IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT ABUJA

ON MONDAY 09^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: HON. JUSTICE S. O. ADENIYI

SUIT NO: NICN/ABJ/114/2024

BETWEEN:

DR. ISREAL WADE LEDO……………………………. CLAIMANT

  

AND

 

1.     INCORPORATED TRUSTEES OF BIBLE

TRANSLATORS OF THE WORD TO THE

WORLD INITIATIVE

2.     EVANG. SAMUEL SUNDAY TONO

3.     ARCHBISHIP RIMAMCHIRKA A. MAJI                           DEFENDANTS

4.     MRS. LOIS BAPIKINA OWOICHO-AMEN

5.     PST. NDAHI AUDU JOSEPH

6.     VARELA ERIC

 

Legal representation:

Vincent Orifunmishe Esq., for Claimant

Shimasaan Gbanger Esq., for 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 6th Defendants

G. G. Habila Esq., for 5th Defendant

 

J U D G E M E N T

The Claimant is the National Director of the 1st Defendant; a religious incorporated organization saddled with the responsibility of translating the Holy Bible from English Language to other local languages in Nigeria. In summary, the case of the Claimant is that he was placed on indefinite suspension by an Investigative Committee set up by the Defendants without being served with notices of meetings and without being heard, and thereby alleged that the Defendants breached the terms stipulated in the Staff Policy Handbook of the 1st Defendant. The Claimant further alleged that the actions of the Defendants were ultra vires, mala fide, and in breach of his right to fair hearing.

2. On the basis of the briefly stated facts, the Claimant filed an Originating Summons in this Court on 02/05/2024, and by the operative Amended Originating Summons filed with the leave of Court on 22/05/2025, the following questions for determination were posed for the Court:

1.     Whether having regards to the appointment of the Claimant as clearly stated in his appointment letter dated 29th March, 2018 and Article 5.3 of the 1^st Defendant's Staff Policy Hand book, the 2^nd, 3^rd, 4^th, and 5^th Defendants acting together or individually could lawfully and validly suspend indefinitely the Claimant as the National Director and or as a member of the Board of Trustee of the 1st Defendant without complying with the appropriate steps of the organization's disciplinary policy.

2.     Whether having regards to the appointment of the Claimant as clearly stated in his appointment letter dated 29th March, 2018 and Article 5.3 of the 1^st Defendant's Staff Policy Hand book, the 2^nd, 3^rd, 4^th, and 5^th  Defendants acting together or individually could lawfully and validly issue an indefinite suspension letter to the Claimant as a member of Board of Trustee and the National Director of the 1^st Defendant without validly obtaining the approval of the Regional and International Office which the Claimant reports directly to.

3.     Whether having regards to Article 5.3 of the 1^st Defendant’s Staff Policy Hand Book, the 2^nd, 3^rd, 4^th and 5^th Defendants acting together or individually without complying with the appropriate steps of discipline contain in the Staff Policy and without validly obtaining the majority votes of members of Trustees in the general meeting of the Body of Trustees did not amount to usurpation of the powers of the Governing Board.

4.     Whether having regards to Article 5.3 of the 1^st Defendant's Staff Policy Hand

Book and other relevant regulations, the Defendant (it's Investigative Committee) is vested with the power to sign the suspension letter of the Claimant (who is the pioneer of the 1st Defendant and whose tenure as a Board of Trustee and the National Direction (sic) was still subsisting) on grounds of indiscipline or any other ground.

5.     Whether having regards to Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution (As Amended) the:

a.      Defendants are not under an obligation to afford the Claimant fair hearing before reaching its decision to suspend the Claimant indefinitely?

b.     Whether failure of the Defendants’ failure to afford the Claimant the opportunity to defend himself does not amount to breach of his right to fair hearing?

3. Upon determination of the questions, the Claimant seeks the reliefs set out as follows:

1.         A DECLARATION that by virtue of the appointment of the

Claimant as clearly stated in his appointment letter dated 29th March, 2018 and Article 5.3 of the is Defendant's Staff Policy Hand Book, the 2^nd, 3^rd, 4^th, and 5^th Defendants acting together or individually cannot lawfully and validly suspend indefinitely the Claimant as the National Director and or as a member of the Board of Trustee of the 1^st Defendant without complying with the appropriate steps of the organization's disciplinary policy.

2.        A DECLARATION that by virtue of the appointment of the Claimant as clearly stated in his appointment letter dated 29th March, 2018 and Article 5.3 of the 1^st Defendant's Staff Policy Hand book, the 2^nd, 3^rd, 4^th, and 5^th Defendants acting together or individually cannot lawfully and validly issue an indefinite suspension letter to the Claimant as a member of Board of Trustee and the National Director of the is  Defendant without validly obtaining the approval of the Regional and International Office which the Claimant reports directly to.

3.     A DECLARATION that by virtue of the provisions of Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution (As Amended) the:

a.      Defendants are under an obligation to afford the Claimant fair hearing before reaching its decision to suspend the Claimant indefinitely.

b.     The failure of the Defendants to afford the Claimant the opportunity to defend himself amount to breach of his right to fair hearing.

4.        A DECLARATION that the purported indefinite suspension of the          Claimant by the 2^nd, 3^rd, 4^th and 5^th Defendants is ultra vires their powers and thus illegal, unlawful, null and void and liable to be set aside.

5.       A DECLARATION that the Claimant is entitled to be reinstated back to his position as a Trustee and the National Director as if he was never suspended and should be paid all his entitlements and fringe benefits from the time of the unlawful suspension till reinstatement.

6.     Cost of action.

The Originating Summons is supported by a 40 – paragraph Affidavit deposed to by the Claimant and to which six (6) sets of documents were annexed as Exhibit A, Exhibit B, Exhibit C, Exhibit D, Exhibit D1and Exhibit E.

4. To oppose the Originating Summons, the 1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd, 4^th and 6^th Defendants filed a Counter Affidavit of 35 main paragraphs, deemed filed on 26/05/2025. The 1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd, 4^th and 6^th Defendants denied the entirety of the Claimant’s claims and contend that the Claimant was never formally appointed as the National Director, Executive Officer or any management position of the 1st Defendant by the Board of Trustees. It was alleged that the Claimant merely assumed management voluntarily for the purpose of ensuring sustainability and proper management of the 1st Defendant; that no resolution was passed to appoint him; that Board of Trustees of the 1st Defendant did not authorise his appointment and the purported letter of the Claimant did not emanate from the decision of the Board of Trustees of the 1st Defendant.

5. It was further deposed that the Claimant’s suspension arose from allegations of misappropriation of the 1st Defendant’s funds by members of his family whom he had placed in key management positions. According to the 1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd, 4^th and 6^th Defendants,  an Investigative Committee that was duly constituted was set up and the Claimant was invited and was afforded the opportunity to be heard; that the Claimant was present at all meetings of the Board of Trustees of the 1st Defendant and was suspended when evidence of misappropriation of funds including alleged forged invoices was founded against him and that upon the decision of the Board of Trustees of the 1st Defendant, the Claimant wrote a letter to the International Director admitting the wrongdoings and also offered his apology in writing.

6. They maintained that the suspension which followed due process was ratified by the Board of Trustees and was supported by the regional leadership of the organization. They further contend that the Staff Policy relied upon by the Claimant is unenforceable, and that he is thereby not entitled to the reliefs being sought.  Annexed to the Counter-Affidavit are Exhibits A, B, B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M and M1.

The Claimant further filed a Further and Better Affidavit of 51 paragraphs in opposition to the 1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd, 4^th, and 6^th Defendants’ Counter Affidavit on 17/07/2025, to which, three (3) sets of documents were annexed as Exhibit 1A, Exhibit 1B and Exhibit 1C.

7. The 28 -paragraph Counter Affidavit of the 5th Defendant was deemed filed on 17/07/2025. The deposition of the 5th Defendant is that the crisis involving the Claimant was initially treated by the Board as a family matter and that the Claimant attended board meetings except the last one that was held on 19/02/2024, when the investigative report was presented by the investigative committee. He further deposed that although suggestions of an indefinite suspension were made at that meeting, the Board resolved not to impose an indefinite suspension since the Claimant was already serving a four-month suspension. The 5^th Defendant denied that he was member of the investigative committee and further denied that he participated, approved or signed the Claimant’s indefinite suspension. He further alleged that his signature was fraudulently affixed to the suspension letter and admitted that the Claimant was not served with the investigative report.

8. Meanwhile, a Motion on Notice was also filed by the 1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd, 4^th and 6^th Defendants/Applicants on 26/05/2025 wherein they prayed this Honourable Court for the following principal reliefs;

1.     An Order of this Honourable Court declining jurisdiction to hear and determine the instant case on the ground that the subject of the case is outside the prescribed jurisdiction of this Court.

2.     An Order of this Honourable Court striking out the claims of the Claimant on the ground that it is outside the Jurisdiction of this Court.

The Notice of Preliminary Objection is predicated on three (3) grounds and supported by an Affidavit of six (6) main paragraphs. Also filed alongside the Notice of Preliminary objection is the written address of counsel. In opposition, the Claimant/Respondent filed a Counter-Affidavit on 26/05/2025 of five (5) main paragraphs and a Written Address was also filed alongside.

9. In his written address, counsel for the 1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd, 4^th and 6^th Defendants/Applicants, Shimasaan Gbanger Esq., formulated two (2) issues for determination, namely;

1.     Whether this Honourable Court has the jurisdiction to consider issues relating to the status of the Claimant as trustee of the 1^st Defendant or his suspension as trustee of the 1^st Defendant.

2.     If the answer to issue 1 above is resolved in the negative, whether the combination of the questions/issues for determination relating to trusteeship of the Claimant and his national directorship (which relates purely to the question of employment of the Claimant as staff of the 1^st Defendant) robs this Honourable Court of jurisdiction to adjudicate on this case.

10. Citing the cases of Madukolu Vs Nkemdilim [1962] LPELR 24023; Akpan Vs University of Calabar [2016] LPELR  242, counsel submitted that jurisdiction is fundamental and that any proceedings conducted without it is a nullity. Counsel argued that jurisdiction of this Honourable Court is limited in terms of subject matter of employment as clearly spelt out in Section 254C of the 1999 Constitution (as amended); that no action or ancillary issue outside the jurisdiction conferred by the Constitution can be introduced merely because it is an employment matter; that this Court lacks jurisdiction over issues relating to trusteeship, which fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court by virtue of Section 251 (1) (e) of the Constitution and the Companies and Allied Matters Act. It is the further argument of counsel that the Claimant improperly combined issues of his employment as National Director with issues of his status and suspension as a trustee, without separating the facts and reliefs and that mixing of matters outside this Court’s jurisdiction renders the entire action incompetent. Counsel thereby urged the Court to decline jurisdiction and strike out and/or dismiss the suit.

11. In his response, the Claimant’s counsel, Vincent Orifunmishe Esq., submitted that by virtue of Section 254C of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), this Court has exclusive jurisdiction over labour and employment matters, including the present case, the Claimant’s suspension and the alleged denial of his fair hearing. He further submitted that jurisdiction is determined by the claims endorsed on the Originating Summons, and in the instant case it bothers on the Claimant’s suspension as National Director, and not issues of trusteeship as posited by the Defendants. The cases of Salami Vs NJS & Ors [2014] LPELR 22774; Gaskiya Textile Mills Plc Vs Khosla [2014] LPELR 24606 were cited to buttress his submissions. Counsel further submitted that pursuant to Section 24 of the Rules of this Court, this Court is empowered to transfer the suit to the Federal High Court and not to strike out the case as urged by the Defendants.

12. Now, I should restate the age long settled principle of law that the question of jurisdiction goes to the root, fibre and foundation of a case and thus must first and foremost be considered as it forms the basis upon which a Court can entertain a suit. Jurisdiction gives life or otherwise to a suit. When it is raised at any stage of trial, the Court will have to determine whether the subject matter is within its adjudicatory power. See Mbas Motel Vs Wema Bank PLC [2013] LPELR 20736; Anyanwu Vs Ogunlewe [2014] LPELR 22184; Raha Vs Ige [2017] LPELR 43916; Nicon Insurance PLC Vs Aldolzy Mgt Consultant Service [2025] LPELR-81734.

13. Suffice to quickly affirm the trite position of the law, as rightly submitted by the Claimant’s counsel, that in order to ascertain whether a Court has jurisdiction to entertain and determine a case, a Court is guided by the facts averred in the Complaint and Statement of Facts or deposed in the Affidavit in Support of the Originating Summons and the reliefs endorsed therein alone and no more. See the cases of F.U.M.B. Ltd Vs Aerobell Nig Ltd [2005] ALL FWLR (Pt 281) 1651 at 1677; Moyosore Vs Gov of Kwara State [2013] NWLR (Pt 1293) 242; Guinness (Nig) PLC Vs SKA Nig Ltd [2012] 18 NWLR (Pt 1331) 179; Oli Vs INEC & Ors (2023) LPELR-60587. So, as it is in the instant case, the Court must restrict itself to the facts disclosed by the Claimant in the Affidavit in Support of the Originating Summons and the reliefs sought in determining the issue of jurisdiction.

14. The jurisdiction of this Court is defined in Section 7 of the National Industrial Court Act 2006 - (NICA) and Section 254C of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (supra). It must be mentioned that the jurisdiction of this Court in Section 254C of the Constitution (supra) is more expansive as the provisions cover variety of subject matters not mentioned in Section 7 of NIC Act (supra). Therefore, the principal and comprehensive law on the jurisdiction of this Court is the 1999 Constitution (Third Alteration) Act.

15. For proper understanding, I have taken liberty to reproduce the relevant provision of Section 254 C (1) (a) & (k) of the Constitution (supra) which are relevant

to the resolution of this issue.

Section 254C (1)

“Notwithstanding the provisions of Sections 251, 257, 272 and anything contained in this Constitution and in addition to such other jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by an Act of the National Assembly, the National Industrial Court shall have and exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other court in civil causes and matters-

(a)              relating to or connected with any labor, employment, trade unions, industrial relations and matters arising from workplace, the condition of service, including health, safety, welfare of labor, employee, worker and matters incidental thereto or connected therewith.

(k)      relating to or connected with disputes arising from payment or nonpayment of salaries, wages, pensions, gratuities, allowances, benefits and any other entitlement of any employee, worker, political or public office holder, judicial officer or any civil or public servant in any part of the Federation and matters incidental thereto.”

16. Upon, a careful appraisal of the totality of the Affidavit evidence led on the record and the documents attached as exhibits to the Originating Summons, it is evident that the crux of the Claimant’s case is that he was appointed as Executive Director/ National Director of the 1st Defendant; that he was assigned responsibilities and that the mode of payment of his salary is contained in his letter of appointment, Exhibit A. The Claimant alleged that his appointment is regulated by Exhibit C, the 1st Defendant’s Policy Handbook, and further alleged that he was not given the opportunity to be heard by the investigation committee set up by the Defendants prior to his indefinite suspension as contained in his letter of suspension in Exhibit D. The depositions of the Claimant relating to his employment, indefinite suspension and breach of terms of conditions of his service are contained in paragraphs 2, 4, 14, 15, 16, 20, 24, 25, 26, 28, 31, 35, 36 and 37 of the Affidavit in support of the Originating Summons.

17. I have also examined the questions for determination and the reliefs sought by the Claimant. It is clear that the case of the Claimant is predicated on his appointment as contained in his letter of employment and the Staff Policy Handbook and the allegation of his indefinite suspension by the Defendants. Section 254C of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), vests on the National Industrial Court the exclusive jurisdiction over labour and employment matters including all issues incidental or connected thereto. As such, this Honourable Court is vested with the jurisdiction to entertain the matter. And I so hold. The decision of the Court is that the concerted objection hurled on the Claimant’s suit by the Defendants is devoid of merit. The objection shall be and is hereby accordingly overruled and dismissed. Consequently, the Claimant’s suit is hereby handed a clean bill of competence to be determined by this Court on its merits.

18. The Claimant, having successfully scaled the hurdle of competency of the action, it is to be considered in succession, whether, on the basis of the evidence placed before the Court, he has established his entitlement to the declaratory reliefs sought in this suit. The case of the Claimant is that, by a letter of appointment, Exhibit A, he was employed as the Chief Executive Director and National Director of the 1st Defendant. According to him, as a result of a family dispute, his wife and children made a report to the 4^th Defendant, who is also a family friend and member of the Board of Trustees of the 1st Defendant; that the 4^th Defendant informed other Board members of the family dispute and that based on the report, he was excluded by the Defendants from attending meetings.

19. The Claimant alleged that at a meeting of the Board of Trustees of 13/12/2023, he raised an objection on the inclusion of the 6th Defendant and two other temporary members of staff as members of the investigation committee set up by the Board to investigate the complaint against him but that the Board refused to hear his concerns.

He further alleged that on 02/02/2024, he received Exhibit B, a letter placing him on suspension for four (4) months; that the said letter was signed by the 2nd and 6th Defendants; that while still serving the four month suspension and without being served with the notice of meeting and investigative committee’s report, he was served with Exhibit D, a letter of indefinite suspension on 23/02/2024, signed by the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th Defendants.

20. According to the Claimant, he was informed by the 5th Defendant that he (5th Defendant) did not participate in the decision that placed him on indefinite suspension; that the 1st Defendant has a Staff Policy Handbook, Exhibit C, that regulates the affairs of the 1st Defendant; that his family issue does not constitute misconduct in his employment to warrant a disciplinary action; that he was never invited or afforded the opportunity to be heard by the investigative committee before the investigative report was written and that on 14/03/2023, he wrote a letter of protest, Exhibit E, to the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th Defendants over the resolution passed at the meeting held on 19/02/2024. The Claimant contends that the actions of the Defendants were ultra vires, mala fide, and in breach of his right to fair hearing.

21. Perhaps the starting point is to determine the preliminary issues raised by respective counsel. The first is on the authenticity of the letter of appointment of the Claimant annexed as Exhibit A as disputed in paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 9 and10 the Counter-Affidavit of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 6th Defendants. At paragraph 5.22 of page 22 of his written address, counsel for the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 6th Defendants highlighted the inconsistencies on the face of the said exhibit and denied that the letter emanated from a resolution of the Board. The Claimant in his Further and Better Counter-Affidavit denied the assertions.

22. The law remains settled that he who asserts must prove. See Sections 131-133 of

the Evidence Act, 2011 and the authority of Commissioner for Works and Transport, Akwa Ibom State & Ors Vs Udofia [2025] LPELR-82550. Having alleged that the letter of employment did not emanate from the Board, the burden of proof has shifted to the Defendants to prove their assertion. However, the Defendants failed to prove this. Mere denial, without more, is insufficient to discharge that burden. Having failed to discharge the burden, the Claimant has established his employment relationship witS the 1st Defendant in Exhibit A. And I so hold.

23. Again, it is the argument of Defendants’ counsel that the Staff Policy Handbook of the 1st Defendant – Exhibit C is not applicable and/or enforceable against the 1st Defendant and its constituted bodies because it lacks the binding force of contract. Counsel also argued that Exhibit C was not signed by either the Claimant or the 1st Defendant and as such the said exhibit has no validity and unenforceable.

24. I do not intend to waste time on this issue. In Exhibit B, the letter of suspension, the 1st Defendant had made reference to “terms and ministry policies” as the basis for the Claimant’s suspension. The Defendants having incorporated or admitted the ministry policy in the Claimant’s letter of suspension is bound by that admission and estopped from contending otherwise. This is known as the rule of estoppel by conduct as embodied in Section 169 of the Evidence Act, 2011. The equitable doctrine has been explained by Court in a plethora of decisions. In Ude Vs Nwara & Anor [1993] LPELR - 3289 it was held as follows:

"By operation of the rule of estoppel a man is not allowed to blow hot and cold, to affirm at one time and deny at the other, or as it is said to approbate and reprobate. He cannot be allowed to mislead another person into believing a state of affairs and then turning round to say to that person's disadvantage that the state of affairs which he had presented does not exist at all or as represented by him."

Without further ado, the argument of counsel on this issue is not countenanced.

25. The Claimant’s counsel on his part argued that the Claimant’s employment is statutory, that for his indefinite suspension to be valid, statutory provisions and the extant regulation must be complied with. With due respect to counsel, this argument is totally misconceived. As it is well settled, the general principle is that where the conditions for appointment or determination of contract of service are governed by the pre-conditions of an enabling statute, so that a valid appointment or determination is predicated on satisfying such statutory provisions, such contract is one with statutory flavour. The contract is determinable not by the parties, but only by statutory pre-conditions governing its determination. See Oloruntoba-Oju Vs Abdulraheem [2009] ALL FWLR (Pt 497) 1; Fakuade Vs O.A.U.T.H [1993] 5 NWLR (Pt 291) 47; Idoniboye-Obu Vs NNPC [2003] 1 SCNJ 87. In the present case, the employment relationship between the Claimant and 1st Defendant is not statutory as same is not guided by any statute. It is a master-servant relationship, regulated by the terms and conditions of his employment. And I so hold.

26. Now, the fulcrum of the Claimant’s case is that he was not afforded the opportunity to be heard by the Defendants; that the Defendants failed to invite him to the meeting when the decision to suspend him was held; that he was not given report of the investigative committee; that the investigative committee is not vested with the power to sign his letter of suspension; that family issue for which he was suspended does not constitute misconduct in his employment to warrant disciplinary action being taken against him and that the indefinite suspension is ultra vires the Board’s Discipline. In essence, the Claimant is alleging that the Defendants did not comply with the process as stipulated in Exhibit C before he was placed on indefinite suspension.

27. I am not unmindful that the Claimant has sought declaratory reliefs in this suit; the implication being that the burden for him to prove the allegations levelled against the Defendant exceeds the regular burden provided in Sections 131 and 132 of the Evidence Act 2011. The settled position of the law, from time immemorial, is that even though the power to make a binding declaration of right is discretionary in nature; a Court would only grant declaratory reliefs sought in an action principally on the basis of the evidence adduced by the Claimant without recourse to the evidence called by the Defendant.

28. The burden of proof on the Claimant in establishing a declaratory relief to the satisfaction of the Court is somewhat heavy, in the sense that such relief is not granted even on the admission of the Defendant, as the Claimant must lead credible evidence in proof of the declaration of right, he seeks from the Court. See the authorities of Dumez Nigeria Limited Vs Nwakhoba [2009] All FWLR (Pt. 461) 842; Iliya & Anor Vs Lamu & Anor [2019] LPELR 47048; Ofongo Vs APC [2022] 4 NWLR (Pt 1821) 543; UTC (Nig) Plc Vs Peters [2002] LPELR 57289; Adamu Vs Nigeria Airforce & Anor [2022] LPELR 56587.

29. It is equally settled and as correctly submitted by the Defendants’ counsel that a party who seeks to enforce a right under a contractual agreement has a duty to establish the terms and condition of the contract and also has the obligation to tender the terms and to further show how the terms were breached by the Defendants. The argument of the Defendants’ counsel is that the Claimant has not proved that the Defendants breached any term on the disciplinary procedure in Exhibit A that resulted in his indefinite suspension.

30. Now, to establish his claims, the Claimant had placed heavy reliance on Exhibit A and Exhibit C. I have perused through the said exhibits with a fine toothcomb, with the aim of deciphering the disciplinary procedure of the Claimant allegedly breached by the Defendants. In Exhibit A, the terms stated therein are for the Claimant’s position, his place of assignment, his responsibilities, the reporting authority, his salary and entitlement. The policies and procedures of 1st Defendant are stated in Article 5.3. It is states inter-alia that failure to abide by the policies and procedures will result in disciplinary action which may range from a verbal warning to suspension without pay depending on the gravity of the non-compliance offence. 31. It is further stated that if an employee fails to comply with the organization’s policies, he/she will be exposing his/herself to progressive discipline up to termination of employment with no payment or benefit. The steps stated are: verbal warning, written warning, suspension, termination with no payment or benefit and or vice versa depending on situation and grievance and penalty deemed fit by the management. The operative word in the article is the word, “may”. It is therefore not mandatory for the 1st Defendant to follow the steps as stated. It is also stated that the penalty or punishment is dependent on the situation, grievance as the management deemed fit.

32. From the foregoing therefore, the Claimant has failed to prove that any procedure was breached by the Defendants as the terms allegedly breached were not stated in both the Claimant’s letter of employment, Exhibit A and the Staff Policy of the 1st Defendant, Exhibit C. In other words, having based his claims for failure to comply with the disciplinary procedure on the said exhibits, and having failed to prove the terms are contained in the said exhibits, the Claimant has failed to prove his claims for declaratory reliefs. And I so hold.

33. Perhaps, I should remark at this point, that it is in accord with judicial decisions and business practice to suspend an officer being investigated from the place of work to permit unhindered investigation to be carried out and also to allow peace to reign at his place of work. The period of suspension will keep such person out of further mischief and provide his employer further time for reflection and rumination. There are both foreign and local judicial decisions approving suspension of an employee pending the final determination of his involvement in the allegations levelled against him. See University of Calabar Vs Esiaga [1997] 4 NWLR (Pt 502) 719 at 739; Longe Vs First Bank Plc [2006] LPELR 7682; Galadima Vs Governor of Yobe State & Others [2018] LPELR 47172

34. Proceeding on the footing of this legal principle therefore, I had taken painstakingly examined Exhibit B and Exhibit D, the letters of suspension respectively dated 02/02/2024 and 23/02/2024. In Exhibit B, it was stated that the decision to suspend the Claimant for a period of four months was still in review as the Board Investigative Committee was still in continuous investigation on the Claimant’s Office (National Director) and findings, which may change the status of his suspension.

In Exhibit D, it was stated that the decision to suspend the Claimant was made after  

careful consideration of the circumstances surrounding his recent events and conduct. It was further stated that the decision was made “in the spirit of reflection allowing you an opportunity to demonstrate sincere remorse and undertake a path of repentance. During this suspension, your conduct will be closely observed to assist the Board in determining its final verdict on your association with the organization…”

35. It is my view that the period of suspension of the Claimant is to provide his employer further time to reflect and ruminate on the decision to be made. Since the duration of suspension as contained in the Staff Policy Handbook is as the management deemed, it is my further view that the 1st Defendants has exercised of its right.  The Claimant’s allegation that he was not given opportunity to be heard before he was placed on indefinite suspension is unfounded. It was stated in Exhibit B, (his letter of suspension for four (4) months suspension) that the decision for his 4 months’ suspension is still in review as the Board Investigative Committee is still on continuous investigation on his office and that the findings may change the status of his suspension.

36. In the final analysis, my finding is that the Claimant has not proved entitlement to any of his claims against the Defendants. In the circumstances, I hereby resolve the questions set down in the instant Originating Summons against the Claimant. My decision therefore is that the action lacked in merit and in substance. It shall be and is hereby accordingly dismissed. Parties shall bear their respective costs.

Judgement is hereby entered accordingly.

 

SINMISOLA O. ADENIYI

(Hon. Judge)

09/02/2026