Akure – His Lordship, Hon. Justice A. A. Adewemimo of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, sitting in Akure on Friday 14 December 2018 in a judgment held that the compulsory leave given to Daniel Adeyemo (claimant) by the Federal University, Oye Ekiti (defendant) did not contravene University conditions of service. The court dismissed the suit in its entirety for being speculative and unmeritorious.
The Claimant by a Complaint before this court on the 17th October 2017 sought against the defendants among others; A DECLARATION that the claimant has a security of tenure of five (5) years having being statutorily employed as the Registrar of the 1st Defendant. A DECLARATION that the Claimant cannot be removed or suspended except in accordance with laid down rules in strict compliance with the law establishing the 1st Defendant.
Likewise, A DECLARATION that the planned removal and/or suspension of the Claimant by the 2nd Defendant singlehandedly without following the due process of law is unconstitutional, null and void.
The claimant’s case is that he was employed as the Acting Registrar in July 2011 to April 2015 and confirmed as the substantive Registrar till date. He stated that the genesis of his problem or disagreement with the 2nd defendant started in 2016 when the 2nd defendant unilaterally appointed one of his kinsmen, as the Director of Administration and ceded a substantial part of the Registrar’s statutory duties to him.
Claimant averred that sometimes, members of Non-Academic Union and their ilk’s wrote a petition against him, raising the allegation that he was responsible for the non-promotion of some of its members.
Claimant stated that even though he was never in charge of promotion or had any power to prevent the promotion of anybody promoted or demoted by the council, he was later advised to respond to the petition, which he did. He further reiterated that after his response to the petition, the 2nd defendant informed him through WhatsApp message that he should proceed on indefinite leave without pay and while going he should drop his official car.
Claimant stated that on the 13th of October, 2017 the 2nd defendant requested him to appear before a disciplinary committee slated to sit between16th – 18th October, 2017, vide a WhatsApp message.
The defendants’ case is that the claimant is the Registrar of the 1st defendant and that three Industrial Unions in the 1st Defendant (Senior Staff Association of Nigeria Universities, National Association of Non-Academic Staff Union and National Association of Technologies) wrote a petition against the claimant.
A copy of the petition was however also sent to the Minister of Education, alleging certain administrative malfeasance against the Claimant, consequent upon which the Minister directed the Council to investigate the said petition.
Upon which according to the Defendants, the claimant pleaded for time to turn in his voluntary resignation and the Council through the 2nd Defendant directed the claimant to proceed on leave in line with the extant rules, regulations, and law of the 1st Defendant.
The Defendants’ averred that the Claimant instead of picking one of the options made available to him later instituted a suit in the Federal High Court, Ado- Ekiti which was later struck out.
The defendants reiterated that the council is empowered to take disciplinary measures against any member of staff that is guilty of misconduct and that they should be allowed to conclude the disciplinary process against the claimant.
The defendants in their address also denied the purported directive issued by the 2nd defendant vide Whatsapp message as well as the alleged plot to remove the claimant at all cost.
The final written address of the claimant was filed on the 5th October 2018 and adopted by GboyegaOyewole S.A.Nsubmitted that there is nothing to suggest that the annual leave of an employee as contained in the FUOYE Regulations is a disciplinary sanction.
He pointed out that the regulations do not provide for leave as a form of discipline or disciplinary action against an employee of the 1st defendant and that the implication of not following laid down procedure in respect of discipline of an employee whose employment is statutorily flavoured.
After careful analysis of all the processes filed, and the submissions of the learned Counsel from both sides. The Court presided by Hon. Justice A. A. Adewemimo expressed thus;
“It is therefore clear from the above-quoted provisions, that the 1st defendant has the right to ask the Claimant to go on leave. More so he had a pending disciplinary proceeding against him, and in fact, by this provision, he is entitled to only half pay, while the matter is pending but the defendants have been magnanimous to pay him in full.
“That an employer is within his rights to ask the officer being investigated to stay away from the workplace to allow unhindered investigations to be carried out and for peace to reign at the workplace is in line with business practice, to save the Master/Employer’s business as Suspension is a tool of business practice and in accordance with judicial decision.
“The Defendants have however chosen the option of indefinite leave as allowed under their conditions of and was paying the claimant his full salary, pending the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings against him truncated by the institution of this suit, I, therefore, fail to see in what way the act of the Defendants is wrongful.
“In the instant suit, the Claimant is asking the court to reach a decision based on mere speculation and a perceived predetermined outcome of the disciplinary proceedings, these are not triable issues, and it will be premature at this stage for the court to exercise its adjudicatory powers to delve into an issue that is speculative or hypothetical, the court is precluded from so doing as the court can only act on cogent, concise and compelling facts, which the Claimant, in this case, has failed to proffer.
“I find therefore that the Claimant’s case did not disclose any triable issue as the claims are speculative and unmeritorious.
“In consequence of the above, the case of the Claimant fails in its entirety and is hereby dismissed. I so hold.
