Media
- Home
- Details
Abuja --His Lordship, Hon. Justice S. O. Adeniyi of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, sitting in Abuja on Thursday 4th October 2018 in a judgment set aside the purported dismissal letter issued to MR. JOHN OSEMEN EHIKIOYA (Claimant) by THE REGISTRAR, AUCHI POLYTECHNIC, AUCHI. His Lordship also declared the termination of the Claimant’s employment as unlawful, illegal, null and void as it was done in violation of the statute and regulation guiding the Claimant’s contract of employment with the AUCHI POLYTECHNIC AUCHI (3rd Defendant).
The Claimant had claimed against the Defendants among others; A DECLARATION that the letter of dismissal dated the 1st December 2016 issued by the Defendants to the Claimant dismissing him from the employment of the 3rd Defendant not being authorized or a product of the Governing Council of the 3rd Defendant is nullity ab initio and it is therefore ineffectual to dismiss the Claimant from the service of the 3rd Defendant. A DECLARATION that the purported dismissal of Claimant’s appointment by the Defendants was done in breach of Federal Polytechnics Act and the Federal Polytechnic Staff Manual 1990.
The case of the claimant from the statement of facts, he was offered an appointment as Assistant Lecturer dated 26/06/1989, his appointment was confirmed on 20/07/1992 and that he was later promoted to the post of a Chief Lecturer in 2012.
The claimant testified that he was invited by the Ad-hoc Committee on scandalous publication against the 3rd Defendant and that on 25/04/2016 he appeared before the Committee as a witness to unravel the circumstances surrounding the media publication of alleged impropriety in the 3rd Defendant.
The claimant further testified that after his appearance at the Committee, a query was issued to him and that he replied. However, in spite of his reply to the query, he was dismissed from the 3rd Defendant’s employment by a letter dated 01/12/2016.
The claimant further testified that being a senior staff of the 3rd Defendant, he was never invited to appear before the Senior Staff Disciplinary Committee as required by the Federal Polytechnic Staff Manual before he was dismissed. He also testified that the 1st Defendant did not comply with the provisions of Senior Staff Condition of service in dismissing him from the 3rd Defendant’s employment as he was not given the notice of the reason for his dismissal neither was he given the opportunity to make representation to the Council and that the report of the Ad-hoc Committee upon which his dismissal was based was never presented to the Governing Council for consideration.
The 1st – 3rd Defendants filed their written final address raised a lone issue Whether, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the Claimant’s dismissal from the service of the 3rd Defendant was not lawful.
The Claimant, on his part, filed his final written address asked among others Whether the Defendants complied with Section 17 of the Federal Polytechnics Act and Paragraph 8:4 of Chapter 8 of the Federal Polytechnic Staff Manual 1990 in dismissing the Claimant from his employment, if the answers to the above issues are in the negative.
According to the defendant, the Claimant was adequately informed of the purpose of his invitation by the Committee and he was afforded ample opportunity to present his case before the Committee. The witness also testified that the administrative query issued to the Claimant is different from the grounds of removal of an academic staff as provided in the Federal Polytechnic Manual.
The witness further testified on the issue of the recommendation for the Claimant’s dismissal, that after the Claimant was found culpable of the allegation, the management of 3rd Defendant and the 4th Defendant (MINISTER OF EDUCATION) took an urgent action because of the gravity of the allegation.
The witness further maintained that the Claimant was lawfully dismissed from the 3rd Defendant on the instruction of the 4th Defendant being the Visitor to the 3rd Defendant.
In his final written address, the Claimant’s counsel submitted that the Claimant cannot be removed from his employment unless the terms and conditions in Section 8.4 of the Federal Polytechnic Staff Manual 1990, are complied with.
After reviewing the argument of both parties, the Court Presided by Hon. Justice S. O. Adeniyi expressed thus;
“It is significant to further state that the DW1 also admitted during cross-examination that the Ad-hoc Committee set up by the 3rd Defendant was a Fact- Finding Committee and that the Claimant was not invited as an accused person since the scandalous publication did not specify any name.
“With the evidence falling from the lips of the DW1, the Deputy Registrar, Senior Staff Establishment, one does not need a soothsayer before one could conclude that the Claimant was denied fair hearing.
“My inevitable conclusion is that the dismissal of the Claimant as a Chief Lecturer of the 3rd Defendant did not comply with due process of law particularly Section 36(1) of 1999 Constitution and the Federal Polytechnics Act.”
His Lordship declared that the termination of the Claimant’s employment is unlawful, illegal, null and void as it was done in violation of the statute and regulation guiding the Claimant’s contract of employment with the 3rd Defendant.
“Consequently, the letters dated 8th June 2016 and 1st December 2016 are hereby set aside.” His Lordship stated.
The court also ordered reinstatement of the Claimant forthwith to his employment in the 3rd Defendant and to place the Claimant in the appropriate position and level he ought to be at the moment in the employment of the 3rd Defendant had his employment not been unlawfully terminated.
His Lordship ordered Defendants to pay Claimant all his outstanding wages, salaries, allowances and other emoluments accruing to him from the 1st day of December 2016 being the date of the unlawful termination of his employment, up to the date of this judgment.
