Back

The court has exclusive jurisdiction in civil causes and matters relating to or connected with any labour, employment, trade unions, industrial relations and matters arising from workplace, the conditions of service, including health, safety, welfare of labour, employee, worker and matter incidental thereto or connected therewith.

LIVE Proceeding VIRTUAL COURT

News


[Just In] Resignation Letter Validity: Industrial Court Dismisses Suit Against WAZIRI UMARU FEDERAL POLYTECHNIC For Lacking Merit


1626 Wednesday 13th June 2018

 

 

Sokoto---His Lordship, Hon. Justice K. D. Damulak of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, Soko Judicial Division on Wednesday 13th June in a judgment delivered dismissed a suit against WAZIRI UMARU FEDERAL POLITECHNIC, BIRNIN KEBBI And 3 others filed by Dr. ALAFIYATAYO AKINOLA  which hinges on the validity of his resignation letter and validity of the letter inviting him to appear before a disciplinary committee.

 

The Claimant Dr. ALAFIYATAYO AKINOLA through his counsel sought among others; A DECLARATION that by section 11 of the Labour Act laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004 either of the plaintiff and the defendant can terminate their contractual relationship. A DECLRATION that by a letter dated the 16th January, 2018 and received by the defendant on 16th January 2018; the plaintiff has lawfully resigned his appointment with the 1st defendant. Also AN ODER setting aside the purported committee sitting of 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendant made on 29th January, 2018 and all matter incidental therewith for being illegal, null and void.

 

The claimant was employed as a probationary contract officer by WAZIRI UMARU POLYTECHNIC on 7/7/2006, then, owned by the Kebbi state Government. The Federal Government took over the Polytechnic on 1st January 2007 and it became WAZIRI UMARU FEDERAL POLYTECHNIC, the 1st defendant. The claimant’s contract was converted from contract to permanent and pensionable via a letter to that effect dated 9/5/2008 with effect from 10/7/2008 By a letter dated 22/10/2008, the claimant’s appointment was confirmed with effect from 1/1/2007. By yet another letter dated 2/4/2009, the claimants service was transferred from Kebbi state Government to the Federal Government based on the takeover of the WAZIRI UMARU POLYTECHNIC by the Federal Government, this conversion was with effect from 1/1/2007.

 

On 31/8/2012, the claimant signed a two year IN-SERVICE TRAINING AGREEMENT with the 1st defendant to study M.sc. Genetic Engineering and Molecular Biology at Universiti Putra Malaysia, (UPM), (exhibit WUFED 1). The two years elapsed in September 2014, (exhibit WUFED 2). The claimant applied for and was granted several extensions up to June 2016.

 

By their joint counter affidavit, the registrar of the 1st defendant deposed that after the last expiration in June 2016 and the claimant did not resume duties, the 1st defendant stopped claimant’s salaries in August 2016 and issued him two query letters in October 2017 and That the claimant did not return to the 1st defendant to resume duties until 30/11/2017.

 

Likewise that before the claimant’s resignation letter of 16/1/2018, there was already an adhoc disciplinary committee in place and on the 29/1/2018, the adhoc committee served the claimant an invitation letter to appear before it.

 

The defendant stated that the study leave with pay granted to the claimant was a form of sponsorship on the condition stipulated that the claimant is bound to serve the 1st defendant for two years upon completion of his studies before he can resign or be allowed to go for further studies. Counsel then urged the court to dismiss this suit with substantial cost.

 

After reviewing the argument of the parties, the Court Presided by Hon. Justice K. D. Damulak expressed thus;

 

“It is my firm view that where a one months notice of intension to resign is required, a notice of resignation issued on a particular date and stated to be with effect on that date will not amount to one month notice of intention to resign as the employee cannot be said to have issued the required length of notice of intention to resign. In this case therefore, the claimant’s notice of intension to resign dated on 16/1/2018 and stated to be with effect from that date does not qualify as one month notice of intention to resign as required by section 11(1), (2)(d) and (4) of the Labour Act. I so hold.

 

“On the whole, I find and hold that the claimant did not give a valid one month notice of intention to resign. His employment did not stand determined on 16/1/2018.  The claimant cannot resign his employment with the 1st defendant on 16thJanuary, 2018, he can only exercise that right on 29th November, 2019. The claimant was still an employee of the 1st defendant on 29/1/2018 and subject to any necessary disciplinary procedure of the 1st defendant.

 

"Accordingly all the issues submitted by the claimant are resolved against him and in favour of the defendants.

 

“The claimant’s suit is hereby dismissed as totally lacking in merit.

 

For Full Judgement, Click Here