1/2024 which were amended no longer defined the issues between the parties. Those processes together with all the accompanying documents, are dead, buried and consigned to the dustbin of history. The rational, as the appellate Courts have pointed out in a long line of cases with Abdul Aboki, JCA (as he then was) (later JSC) in The House of Representatives & Ors v. The Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria & Anor (2010) LPELR-5016(CA) citing U.B.A. Plc, v. Abdullahi (2003) 3 NWLR (Pt. 807) 359, Osita C. Nwosu v. Imo State Environmental Sanitation Authority (1990) 2 NWLR (Pt. 135) 688 & Enigbokan v. A.I.I. Co. (Nig.) Ltd. (1994) 6 NWLR (Pt. 348) 1 stating that –

“An amendment takes effect not from the date when the amendment is made but from the date of the original document which it amends. The effect of an amendment is that what stood before the amendment is no longer material before the Court and no longer defines the issues to be tried."

 

30.       Accordingly, it portends that an amended pleading which no longer defines the issues between the parties is of neither evidential nor procedural utility to the Court and where a reliance is placed on it, the proper order to make by a Court is to discountenance and expunge same from its record when considering its judgment. In Etim & Anor v. Akpan & Ors (2019) LPELR-48681(CA) Shuaibu, J.C.A relying on the Supreme Court decision in Nwaogu v. Atuma (2013) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1364) 117, held that -

 

“... where a document is wrongly admitted in evidence by a Court, the same Court has the power and jurisdiction to expunge it at the judgment stage since it can only base its judgment on legally admissible evidence and documents. Thus, the Court after admitting a document as evidence may at the conclusion of the trial expunge same if it turns out that the said evidence was wrongly received."  

31.       When the Claimant opened his case on 7/4/2025 learned Counsel to the Claimant led Claimant in evidence and adopted his witness deposition of 2/1/2024 as his evidence in chief. That process having been amended and replaced by the Claimant’s witness deposition of 9/12/2024 no longer defines the issue between the parties. The said witness deposition ought not have been allowed to be adopted. In any event, a learned Counsel is at liberty to conduct his case to the best of his professional competence.  Notwithstanding this, this Court is not left helpless. The witness deposition of 2/1/2024 no longer defines the issue between the parties in this case. It should not have been allowed to be adopted and all the documents tendered and admitted it ought not have been admitted as exhibits. It is a trite law, as the Court of Appeal pointed out in PDP v. Danlele & Ors (2015) LPELR-40365(CA) that a Court of law is enjoined and duty bound to act only on admissible evidence. Where however as in the instant case, evidence was wrongly admitted, the Court of Appeal held per Georgewill, JCA in Mr. Aruna Momodu v. Hajia Kuburatu Ibrahim (2021) LPELR-54137(CA) that –

 

“A Court of law is under a duty to act only on admissible evidence in arriving at its findings and decisions. Thus, issue three strictly deals with the power of a Court to discountenance or expunge at the stage of writing its judgment evidence, which though inadvertently already admitted, but which turns out to be inadmissible in law since a Court of law is under a duty to act and therefore, can act on admissible evidence only in deciding cases before it. Thus, at whatever stage, including the judgment writing stage, it appears to a trial Court that evidence though already admitted was inadmissible in law, it is under a duty to expunge such inadmissible evidence so that the rights and liabilities of the parties is determined on admissible evidence only. See Michael Hausa V. The State (1994) 7 8 SC 144."

 

32.       On the authorities therefore all the documents tendered and admitted as exhibits via the statement on oath of 2/1/2024 remain inadmissible as they no longer defined the issues between the parties. They possess no evidential utility to aid the just determination of this case. Accordingly, I expunge from the record of this Court all evidence led by the Claimant based on the said witness statement on oath of 2/1/2024. 

33.       Now it is left to determine the sole issue of whether the Claimant has successfully proved his entitlement to all or some of the reliefs sought in this Court against the Defendant.

34.       The law remains trite that the burden of proof continues to lie with he who asserts to be entitled to a grant of the reliefs sought. The proof required is one of cogent and credible evidence which evidence may be oral, documentary or both. In proving his case on 7/4/2025, Claimant adopted his witness deposition of 2/1/2024. He also tendered 31 documents as exhibits. I have pointed out hitherto that the said deposition of 2/1/2024 no longer defined the issues between the parties having sought and obtained leave of Court for its amendment. I have also expunged the said deposition allegedly adopted on 7/4/2024 together with all documents tendered through it. Unfortunately, Claimant’s Amended Statement of Facts filed on 9/12/2024 was not accompanied by any witness deposition or list and copies of documents to be relied upon at trial as required by the Rules of this Court. Again, the Additional Written Statement on Oaths of Claimant Witness filed on 9/12/2024 was neither accompanied by documents to be relied upon at trial nor was it even adopted at trial. It means therefore that for all intents and purposes; Claimant has failed to lead any evidence in support of his case. The Court is therefore entitled to dismiss this case in its entirety. I do so.  

 

35.       It may however be that the above position is wrong. Thus, notwithstanding the finding above, I elect to still consider the whole case on the merit.  Now, will the position as held be different were the case to be determined on merit? Claimant prayed for 8 reliefs against the Defendants from this Court. While reliefs 1 to 7 are declaratory in nature, relief 8 is for an Order that the Defendants should pay a damages to the Claimant in the sum of =N=2,000,000,000.00 (Two Billion Naira) only for failure to promote the Claimant and accordingly subject him to alien in his own country, due to the Defendants nepotism, segregation, ethic colorations which made the Claimant suffered psychological trauma and hara-kiri. 

 

36.       Respecting prayers 1 to 7, the law is trite that a declaratory relief is a call for the Court to exercise its discretionary power in favor of an applicant. Declaratory relief is never granted as a matter of course. An applicant for same is obliged to adduce sufficiently cogent and credible evidence in support of the prayer before it is granted. In Attorney General of Rivers State v. Attorney General of the Federation & Anor (2022) LPELR-57708(SC), commenting on the nature and the granting of declaratory relief, Ogunwumiju, J.S.C said –

 

"A declaratory relief is a procedural device for ascertaining and determining the rights of parties or for the determination of a point of law. Although the power to make a binding declaration of right is a discretionary power, the Plaintiff must establish a right in relation to which the declaration can be made. The claim to which the declaratory relief relates must be substantial. Thus, a declaration will only be granted where there is a breach of a right. It is the practice that a declaratory relief will be granted where the Plaintiff is entitled to relief in the fullest meaning of the word. Furthermore, the relief claimed must be something which it would not be unlawful or unconstitutional or inequitable for the Court to grant. It should also not be contrary to the accepted principles upon which the Court exercises its jurisdiction." 

 

37.       The same position was taken by Uchechukwu Onyemenam, JCA in Solomon U. Salami v. Okogbo Community Bank Limited & Ors (2022) LPELR-57584(CA) when his lordship stated emphatically that a declaratory judgment is discretionary and that it is granted only where the plaintiff is able to convince the Court, that where all facts are taken into account, he will be entitled to the exercise of the Court's discretion in his favor.

 

38.       The foundation for reliefs 1 and 2 is that of promotion. Claimant asserted his entitlement to be promoted and for his retroactive promotion to be used for the purpose of calculating his pensions and gratuity. The fact remains that promotion is a serious matter which must not be merely asserted but must be proved by documentary evidence. Throughout the trial Claimant did not exhibit any document in support of his claim to be promoted or of having been promoted. The word Promotion as explained by the Court of Appeal in Mrs. Josephine Kofo Abayomi v. Saap-Tech Nigeria Limited (2018) LPELR-50254(CA) in simple language of Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary 6th Edition, page 934 means: - "a move to a more important job or rank in a company or an organization". It is not a right, as noted by the Supreme Court in Nwoye v. F.A.A.N (2019) LPELR-46402, but rather a privilege which an employee must earn. It is also the state of the law that an employee cannot compel his employer to promote him. This is irrespective of the brilliance, loyalty and/or specialised skill of the employee.

 

39.       In the instant case, there is no evidence of Claimant having been promoted beyond Lecturer Grade Level 11. However, it is the opinion of the Claimant considering his length of service at the Defendant and his numerous accomplishments and publications he ought to be promoted. I find no evidence of the alleged promotion which would have placed prayers 1 and 2 in a good stead. I accordingly refuse and dismiss both for absence of proof. 

 

40.       Relief 3 is for a Declaration that payment “for deferred ANNUAL LEAVE, which never paid him, till his date of retirement be calculated in accordance with his periodical promotional status” . To be successful with this relief, Claimant is obliged to prove that he applied for and was denied his annual leave. Claimant must also adduce evidence to the effect that his Annual Leave could be monetised. Claimant must in addition state how much he was entitled to in lieu of Annual Leave. Claimant failed to lead evidence in proof of any of the issues raised here. There is however evidence to the effect that Claimant always applied for deferment of his Annual Leave. Thus, there is no evidence that Claimant was denied the opportunity of proceeding on his entitled Annual Leave. When an employee applies for deferment of Annual Leave, it portends simply that the employee continues to enjoy working with the employer at the time the annual leave was due and that he would utilise same at a much later date. To therefore apply for deferment of annual leave does not tantamount to applying for same to be converted to cash. This head of claim is not proved. I accordingly refuse and dismiss same for lack of proof as required by law.

 

41.       Reliefs 4 to 7 are for declarations that Claimant is entitled to certain payments from the Defendants. These include “payments for Post Graduate outstanding claims”; “Declaration that the Claimant is equally entitled to outstandings for all ODL, BFN … 116 Foundation of Finance which the Claimant produced for 1st Defendant OPEN DISTANCE LEARNING; “Declaration that the Claimant CMS - Co-operative OOU - the deducted CONTRIBUTIONS from his monthly salary, over the years, which never remitted to Cooperative Society of OOU, be paid to him at the period of retirement from the University” and “Declaration that balance of ASUU welfare contribution deducted from his monthly salary, which never remitted to ASUU, which amounts to millions of Naira be paid to him”. In all these 4 reliefs, Claimant did not ask for specific amount as due to him for each head of relief. For instance, how much is the amount due for postgraduate outstanding claims? How much is due to the Claimant “for all ODL, BFN … 116 Foundation of Finance which the Claimant produced for 1st Defendant OPEN DISTANCE LEARNING”? How much did the Defendant deduct from the salary of the Claimant for CMS - Co-operative OOU”? How much did the Claimant contribute for ASUU welfare for which he prayed the Court to direct the Defendant to pay back to him? Adjudication is a serious business and must be accorded the seriousness it deserves. A Claimant seeking reliefs through the Court must as of necessity place his case diligently before the Court. Nothing should be left for the Court to speculate. As it is in the instant case, the Claimant expects the Court to speculate or guess as to how much he ought to be paid for each of reliefs 4 to 7. If the Court were to do that then it would have gone outside its mandate and delve in to the arena. There is no proof of any of these 4 reliefs. I therefore refuse and dismiss them.  

 

42.       The last relief sought by the Claimant is for an Order that the Defendants should pay a damages to him in the sum of =N=2,000,000,000.00 (Two Billion Naira) only for failure to promote him and accordingly subject him to alien in his own country, due to the Defendants nepotism, segregation, ethic colorations which made the Claimant suffered psychological trauma and hara-kiri. Again, the pillar upon which this relief rests is the issue of promotion. It is up to an employee to feel entitled to promotion. It is also up to an employer to determine if its employee will be promoted. An employee is not entitled to promotion simply because he believes in his competence, skills and loyalty to his employer. After all an employee cannot promote himself or herself. This Court in resolving reliefs 1 and 2 against the Claimant had held that promotion is not a right but rather a privilege which must be earned. There is no evidence before the Court that Claimant earned that promotion. It is not on record that Claimant was promoted beyond Lecturer 11. This relief is like putting something on nothing. The claim for Two Billion Naira is something. The foundation for same which is promotion is nothing. In the wise words of Lord Denning MR, in UAC v. MacFoy (1962) AC 157 you cannot put something on nothing and expect it to stay. It will collapse. Accordingly, this relief must collapse there been no strong foundation upon which it rests. I refuse and dismiss this relief.

 

6. Conclusion

43.       Finally, for the avoidance of doubt and for all the reasons as contained in this Judgment I dismiss the case of the Claimant in its entirety for lack of proof by cogent, credible and admissible evidence.

 

44.       I make no order as to cost.

 

45.       Judgment is entered accordingly.

 

 

 

-----------------------------------

Hon. Justice J. D. Peters

Presiding