Media
- Home
- Details
Akure –His Lordship, Hon. Justice O. O. Oyewumi, the presiding Judge, Akure Judicial division of The National Industrial Court of Nigeria, on Wednesday 15th January 2019 in a landmark judgment set aside letter of Termination of Appointment of MR. ALFRED I.O OBADAN (claimant) issued by THE FEDERAL POLYTECHNIC, OFFA, and 3 Others. The court held that the Letter of Appointment with Reference No. FPO/RO/74/S.1 dated the 1st day of June 2009 issued by THE GOVERNING COUNCIL, FEDERAL POLYTECHNIC OFFA (2nd Defendant) appointing the Claimant as the Substantive Bursar of the 1st Defendant is valid.
His Lordship faulted the directive issued by the Minister to the 1st defendant as inconsistent with the provision of Section 17 of the Act and by extension the 1999 Constitution as amended.
The claimant sought against defendants among others; A Declaration that the Claimant is still in the services of the 1st Defendant as the substantive Bursar of the 1st Defendant until the expiration of a period of five years from 1st June 2009 to the 1st June 2014.
Likewise, A Declaration that the purported termination of the Claimant’s Appointment vide Letter Reference No. FPO/RO/74/S.1 dated 2nd day of October 2009, as the Substantive Bursar of the 1st Defendant is invalid, ineffectual, unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect whatsoever as same is a violation of the Claimant’s right to Fair Hearing and a fortiori a violation of the provisions of Section 36(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.
ALTERNATIVELY
A Declaration that the Claimant is entitled to the sum of N27,935,828.71(Twenty Seven Million, Nine Hundred and Thirty-Five Thousand, Eight Hundred and Twenty-Eight Naira, Seventy-One Kobo) only being the payment of all his monthly salary, allowances, accrued benefits and/or all other emoluments by the 1st Defendant until after a period of five years beginning from 1st day of June, 2009 till 1st day of June 2014.
It is the case of the Claimant that he was appointed a Bursar of the 1st Defendant and assumed duty on the 22nd June 2009. That to his surprise, he received a letter dated the 28th day of September 2009 signed by Rector that his appointment as “Substantive Bursar” had been changed to “Acting Bursar” and that within few days, he was served with another Letter dated 2nd October 2009 stating that his appointment had been terminated.
He averred that his appointment as the Substantive Bursar of the 1st defendant is governed by statute and stated further that asides from his monthly salary from October 2009 to June 2014 that he is also entitled to any increase in his salary whenever same is increased and also all allowances and fringe benefits cognizable as the Bursar of the 1st Defendant in addition to his pension and gratuity. He also averred that his purported termination was malicious.
Furthermore, defendants denied the assertion of the Claimant that the termination of his employment was malicious, rather they stated that it was due to the petition written by the three (3) unions of the 1st Defendant and that from the content of the petition written to the Chairman of the Governing Council of which the Minister of Education was copied, some vital issues were raised that amounted to irregularities in the Claimant’s appointment among which was his age.
That it was when the abnormality was discovered the Federal Minister of Education ordered/directed that the position of the Bursar is re-advertised and the appointment of the Claimant be terminated and also that the 1st Defendant had paid the Claimant for the period he worked with the 1st Defendant before his termination.
Learned Defence Counsel in his issue contended that this suit is not properly constituted having not been initiated by due process of law. It is his argument that the Federal Minister of Education being the person who issued the directive is a necessary party for the effective determination of this suit.
The learned Claimant’s Counsel also in his reaction to this contended that Minister by law is not an employer of the claimant and was not privy to the contract between the claimant and the 1st defendant neither did he issue the letter of employment.
After careful evaluation of all the processes filed, and the submissions of the learned Counsel from both sides. The Court presided by Hon. Justice O. O. Oyewumi held that the non-joinder of the Minister does not in any way affect the effectual determination of this suit.
“It is therefore obvious on record that the procedure for the appointment of the claimant as the Bursar of the 1st defendant as stipulated in exhibit AO6 was duly followed. I say so in view of the fact that there was nowhere from the evidence before the Court where it was expressly or impliedly stated that the applicant for the position of a Bursar must not be over 50years.
“Now it is obvious that the Minister can issue directives which must be followed by Council. However, with regards to the determination of employment regulated by statute, it is solely a Constitutional issue in the sense that the principle of fair hearing as provided for vide Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution as amended must be adhered by following strictly the provision embedded in the statute which regulates the determination of the claimant’s employment.
“In that regards, the Minister cannot wake up in his might and glory and brazenly terminate the employment of an employee without compliance with the Act or terms of the contract.
“It is on this premise that I find that the directive issued by the Minister to the 1st defendant is inconsistent with the provision of Section 17 of the Act and by extension the 1999 Constitution as amended.” Justice Oyewumi stated.
In conclusion, the claimant’s claims succeed in part. The court set aside letter of Termination of Appointment and declared that the Letter of Appointment with Reference No. FPO/RO/74/S.1 dated the 1st day of June 2009 issued by the 2nd Defendant appointing the Claimant as the Substantive Bursar of the 1st Defendant is valid.
His Lordship also ordered that defendant to pay claimant all his salaries and other entitlements from the 2nd October 2009 till the expiration of his tenure on 31st May 2014 within 30 days.
