Media
- Home
- Details
Sokoto – Presiding Judge of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, Sokoto Judicial division, His Lordship, Hon. Justice K. D. Damulak has validated the employment termination of Danjuma Momoh by Usmanu Dan Fodio University Teaching Hospital, Sokoto.
The court held there no reason to assume that the Director of Administration who approved the letter of dismissal is not a member of the Board in the absence of the instrument of appointment of Board members.
The claimant filed a complaint against the Defendant on 25/06/2018, sought among others; A DECLARATION that the termination of the appointment of the claimant from the services of the defendant as conveyed vide the defendant’s letter to the claimant with reference NO. UDUTH/ADM/PER/SP/2791/VOL.1/45 dated 6th day of June 2018 is unconstitutional, unlawful, illegal, null and void and of no effect whatsoever.
Likewise, AN ORDER directing the defendant to forthwith reinstate the claimant to claimant’s position as Higher Executive Officer (Audit) in the defendant’s establishment and be paid all the salaries, emoluments allowances and other perquisites attached to that office or to such other offices or positions the claimant may subsequently be promoted to effective from the date of judgment of this Honourable Court up to the period of the lawful cessation of the contract of employment of the claimant with the defendant.
The claimant was offered appointment by the defendant on 1st day of September 2014 as a higher executive officer (Audit) and confirmed on the 1st day of September 2016, the defendant accused the claimant of forging documents and invoices with the intention of committing fraud which the claimant denied the accusation. The claimant was made to face a disciplinary committee in which he admitted destroying some receipts/invoices.
The claimant stated that he received a letter of query dated 17th January 2018, That he made a written explanation to the said query and appeared before the senior staff appointment, promotion and disciplinary committee where he denied the allegations.
That the defendant kept him on suspension from office up till the 6th day of June 2018 when he received a letter intimating him that his appointment has been terminated with effect from the 1st June 2018.
That at no time was he queried on the alleged offence/misconduct of “destruction of official documents” and neither did he make any response to the purported allegation in his written explanation to the query issued to him by the defendant.
That the defendant denied him his constitutional right to fair hearing when the defendant decided to punish him in respect of an offence he was never accused of nor was he given an opportunity to defend himself in respect thereof.
Defendant submitted that from the pleading, evidence and documents tendered, particularly letter of query, explanation to the query, notification to termination of appointment that the claimant admitted before the committee, the commission of the offence, of serious gross misconduct as per public service rules and which the Defendant is empowered to discipline him accordingly.
In his reply, claimant submitted that on a careful perusal of the content of the said letter of termination was approved by the management of the defendant and not the Board of management of the defendant, that the said allegation of the destruction of official documents was smuggled into the case.
After careful evaluation of all the processes filed, and the submissions of the learned Counsel from both sides. The Court presided by Hon. Justice K. D. Damulak expressed held that the term “management” as used by the defendant is used interchangeably with the term “management Board.
“I have read section 2 of the said enabling Act, there is no reason to assume that the said Director of Administration is not a member of the Board in the absence of the instrument of appointment of Board members of the defendant.
“Moreso, Letter of query and Letter of termination were all written on behalf of management by the said Director of Administration. They are therefore acts of the management which is the same thing as management Board.
“Similarly, the claimant’s confirmation of appointment was made by Management and not Management Board, and the letter was signed by the Director of Administration for the Chief Medical Director. This argument does not in any way serve the interest of the claimant.
“I agree with the defendant’s counsel that the claimant was given fair hearing. The defendant, therefore, did not need to issue a fresh query to the claimant and a fresh investigation in respect of destruction of official documents before taking any appropriate measures on the claimant in the circumstance of this case.
“I find that the dismissal of the claimant by the defendant for the destruction of public documents was lawful. The claim of the claimant fails and is hereby dismissed.”
