IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT LAGOS

 

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP, HON. JUSTICE IKECHI GERALD NWENEKA

 

Date: Monday, 16th March 2026                                           SUIT NO. NICN/LA/02/2021

 

BETWEEN

 

MRS. AJIBOLA AISHAT OLUWAFUNKE                                        …        CLAIMANT

 

AND

           

1. THE MANAGEMENT BOARD OF THE OLABISI     

    ONABANJO UNIVERSITY TEACHING HOSPITAL

2. DR. PETER ADEFUYE                                                          

3. DR. FATUNGASE OLUWABUNMI

4. MR. A. A. AWOYOMI                                                                         …        DEFENDANTS

5. MRS. ENAHOLO K. I.

6. MRS. ADESEGUN O. I.

7. MRS. ADEKAMBI M. A.

 

JUDGMENT

 

1.        The Claimant initiated this suit on 7th January 2021, and in her amended statement of facts filed on 26th July 2022, she sought the following reliefs:

 

a.      A declaration that the purported termination of the Claimant’s employment via a letter dated 25th November 2020 is wrongful, illegal, oppressive, unconstitutional, and constitutes unfair labour practice.

 

b.     An order setting aside the purported 25th November 2020 letter of termination of service of the Claimant.

 

c.      An order reinstating the Claimant to the employment of the 1st Defendant without loss in rank and promotion.

 

d.     An order mandating the 1st Defendant to pay the Claimant arrears of salary from 25th November 2020, till she is reinstated into the employment of the Defendant.

 

e.      An order mandating the 1st Defendant to remit the backlog of the Claimant’s contribution to the PFA.

 

f.        An order restraining the Defendants jointly and severally, from intimidating, harassing, or molesting the Claimant in her duty post upon reinstatement.     

 

g.      An order mandating the 1st Defendant to remit all the Claimant’s contributions in the staff Co-operative, social welfare in NANNM, Nightingale Scheme monies, and other benefits to the Claimant’s account.

 

h.     The sum of one million naira (N1,000,000.00) only as the cost of action

 

i.        The sum of five million naira (N5,000,000.00) for specific and exemplary damages for the unlawful harassment of the Claimant by the 1st Defendant’s security personnel and State Security Personnel (SSS) at the Claimant’s duty post.

 

2.        Upon receipt of the originating process, the Defendants filed a memorandum of conditional appearance along with a motion on notice to strike out the suit for lack of jurisdiction. This motion was heard and subsequently dismissed in a considered ruling on 9th February 2022. On 16th May 2023, the Claimant's amended statement of facts was deemed properly filed and served. The Defendants’ statement of defence dated 26th September 2023 was filed out of time, and regularised on 26th October 2023, to which the Claimant replied on 20th October 2023. On 30th November 2023, the Defendants filed their amended statement of defence, which was regularised on 7th December 2023. The Claimant replied on 5th December 2023. The trial commenced on 7th December 2023 and concluded on 27th February 2024. The Claimant testified in support of her claims, tendered 26 exhibits, and was cross-examined and re-examined. After that, the suit was adjourned to 27th February 2024 for the defence. At the resumed hearing on 27th February 2024, Adeola Adefolajimi Awoyemi, the Director of Administration of the 1st Defendant, testified in defence of the suit and tendered 19 exhibits, subject to the Claimant's right to object to the admissibility of the flash drive in evidence, and was cross-examined. The suit was then adjourned to adopt final written addresses. The parties exchanged final written addresses, which their counsel adopted on 16th December 2025, and the matter was set down for judgment.

 

            Brief facts of the case

 

3.        The facts of the case are that Mrs. Ajibola, a nurse and registered midwife, served as the Principal Nursing Officer for the 1st Defendant. She was employed by the 1st Defendant starting on 7th February 2006, and was confirmed as Nursing Officer II on 5th May 2006. Mrs. Ajibola claims that throughout her fourteen-year career, she performed her duties diligently and advanced through the ranks without any negative marks on her record. She received nominations for leadership positions in various nursing associations and participated in a live program on OGTV to discuss nursing issues. Mrs. Ajibola characterised her termination on 25th November 2020 as the result of unfair labour practices. Initially cleared for leave starting on 22nd July 2020, she was unexpectedly required to continue working without compensation during that period. Mrs. Ajibola recounted several incidents of alleged unfair labour practices. On 5th October 2020, she appeared as a medical expert in an online interview on "Nurses Arise Radio," where she discussed her activism and issues concerning one Mr. Ovwiomodiowho, despite having recently recovered from surgery. However, on 3rd November 2020, she received a query from the 4th Defendant, the Director of Administration, regarding her participation and comments on the Nurses Association, to which she responded. Mrs. Ajibola asserts that her termination appeared premeditated and biased, stating that she exercised her rights to freedom of association and expression as guaranteed under the 1999 Constitution. Following her appearance before an investigative panel and the Senior Staff Disciplinary Committee, she received a termination letter on 25th November 2020, which caused her significant emotional distress. When she returned to work on 26th November 2020, she faced harassment and discrimination, with security personnel forcibly removing her from the premises where she had worked for fourteen years. Subsequently, she submitted an appeal to the newly inaugurated Board of the 1st Defendant but received no response, leading to psychological trauma for her and her family. As a result, she has filed this suit. The Defendants deny any wrongdoing, stating that the termination of Mrs. Ajibola's employment followed due process. The Court was urged to dismiss the suit with substantial costs.

 

            Summary of final written addresses

 

4.        The learned counsel for the Claimant raised three issues for determination in the final written address dated and filed on 19th April 2024: 

 

a.      Whether the termination of the appointment of the Claimant by the 4th Defendant, purportedly acting on the directive of the 1st Defendant, is legal, lawful, and does not amount to unfair labour practice and oppression of the Claimant.

 

b.     Whether the Claimant is entitled to be reinstated into the employment of the Defendant.

 

c.      Whether the Claimant is entitled to all her arrears of full salary and allowances from 25th November 2020, to the date she is reinstated into the employment of the Defendant, or whether the Claimant is entitled to her salaries for the month of November 2020 and December 2020 till the Claimant is reinstated.

 

5.        The learned counsel argued that the termination of the Claimant’s employment by the 1st Defendant is not only illegal, oppressive, and unlawful, but also constitutes an unfair labour practice. Counsel provided details of the Claimant’s case and referred to Exhibit D11, stating that the Defendants violated the principle of fair hearing by failing to provide the Claimant with a copy of the minutes from the meeting. The case of Dantuje v. Kanya [2009] 4 NWLR (Pt 1130) 30 at 39 was cited in support. It was contended that, although the 4th Defendant and the Defendants’ witness signed the Claimant’s termination letter and invited the Claimant to meetings, the witness was not a member of the panel and did not attend any panel sittings. As a result, his testimony on the termination issue is documentary hearsay. The Court was urged to expunge this evidence from the records. Counsel also referenced the cases of Ochenuaja v. The State [2008] NWLR (Pt 1109) 57 and Ojukwu v. Yar'Adua [2009] 12 NWLR (Pt 1154) 50 at 188 in urging the Court to disregard Exhibit 22, which was issued without following proper procedures. Counsel proceeded to reproduce Chapters 1 and 8 of the employee handbook on disciplinary procedure, arguing that the Claimant's pleadings regarding the termination of her appointment were unchallenged and thus admitted. For support, counsel cited Ifeta v. S.P.D.C. [Nig.] Ltd [2006] 8 NWLR (Pt 983) 585, 600–601, and Mil. Gov., Lagos State v. Adeyiga [2012] 5 NWLR (Pt 1293) 291, 331–332.

 

6.        It was also argued that the Defendants did not plead defamation, thus asserting that the online interview, which purportedly influenced the Claimant’s termination, was not a wrongful act; the case of Princewill Odinkanwa v. Chief Joseph D. Iheanacho [2009] LPELR-8856(CA) was cited in support. The Court was urged to conclude that the online interview was not defamatory. Furthermore, it was contended that the 4th Defendant violated the employee handbook by terminating the Claimant’s employment, as the duty to do so lay with the Board, which was not in place when the Claimant’s appointment was terminated. The Court was urged to hold that due process was not observed, rendering the termination illegal, null, and void. The case of Kaydee Ventures Ltd v. Min. F.C.T [2010] 7 NWLR (Pt 1192) 171 at 222 was cited in support.

 

7.        Counsel argued that it was clear from Exhibits D11, D12, and D13 that the 2nd and 4th Defendants did not participate in the panel sittings and therefore should not have formed any opinion regarding the termination of the Claimant’s employment. The Court was urged to expunge Exhibits D12 and D13 from evidence. Counsel reproduced page 31 of the employee handbook, asserting that the defence clearly indicated the Claimant was never issued a query before her indefinite suspension. Counsel also claimed that Exhibit D14 was inauthentic because it was issued by hospital management, which is not recognised in the employee handbook. The Defendants' failure to refer the Claimant to the Board for interrogation renders the termination wrongful. Counsel reiterated that the Claimant's evidence regarding her termination remained unchallenged and should be given effect by the Court. In reviewing the evidence regarding the senior staff disciplinary panel held on 25th November 2020, counsel argued that the process was fraught with irregularities. The Claimant was not given the opportunity to defend herself or call witnesses, nor was she formally informed of her offence in writing; her appointment was terminated immediately without pay. The Court was urged to nullify the termination and reinstate her appointment. Referring to Section 11(6) and Section 9 of the Labour Act, and the case of Adeosun v. Gov. Ekiti State [2012] 4 NWLR (Pt 1291) 581 at 602-603, it was submitted that the provision regarding the notice period in the employee handbook was violated. The Court was urged to rule in favour of the Claimant on this issue.

 

8.        In addressing issue two, counsel referenced F.M.C., Ido-Ekiti v. Alabi [2012] 2 NWLR (Pt 1285) 411 at 438, Section 1(a) & (b) of the Olabisi Onabanjo University Teaching Hospital Edict No. 6 of 1987 and the Ogun State Civil Service Rules Law, and argued that since the Claimant's employment is imbued with statutory flavour, she is entitled to reinstatement. The case of C.B.N v. Igwillo [2007] 14 NWLR (Pt 1054) 393 at 420 was cited in support of this claim. Counsel further argued that the Claimant was not given any notice before the termination of her employment, rendering the termination unlawful. The case of Oloruntoba-Oju v. Abdul-Raheem [2009] 13 NWLR (Pt 1157) 83 at 141-142 was cited to reinforce this argument. Additionally, counsel contended that the determination of employment with a statutory flavour depends on the specific language used in the contract. Thus, the Court has a duty to interpret the statute. According to the OOUUTH Edict of 1987, the Claimant’s employment is indeed imbued with statutory flavour, thereby entitling her to reinstatement, relying on Oloruntoba-Oju v. Abdul-Raheem (supra). Counsel urged the Court to uphold this argument and resolve the issue in favour of the Claimant.

 

9.        In addressing issue three, counsel argued that the Claimant is entitled to receive the reliefs sought if issues one and two are decided in her favour, citing C.B.N v. Igwillo in support. Counsel noted that the Defendants also failed to pay the Claimant’s salary for November 2020. The Court was urged to resolve this issue against the Defendants and grant the requested reliefs in the interest of justice. Furthermore, it was argued that declaring the termination of the Claimant’s employment as lawful would constitute an unfair labour practice, a denial of justice, and a breach of the law under which the 1st Defendant was established.

 

10.     The learned counsel for the Defendants nominated one issue for determination            in the final written address dated and filed on 30th September 2024:

 

Whether the Defendants failed, in view of the totality of the circumstances of this case, to follow the due process of the law in terminating the Claimant’s appointment.

 

11.      Relying on Section 131(1) of the Evidence Act, the learned counsel argued that the burden of proof regarding the wrongful termination of employment rests with the Claimant, a burden she has failed to discharge. Counsel referenced several cases, including: Amodu v. Amode [1990] 5 NWLR (Pt 150) 256, Adeyinka v. Odunlami [2000] 6 NWLR (Pt 660), and Nigerian Army v. Sgt. Asanu Samuel & Ors [2013] LPELR-20931(SC). Counsel also argued that it is undisputed that the Claimant is a public servant bound by the Public Service Rules and that she received a query dated 3rd November 2020. Counsel submitted that the Claimant violated Rule 04420(1d) of the Ogun State Public Service Rules by granting an interview, as outlined in Exhibit D5, without proper authorisation, a fact she admitted during cross-examination. Upon reviewing Exhibit D5, counsel further argued that the Claimant's action in granting the interview harmed the image of the 1st Defendant. Additionally, counsel contended that the investigating panel's report makes it evident that the Claimant was not denied a fair hearing, as Exhibit D5 was presented during her hearing and she was questioned about it. Based on the Claimant's lack of remorse, as evidenced during cross-examination, the panel recommended termination of her employment. Counsel emphasised that the Claimant has not established wrongful termination, as it is clear she received a query, responded to it, attended two disciplinary hearings, made submissions, was indicted, and appealed to the newly inaugurated Board for a review of her case.

 

12.      Counsel referenced paragraph 35 of the Claimant’s statement of facts, identifying her main grievance as the failure to receive salary in lieu of notice and not being provided with the investigation panel's report. Regarding the one month’s salary in lieu of notice, counsel cited the testimony of the Defendant’s sole witness and Exhibit D19, which acknowledged payment in favour of the Claimant, although she did not formally request it. Counsel further argued that even though the Claimant’s lawyer sent a letter to the Defendant, there was no demand for the panel report, and at this stage, the Claimant cannot benefit from her own delay. Counsel also referenced Exhibit D10 to support this point and urged the Court to dismiss the Claimant’s argument. Upon reviewing paragraph 14 of the Claimant’s amended statement of facts, counsel submitted that the Claimant cannot disregard the leadership and administrative roles of the 2nd to 7th Defendants at this stage. The learned counsel juxtaposed Exhibit D1 with paragraph 3, noting that "Management" and "Management Board" refer to two different entities; specifically, the Hospital Management, led by the 2nd Defendant, employed the Claimant. Counsel urged the Court to conclude that the Claimant’s dismissal was lawful, did not breach her right to a fair hearing, and, as such, she is not entitled to salary arrears or other benefits.

 

13.     In arguing the reply on points of law dated and filed on 4th October 2024, the learned counsel submitted that the Claimant’s appointment is protected by statutory provisions, relying on Olaniyan v. University of Lagos [1985] 1 NWLR (Pt 1) 733. In response to paragraphs 4.3 to 4.5 of the Defendants’ final written address, counsel referred the Court to paragraph 31 (on page 31) of the employee handbook, arguing that the disciplinary procedures were not followed in terminating the Claimant’s employment. Counsel stated that failure to comply with established procedures can invalidate such actions, citing Olagunju v. Yahaya [2007] 20 NWLR (Pt 1166) 33 in support. In this case, the Management Board of the 1st Defendant was non-existent at the time the Claimant’s employment was terminated, and such authority had not been delegated to any of the Defendants. Therefore, counsel urged the Court to conclude that the Defendants breached the disciplinary procedures in terminating the Claimant’s employment.

 

14.      Addressing paragraphs 4.6 to 4.10 of the Defendants' final written address, counsel contended that the Defendants relied on public service rules without providing them as evidence. Moreover, the Claimant’s right to freedom of expression, guaranteed by Section 39 of the 1999 Constitution, cannot be forfeited under the guise of adhering to public service rules, which would be contrary to Section 39 of the Constitution. The Court was urged to hold so. Counsel argued that Exhibit 5, referenced by the Defendants, is neither incriminating nor damaging to the Defendants. In response to paragraphs 4.22 to 4.26 of the Defendants’ final written address, counsel maintained that these arguments are presumptive and referred the Court to the cases of Ogbunyiya v. Akudo [2006] 11 NWLR (Pt 990) 474 and Nwankwo v. State [2016] 17 NWLR (Pt 1543) 1, emphasising that the contents of the employment handbook are clear and unambiguous. Further addressing paragraphs 4.23 to 4.24 of the Defendants’ final written address, counsel noted that the Defendants’ sole witness testified that the Claimant was not referred to the Commissioner for Health, as the Defendants are not permitted to alter the Court’s records during the address stage. Counsel also pointed out that in an attempt to justify the failure to address the Claimant’s appeal in a timely manner, the Defendants tried to designate the last two weeks of December as a public holiday. In response to paragraph 4.27 of the Defendants' final written address, counsel asserted that the case cited by the Defendants was misapplied. The Court was urged to resolve this matter against the Defendants.

 

           Preliminary issues

 

15.     In his argument on issue one, paragraph 3.9, learned counsel for the Claimant contended that because the 4th Defendant, who is also the Defendants’ witness, was not present at the disciplinary hearings held on 13th and 17th November 2020, his evidence should be considered documentary hearsay and therefore expunged. The Claimant’s counsel also urged the Court to expunge Exhibits D12 and D13 from the records since the 2nd and 4th Defendants, who provided opinions on these exhibits, were not present at the panel. The Defendants did not respond to this argument, which implies their concession on the matter, as stated in Sakati v. Bako & Anor [2015] 14 NWLR (Pt 1480) 531 at 563.

 

16.      Typically, witnesses are expected to give firsthand evidence regarding the subject of their testimony. When a witness testifies about information received from another person, this is classified as hearsay and is inadmissible. According to Sections 37, 38, and 126 of the Evidence Act, hearsay evidence can only be used to convey what a witness heard from another, rather than to establish the truth of the statement made. However, since corporations and bodies, like the 1st Defendant, are granted juristic personality, they act only through their agents or employees. Therefore, any agent or employee can provide evidence on any matter affecting the corporation or body. If the official testifying did not participate in the transaction, his testimony may still be relevant and admissible. Nevertheless, the absence of personal involvement in the transaction could affect the weight of the evidence in some cases, as established in Impact Solutions Limited & Anor v. International Breweries Plc [2018] 16 NWLR (Pt 1645) 377 at 400, 401; Ishola v. Societe Generale Bank (Nig.) Limited [1997] 2 NWLR (Pt 488) 405 at 424; Saleh v. Bank of the North Ltd [2006] 6 NWLR (Pt 976) 316 at 326-327; and Interdrill Nigeria Ltd & Anor v. United Bank for Africa Plc [2017] 13 NWLR (Pt 1581) 52 at 67, 69.

 

17.    I have considered the sworn statement of the Defendants' witness and his testimony during cross-examination. In his sworn statement, the witness stated that he is familiar with the facts of this case in his capacity as the Director of Administration for the 1st Defendant. He also testified that the Claimant was present at the disciplinary panel held on 13th November 2020, but was absent from another panel meeting on 17th November 2020. At the conclusion of the 8-member investigation panel, it was recommended that the Claimant be referred to the Senior Staff Disciplinary Committee of the 1st Defendant. During the hearing on 25th November 2020, which the Claimant attended, it was recommended that her appointment be terminated. Consequently, the Claimant received a termination letter dated 25th November 2020. Therefore, the witness's testimony during cross-examination, in which he claimed that he was not present at the panel sitting, does not negate his evidence or render it hearsay. Furthermore, the Claimant did not deny these facts. In this circumstance, I hold that the Defendants' witness's evidence is relevant, admissible, and not hearsay. As a result, there is no need to expunge Exhibits D12 and D13 from the Court’s records. The Claimant's objection is hereby overruled.

 

18.     Counsel also objected to Exhibit D14 in paragraph 3.23 of the Claimant’s final written address, claiming it is fraudulent, a scam, a blatant lie, and perjury, asserting that the Management Board did not exist at the time it was issued. In response, the learned counsel for the Defendants argued in paragraphs 4.20-4.27 of their final written address that the Claimant was employed by the Hospital Management and not by the Management Board, as indicated in her letter of appointment. They contended that in the absence of a Management Board, the disciplinary proceedings against an employee found guilty of misconduct could not be stalled. Additionally, they argued that under the Olabisi Onabanjo University Teaching Hospital law, the Chief Medical Director acts as a representative of the Board. In the reply on points of law, the Claimant’s counsel maintained that the provisions cited by the Defendants were mere conjectures. Both parties ultimately agreed that when the Claimant’s employment was terminated, the 1st Defendant had not yet been constituted. However, this does not imply that Exhibit D14, issued under the directive of the Hospital Management, is a forged document. It would be considered a misrepresentation only if it had been issued under the directive of the Management Board that did not exist at the time.

 

19.      Moreover, forgery involves creating a false document or altering a genuine one for deceptive purposes. It occurs when a document misrepresents itself. A party claiming forgery must provide two documents: the original document from which the claim of forgery is made and the allegedly forged document. In civil proceedings, the party claiming forgery must prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. This is supported by Section 135(1) and (2) of the Evidence Act and the case of Jega v. Ekpenyong [2025] 11 NWLR (Pt 1998) 33 at 112, 113. While the facts supporting Exhibit D14 were pleaded in paragraph 34 of the amended statement of defence, the allegations of forgery or fraud against Exhibit D14 were not mentioned in paragraph 15 of the reply to the amended statement of defence. In fact, the Claimant did not challenge the authenticity of Exhibit D14 or the invitation, which she honoured, but claimed that the Defendants’ actions were hasty and ill-motivated. The document was also tendered by the Claimant as Exhibit 2. A claim that is not raised in the pleadings cannot be introduced in the final written address. Since this issue did not arise from the pleadings or the evidence, it is irrelevant and must be disregarded, as established in Salzgitter Stahl GMBH v. Tunji Dosunmu Industries Limited [2010] 11 NWLR (Pt 1206) 589 at 612, White Diamond Property Development Company Limited v. Trade Wheels Limited [2022] 8 NWLR (Pt 1832) 247 at 286-287, and Ezeani v. F.R.N. [2019] 12 NWLR (Pt 1686) 221 at 251-252. Lastly, the Claimant, who bears the burden of proof, has failed to discharge it. Therefore, the objection lacks merit and is accordingly overruled.

 

Issue for determination

 

20.     I have carefully reviewed the parties' pleadings and submissions. In my view, the four issues nominated for determination can be condensed into one main question: Is the Claimant entitled to a judgment on her claims? It is well-established law that anyone seeking a judgment regarding a legal right or liability based on facts she asserts must prove those facts. By the combined force of Sections 131, 132, 133, 134, and 136 of the Evidence Act, the Claimant has the initial burden of proving the facts she has pleaded on a balance of probabilities. If the Claimant fails to meet this burden satisfactorily, her claims will be dismissed without the need to consider the Defendants’ case. In such a situation, the Defendants are not required to prove their defence, resulting in a judgment against the Claimant due to insufficient evidence. Relevant cases are: Nduul v. Wayo & Ors [2018] LPELR-45151(SC) 51 – 53, TS-Y Limited v. Nwachukwu & Ors [2024] 13 NWLR (Pt 1954) 147 at 174-175, Nsude & Ors v. Nichodemus & Ors [2025] 4 NWLR (Pt 1982) 253 at 280, Igiriogu v. Sharon Properties Ltd & Ors [2025] 5 NWLR (Pt 1984) 615 at 648, and Igwenagu v. Hon. Minister, Federal Capital Territory & Ors [2025] 7 NWLR (Pt 1988) 145 at 173 – 174.

 

21.      To obtain a declaratory relief, the Claimant must provide credible evidence to demonstrate her right to the declaration. Success hinges on the strength of her case rather than the weakness of the defence or any admissions made by the Defendants. Since granting declaratory relief is at the Court's discretion, the Claimant must present sufficient materials to justify the declaration. It is the Claimant's responsibility to furnish compelling, satisfactory, and credible evidence to support her claim. A declaration cannot be made solely based on a lack of credible evidence from the Defendants. Please see Nduul v. Wayo & Ors [2018] 7 SC (Pt III) 164 at 213, U.T.C. Nigeria Plc v. Peters [2022] 18 NWLR (Pt 1862) 297 at 312, 313, Adesina v. Air France [2022] 8 NWLR (Pt 1833) 523 at 555-556, Osho v. Adeleye & Ors [2024] 8 NWLR (Pt 1941) 431 at 452, and Igiriogu v. Sharon Properties Ltd & Ors (supra) pages 639-640.

 

22.    In resolving employment disputes, the Court refers to the employment contract and any additional stipulations that are incorporated, or considered to be incorporated, into the contract, as established in Adekunle v. United Bank for Africa Plc [2019] 17 ACELR 87 at 108 and Gbedu & Ors v. Itie & Ors [2020] 3 NWLR (Pt 1710) 104 at 126. The employment contract serves as the foundation for any actions taken in the event of a breach. The success of the case relies entirely on the terms agreed upon, or deemed to have been agreed upon, by the parties involved, as highlighted in Umera v. Nigerian Railway Corporation [2022] 10 NWLR (Pt 1838) 349 at 386 and Gyubok v. The Federal Polytechnic, Bauchi & Anor [2024] 16 NWLR (Pt 1965) 515 at 549.

 

23.     Generally, an employer has the inherent right to terminate an employee's services, whether the employment is protected by law or governed by a contract. However, when an employer decides to dismiss an employee, it is essential to comply with the terms and conditions outlined in the employment contract. Failing to adhere to these terms may result in wrongful termination, for which the employer could be held liable for damages or, in cases of statutory employment, be required to reinstate the employee. For reference, see the cases of Oforishe v. Nigerian Gas Company Ltd [2018] 2 NWLR (Pt 1602) 35 at 53-54, 61; Ovivie & Ors v. Delta Steel Company Limited [2023] 14 NWLR (Pt 1904) 203 at 229, 236; and Dangote Cement Plc v. Ager & Anor [2024] 10 NWLR (Pt 1945) 1 at 36.

 

24.     An employee who claims that her employment was wrongfully terminated bears the responsibility of providing details about the terms and conditions of her employment contract and demonstrating how the employer violated those terms. In the case of an employment with a statutory flavour, the employee must identify the specific provisions of the statute that the employer failed to follow during the disciplinary process that led to her termination. It is the employee's responsibility to demonstrate that the termination was unjust. Therefore, when an employee claims wrongful termination, the burden of proof rests on her to establish that the termination was indeed wrongful. Please see Sections 131(1) and 136(1) of the Evidence Act, and the cases of Onwusukwu v. Civil Service Commission [2020] 10 NWLR (Pt 1731) 179 at 200, 201; U.T.C Nigeria Plc v. Peters [2022] 18 NWLR (Pt 1862) 297 at 320; Ovivie & Ors v. Delta Steel Company Limited [2023] LPELR-60460(SC) 9-10; and Benue Brewery Limited v. Okonta [2024] LPELR-61878(CA) 8.

 

          Summary of evidence

 

25.      The Claimant sought nine reliefs, testified, and tendered 26 documents, marked as Exhibits 1 to 26. These are: Staff Regulations and Conditions of Service, invitation to meeting dated 24th November 2020, payslip for October 2020, ID card, certificate of compliance, Duty Roster (2 pages), correction of annual leave date, dated 29th July 2020, WhatsApp communications, the Defendants’ reply to Claimant’s letter dated 29th July 2020 regarding the correction of the annual leave date, originally dated 17th August 2020, the Claimant’s letter dated 19th August 2020 concerning the correction of the annual leave date, the Defendant’s reply dated 7th September 2020, Declaration of Trade Dispute by Organised Labour, Ogun State, dated 15th September 2020, National Association of Nigerian Nurses and Midwives letter dated 16th September 2020,  Notice of Suspension of Strike Action dated 18th September 2020, Offer of Appointment, Letter of Appointment, Confirmation of Assumption of Duties, Query dated 3rd November 2020, Response to Query, Invitation to Appear Before Panel of Investigation, the Claimant’s solicitors’ letter dated 11th November 2020,  termination letter, Appeal Against Termination, the Claimant’s solicitors’ letter dated 25th November 2020, the Claimant’s petition dated 30th November 2020 to the Nursing Department of the Defendant, and copy of Movement Register.

 

26.     The Claimant, a nurse, registered midwife, and registered public nurse, served as the Principal Nursing Officer in the employment of the 1st Defendant. She testified that the 2nd to 6th Defendants are also employees of the 1st Defendant. Dr. Peter Adefuye, the 2nd Defendant, is the Chief Medical Director, while Dr. Fatungase Oluwabunmi, the 3rd Defendant, is a member of the Chief Medical Advisory Committee. Other Defendants include Mr. A.A. Awoyomi, the Director of Administration (4th Defendant), Mrs. Enaholo K.I., the Deputy Director of Nursing Services (5th Defendant), and Mrs. Adesegun O.I., the 6th Defendant, who is a Chief Nursing Officer in charge of Inpatient Services. The 7th Defendant is Mrs. Adekambi M.A., also a Chief Nursing Officer employed by the 1st Defendant. The Claimant stated that she was employed by the 1st Defendant by a letter of offer dated 7th February 2006. She was appointed as Nursing Officer II by a letter dated 13th April 2006, effective 16th February 2006, and her appointment was confirmed by a letter dated 5th May 2006. Her appointment is protected by statutory provisions, given that it is governed by the relevant provisions of the OOUTH Edict No. 6 of 1987 and other enabling laws. Upon assuming her duties, she received the Staff Regulations and Conditions of Service Handbook. Throughout her career as a registered nurse and registered midwife, she performed her duties professionally, diligently, and commendably for over fourteen years, under the administration of the 2nd to 7th Defendants, without any blemish on her record. She advanced through the ranks until the termination of her appointment in 2020. Her dedication to her work, leadership skills, and sense of responsibility led her colleagues to nominate her for an executive position in the National Association of Nigerian Nurses and Midwives. She exhibited strong leadership qualities, advocated for her colleagues, and was nominated as the Unit Chairman of the University Graduates of Nursing Science Association. Passionate about her profession and committed to continuous self-improvement, she distinguished herself as a prominent voice in nursing, receiving interview invitations both locally and internationally. Notably, she was invited to participate in a live program on OGTV on 13th January 2020, to discuss the effects of quackery in nursing in Ogun State, an invitation she honoured. The Claimant characterised the events leading to her termination on 25th November 2020 as unfair labour practices that contradict the highest labour standards both locally and internationally.

 

27.      The Claimant testified about the unfair labour practices she experienced. She was initially cleared for annual leave starting on 22nd July 2020, but was required to continue working by Nurse Elders, who later scheduled her leave to begin on 27th July 2020. Despite being on duty during this time, she was not compensated for that period. The 4th Defendant deducted money from her salary, despite her explanation regarding this mix-up in a letter dated 29th July 2020. While trying to resolve the issue, the 4th Defendant sent another letter on 17th August 2020, suggesting that the Claimant had unilaterally changed her leave dates, even after having benefited from her services. The Claimant then wrote a letter on 19th August 2020, seeking clarification regarding her unpaid wages, but the Defendants have neither addressed this issue nor paid her any money to date. The Claimant also recounted an incident where she advocated for a nurse who was forced to remove her hijab. As a result, she was removed from a WhatsApp group by the combined influence of the 6th and 7th Defendants, thereby hindering her ability to communicate effectively and obtain the important information required for her duties. Victimisation and discrimination continued against her. She also raised concerns about the proper placement and implementation of lateral conversion for all nurses at OOUTH. She sought an explanation for why graduate Chief Nursing Officers who participated in the 2017 interview had not been promoted to Assistant Director of Nursing Services, unlike their counterparts at other professional nursing institutions. Many of those individuals had remained in their positions for over 12 years. This advocacy led to increased victimisation and discrimination against her, culminating in threats from the 5th Defendant, who ominously stated during a meeting, “My drum is beating harder, and it will soon burst.”

 

28.      The victimisation, discrimination, and harassment did not cease, especially regarding how she was transferred from her previous unit within 15 months to the General Out-Patient Department, under the supervision of the 6th and 7th Defendants. They closely monitored her every movement as if she were an ex-convict under security watch. She became the only staff member required to sign a movement book while on hospital premises, which she viewed as discriminatory. The organised labour in Ogun State issued a declaration of trade dispute dated 15th September 2020, titled "Re-declaration of Trade Dispute: Notice of Seven Days Warning Strike." The notice mandated its members to fully comply with the strike action and indicated that there would be no essential services in any sector in the State, urging all workers to stay at home until 22nd September 2020. In compliance with this directive, the National Association of Nigerian Nurses, Ogun State Council issued a letter dated 16th September 2020, endorsing the strike action. However, on 15th September 2020, at the start of the strike, the 6th Defendant instructed Mr. Prince Ovwiomodiowho, a financial member of her Association, to report for duty at the children's ward on the grounds that he was not supposed to participate in the strike due to his status as a new staff member. While Mr. Ovwiomodiowho was at the children's ward, the Nigerian Labour Congress monitoring team arrived and ordered everyone, including him, to leave. After completing his shift, he handed over his report to the 6th Defendant before leaving the hospital. During the strike action, events unfolded that resulted in Mr. Ovwiomodiowho facing discrimination by the 2nd to 6th Defendants due to his union affiliation. As a punitive measure, Mr. Ovwiomodiowho was required to undergo a one-month reorientation for his absence from duty. This experience caused him trauma and degraded him in the eyes of his colleagues. She took it upon herself to seek an amicable solution and advocate for justice and fairness for Mr. Ovwiomodiowho. Given her position in union activism, she felt a responsibility to look out for her colleagues, including Mr. Ovwiomodiowho, who was being victimised for joining the strike called by the NLC and NANNM. Despite her efforts to intervene through the unit NANNM, she achieved no success. Additionally, she informed the State NANNM Chairman, Mrs. Solarin, about Mr. Ovwiomodiowho's situation, which was already drawing global attention.

 

29.      On 5th October 2020, she was invited in her professional capacity as a medical expert for an online radio interview on "Nurses Arise Radio." The program focused on her activism and unionism, as well as her impact on people's lives. Despite recovering from surgery, she honoured the invitation, during which the issue concerning Mr. Prince Ovwiomodiowho was raised and addressed. However, on 3rd November 2020, she received a query from the 4th Defendant and Director of Administration, regarding her participation in the online interview. The query questioned her decision to discuss matters related to the Nurses Association, which directly affect her members, as well as general health issues. She replied to the query on 4th November 2020. She stated that the termination of her appointment appeared premeditated and biased, particularly given the abrupt manner in which the 1st Defendant set up the investigative panel. Ms. Ajibola asserted that her freedom of association is guaranteed by the 1999 Constitution, allowing her to join lawful associations in her workplace and elsewhere. Additionally, her rights to freedom of expression and fair hearing are protected under the same Constitution. She received a letter on 10th November 2020, inviting her to appear before an investigative panel on 13th November 2020. This panel included Dr. Jagun, as the Chairman, along with the 1st Defendant’s heads of departments and other members from Abeokuta. She attended the panel with her counsel, who ensured that she did not discuss Mr. Prince’s ongoing case in Court, which the Chairman appreciated. After the panel, she was not provided with any report from the investigative panel and was invited to a meeting at the 2nd Defendant's office. Upon arrival, she found an 8-member panel already seated without her prior knowledge. When she requested her lawyer to be present, the 4th Defendant harassed her lawyer and used disrespectful language.

 

30.      On 25th November 2020, less than two weeks after her appearance before the panel, she received a termination letter, which caused her emotional distress. Upon returning to work on 26th November 2020, the harassment, victimisation, and discrimination against her continued. With the aid and involvement of the 2nd to 7th Defendants, security personnel of the 1st Defendant subjected her to bodily harm, forcibly removing her from the premises in front of onlookers at the place where she had worked for 14 years. She later wrote an appeal letter to the Board of the 1st Defendant, which was inaugurated after her termination, and hoped for a positive consideration of her appeal. However, the 1st Defendant did not act on it. The termination caused her and her family psychological trauma, and despite her recuperation from major surgery, she expressed a willingness to return to her duty post. She attempted to clarify the issues by writing to the State NANNM on 30th November 2020, but received no response. Furthermore, she was not paid the one month’s salary in lieu of notice as indicated in her termination letter by the due date; although it was eventually paid and reversed, it remains unpaid to date. This non-payment breaches applicable labour laws and renders her termination null and void and illegal. She engaged her lawyer, Messrs. Macdonald Amaran & Co., to initiate this action. Before this, she sent letters dated 11th and 25th November 2020, demanding her immediate reinstatement to the 1st Defendant. She also wrote a petition dated 30th November 2020 to the National Association of Nigerian Nurses and Midwives, appealing for their intervention, but to no avail. In accordance with the employee handbook, she submitted a letter of appeal dated 15th December 2020, to the Management Board of the 1st Defendant, but did not receive any response. The Defendants failed to resolve the issues despite her efforts. She was denied entry into the 1st Defendant's premises and had still not received payment after being victimised, harassed, and discriminated against. Consequently, she prays that the Honourable Court set aside the termination of her appointment, which is protected by statute.

 

31.     Mrs. Ajibola stated that her employment is protected by statutory provisions, as it arises under the law that established the 1st Defendant, namely the OOUTH Edict No. 6 of 1987, which was enacted by the Ogun State House of Assembly. It is also governed by the Labour Act, as amended, making compliance mandatory for the 1st Defendant. Mrs. Ajibola asserted that her employment falls within the definitions provided by these statutes and other relevant laws applicable to her. The Defendants have violated the statutory provisions that regulate her employment. Furthermore, she was not provided with a copy of the report from the investigating panel. Additionally, she did not receive one month’s salary in lieu of notice at the appropriate time. At the time of her termination, she held the rank of NAHSS 10, step 8, and her last recorded salary as of October 2020 was N211,032, gross of all deductions. She is claiming the reliefs outlined in her amended statement of facts.

 

32.     In her further sworn statement, Mrs. Ajibola testified that before her illegal and abrupt termination, she was diligent, obedient, and showed respect to her seniors and constituted authority. On 4th November 2019, the Chief Nursing Officer (CNO), Olusile, requested via WhatsApp to know the start date of her leave, to which she responded by stating her annual leave period would be from 27th July 2020 to 14th August 2020. She submitted her leave application on 23rd June 2020, but mistakenly filled in 22nd July 2020 instead of 27th July 2020. Consequently, 22nd July 2020 was approved for her annual leave. Although she reported the error to the management of the 1st Defendant and continued working from 22nd to 27th July 2020, the Defendants refused to pay her the annual leave bonus and deducted the three-day period from her September salary, despite her having worked during that period. Mrs. Ajibola denied unilaterally changing her leave and claimed she did not present herself as the spokesperson for the 1st Defendant. As Treasurer of the NANMM and Unit Chair of the University Graduates of Nursing Science Association at the 1st Defendant's branch, she had the mandate from her colleagues to speak on union activities and affairs. She was frequently harassed, victimised, and discriminated against by the Defendants and the relevant authorities. She participated in a radio interview on the "Nurses Arise" Nightingale Radio program in her personal and professional capacity as a nurse, not in her official capacity as an employee of the 1st Defendant. Therefore, she did not need to seek permission from the 1st Defendant to attend this online radio program. Mrs. Ajibola denied representing herself as a spokesperson for the 1st Defendant during the interview and asserted that she made no statements that would damage the 1st Defendant's reputation. She also denied making any defamatory remarks and refuted allegations of dereliction of duty, demanding that the Defendants provide strict proof of their claims.

 

33.      Furthermore, Mrs. Ajibola indicated that she appeared before an investigative panel but was not provided with minutes of the meeting, nor has she received them to date. Consequently, she denied the contents of the meeting's minutes dated 13th November 2020, in their entirety, as she was not given a copy to respond adequately. She had no prior notice or knowledge of the said meeting. Mrs. Ajibola believed that the Defendants' actions were hasty, malicious, and motivated by a sinister intent to terminate her employment at all costs, as evidenced by the manner in which the meeting on 25th November 2020 was allegedly conducted. The report was released that same day, and her employment was hastily terminated without the approval of the 1st Defendant's Management Board. This termination, conducted without the knowledge or approval of a lawfully constituted Management Board, was in bad faith, as due process was not observed. She stated there was no communication from the Defendants regarding a cheque; she had never seen it before, and the Defendants raised the issue for the first time during this suit. Thus, she stated that the Defendants' actions were crafty, misleading, and an attempt at a cover-up. Mrs. Ajibola also believes that the Defendants have no valid defence to this suit, and she prayed the Court to dismiss their statement of defence with costs.

 

34.     During cross-examination, Mrs. Ajibola confirmed that her conduct as an employee of the Ogun State Government is governed by the Rule Book, which includes the public service rules. She is a member of the University Graduates of Nursing Science Association (UGONSA) and the National Association of Nigerian Nurses and Midwives (NANNM). Mrs. Ajibola acknowledged that the 5th, 6th, and 7th Defendants are also members of NANNM. She is acquainted with Mrs. Solarin, who served as the State Chairman of NANNM while she was the treasurer of NANNM in her unit. She has put in 14 years of service. Mrs. Ajibola explained that there is a practice in place requiring staff to complete a leave roster for the previous year before taking leave. However, she noted that her boss often communicated the choice of leave dates to them via WhatsApp, and she submitted her leave request through that platform. The leave roster is always approved by management and communicated through a leave advice. She entered the date 22nd July 2020 on her 2019 leave roster, and it was subsequently approved. Mrs. Ajibola stated that she was made to resume work on 22nd July 2020. When asked how she was made to resume work on 22nd July 2020, Mrs. Ajibola stated that she was rostered for 22nd July 2020, and that her leave date was stated as 27th July 2020. She continued working despite wanting to take her leave on 27th July 2020. Mrs. Ajibola admitted to making a mistake regarding her leave dates and wrote to management to rectify it.

 

35.      When Exhibit 7, dated 29th July 2020, was shown to her, Mrs. Ajibola confirmed its authenticity. Despite not receiving a response to Exhibit 7, she proceeded on leave. On 5th October 2020, while on excused duty for health reasons, she granted an online interview. Mrs. Ajibola stated that management did not permit her to give the interview; she participated in her personal capacity from her bedroom. She could not recall the title of the online program held on that date, nor could she remember if she was asked about the standards of nursing at OOUTH or how she responded. She also could not remember making any negative remarks about the administration of the Ogun State School of Nursing. The name of the radio program was Nightingale Online Radio, and she couldn’t remember how long the program had been airing. Mrs. Ajibola expressed surprise that the same nurses she fought for brought the interview to management's attention. On 4th November 2020, she received a query and responded to it. She was invited to an investigative panel, which she attended with her lawyer on 13th November 2020. Mrs. Ajibola also admitted that upon receiving the invitation letter on 11th November 2020, she retained a lawyer. Her lawyer subsequently wrote to the Hospital, and she confirmed Exhibit 21 as the letter from her lawyer. After reading paragraph 8, Mrs. Ajibola confirmed that, according to Exhibit 8, her lawyer requested a virtual panel sitting. Mrs. Ajibola further testified that she attended a Senior Staff Disciplinary Committee meeting on 25th November 2020 with her lawyer, who was not allowed to enter. She learned that a new board was inaugurated for the hospital on 7th December 2020 and wrote an appeal letter to the board on 15th December 2020. Mrs. Ajibola noted that the period from 15th December 2020 to the first week of January 2021 was the festive period. She initiated this action on 7th January 2021 and maintained that, based on her response to the query, her presentation at the panel sitting, the contents of her appeal letter, and her Court appearance during the trial, she has not done anything wrong. Upon re-examination, Mrs. Ajibola stated that she was on morning duty on 22nd July 2020 and clarified that there were no public holidays from 15th December 2020 to 31st December 2020.

 

36.     Mr. Adeola Adefolajimi Awoyomi, the Director of Administration at Olabisi Onabanjo University Teaching Hospital in Sagamu, Ogun State, testified that the 2nd Defendant is no longer the Chief Medical Director (CMD) of the 1st Defendant. He stated that the Claimant and the third to seventh Defendants were employed by the 1st Defendant. The 3rd Defendant, who is currently the CMD of the 1st Defendant, previously served as the Chairman of the Medical Advisory Committee. The Claimant is a registered nurse and midwife who joined the 1st Defendant's services on 16th February 2006. Mr. Awoyomi described the Claimant as a "rabble rouser," meddlesome, and prone to inciting rebellion and disobedience within the hospital community. He added that she was known for ignoring management and established authority during her employment. Mr. Awoyomi denied that the Hospital Management was aware of the Claimant’s invitation by OGTV for an interview. On 3rd November 2020, the Claimant received a query. Earlier, on 23rd June 2020, the Claimant applied for 10 days' leave from 22nd July 2020 to 5th August 2020, which management approved. In a letter dated 29th July 2020, addressed to the Chairman of the Medical Advisory Committee through the Director of Nursing Services, the Claimant demanded correction of the dates of her annual leave. In response, the Deputy Director of Nursing Services sent a letter to the Chairman of the Medical Advisory Committee regarding the issue. The Defendants responded with a letter dated 17th August 2020, outlining their position on the matter. Consistent with the 1st Defendant's practices, every staff member was given the opportunity to choose their annual leave dates toward the end of 2019, resulting in the preparation of the Annual Leave roster for 2020. However, the Claimant unilaterally changed her leave date from 22nd July 2020 to 27th July 2020, without obtaining approval from the hospital management.

 

37.      The Claimant served the 1st Defendant for fourteen years, starting as a Nursing Officer II, CONHESS 7, upon her employment. During her tenure, she was elected Treasurer of the National Association of Nurses and Midwives, but not as the President or Public Relations Officer. Therefore, she did not have the Association's authority to speak publicly on its behalf or regarding the hospital's management. The fifth, sixth, and seventh Defendants are also members of the National Association of Nurses and Midwives. Mr. Awoyomi denied any allegations of victimisation, discrimination, harassment, or stagnation against the Claimant or any other staff member. He testified that it is standard practice at the hospital to assign staff to various duty posts, provided the new posts fall within the staff member's schedule of duties. The hospital management was aware of a seven-day strike action initiated by organised labour in Ogun State, as evidenced by a letter from the Joint Health Staff Union, the umbrella body for the National Association of Nigerian Nurses and Midwives. The Claimant participated in an interview on the “Nurses Arise” Nightingale Radio program, discussing issues related to the hospital management and nursing department. This interview took place on 5th October 2020, at 6:30 am, while she was on excuse duty for health reasons, and she did not seek permission from the Defendants. During the interview, she made statements that were deemed defamatory about the hospital's administration and public policy.

 

38.      The Deputy Director of Nursing Services wrote to the Director of Administration on 12th October 2020, informing hospital management about the Claimant’s interview. Following this, the Claimant received an administrative query on 3rd November 2020. She responded to the query in a letter dated 4th November 2020, but the hospital management found her response to be baseless and an afterthought. Therefore, a panel was established to investigate the matter further. By a letter dated 10th November 2020, the Claimant was invited to appear before the panel scheduled for 12th November 2020. The Claimant’s solicitor responded with a letter dated 11th November 2020, titled “Demand for Immediate Payment of All Monies Deducted from the Salary of Mrs. Ajibola Aishat Oluwafunke and Immediate Discontinuance of Harassment, Intimidation, Victimisation, and Discrimination.” In this letter, the Claimant expressed discomfort with appearing before a panel she described as composed of her "intimidators and oppressors" without her attorney present and requested a virtual meeting via Zoom. In response, the Hospital Management sent the Claimant another invitation letter dated 12th November 2020, requesting her physical attendance at the panel. The panel convened on 13th November 2020, and the Claimant attended in person. The panel reconvened on 17th November 2020, and at the conclusion of its proceedings, the eight-member panel recommended that the Claimant appear before the Hospital's Senior Staff Disciplinary Committee. Following this recommendation, the Claimant was invited to attend a hearing with the Senior Staff Disciplinary Committee on 25th November 2020. During this session, it was recommended that the Claimant receive a letter terminating her appointment. In compliance with this recommendation, the Claimant's appointment was formally terminated by a letter dated 25th November 2020. Mr. Awoyomi denied that the Claimant was forcibly removed from the Hospital premises on 26th November 2020, or at any other time, by the 1st Defendant’s security personnel. The Claimant’s appointment was terminated by the Hospital management, not solely by the 4th Defendant, and due process was followed. The Defendants received two letters from the Claimant’s solicitors, Macdonald Amaran, both dated 25th November 2020. These letters demanded the immediate reversal of the termination of Claimant's employment, immediate payment of all monies deducted from her salary, and the discontinuation of harassment, intimidation, victimisation, and discrimination against her. Another letter addressed defamation of character concerning a senior member of the Nigerian Bar Association and requested a written apology.

 

39.      On 7th December 2020, a new Hospital Management Board was inaugurated, which received a Letter of Appeal from the Claimant dated 15th December 2020. However, the Claimant initiated this suit without waiting for the Board's response. The Defendants issued a First Bank cheque numbered 37009056, dated 15th December 2020, in favour of the Claimant, representing one month's salary in lieu of notice; however, the Claimant has not collected it to date. The Claimant’s appointment was terminated due to serious misconduct during her employment at the 1st Defendant, and was not influenced by anyone. The Claimant did not approach the Defendants or the relevant department for details of her pension contributions account or for information regarding the pension fund administrator in order to access her pension funds. Mr. Awoyomi denied that the Claimant was harassed by the Hospital Management's security personnel or the State Security Service either on 26th November 2020, or on any other day before or after her termination. The Claimant’s claims are characterised as frivolous, vexatious, misconceived, malicious, and unfounded, and should be dismissed with substantial costs. The Claimant is not entitled to the reliefs sought, and her claims should be dismissed with substantial costs. The Defendants tendered 19 documents marked Exhibits D1-D19, which are: offer of appointment dated 7th February 2006, approval for leave dated 26th June 2020, the Claimant’s letter dated 29th July 2020, Deputy Director of Nursing Services' reply dated 29th July 2020, Flash drive with the certificate of compliance, Mrs. Enaholo’s letter to the Director of Administration dated 12th October 2020, query dated 3rd November 2020, the Claimant’s response dated 4th November 2020, copy of the invitation to the panel, dated 10th November 2020, copy of the Claimant’s solicitors’ letter dated 11th November 2020, copy of the Defendants’ letter dated 12th November 2020, Minutes of the panel sitting on 13th November 2020, copy of the minutes from the panel's second sitting on 17th November 2020, copy of the invitation to a meeting dated 24th November 2020 (same as Exhibit 2), Report of the Senior Staff Disciplinary Committee meeting held on 25th November 2020, termination of appointment (same as Exhibit 22), the Claimant’s solicitors’ letter dated 25th November 2020, the Claimant’s solicitors’ letter dated 25th November 2020 titled "Defamation of Character", and copy of First Bank cheque.

 

40.     During cross-examination, Mr. Awoyomi stated that he is the 4th Defendant in this case. He clarified that he is not a member of the nursing staff or a board member of the 1st Defendant, although he served as the Board's secretary from 2019 to 2022, which he is certain of. Mr. Awoyomi confirmed that he swore to the witness statement on oath at the Registry of the Court and read paragraph 44 of the statement. Mr. Awoyomi acknowledged signing Exhibit 22, the termination letter, and indicated that his designation is Director of Administration in the employment of the 1st Defendant. He did not participate in the investigating panel and was not present at the panel sittings on 13th and 17th November 2020. When asked if he appeared on the panel on 25th November 2020, Mr. Awoyomi clarified that it was not a panel but rather a Senior Staff Disciplinary Committee. He noted that the Claimant was on sick leave when she granted an interview to Nightingale Radio, but he could not recall the duration of her sick leave. In response to the question of whether the Claimant's entitlements were paid after the termination of her appointment, Mr. Awoyomi explained that the Claimant was directed to go to the Accounts department, as indicated in the termination letter. He stated that the Claimant did not come to collect her one month’s salary in lieu of notice. Salaries are usually paid to the bank, while those who are retiring receive payment by cheque. He was unsure whether the minutes of the panel’s meeting had been provided to the Claimant. When asked if the Claimant was referred to the Management Board for disciplinary action, Mr. Awoyomi explained that there was no board in place at that time, only a commissioner, and the Claimant was referred to the commissioner. He signed the letter in accordance with the approval of the Honourable Commissioner for Health. Mr. Awoyomi was shown Exhibit 1, page 2, and asked to identify where the commissioner's name appears. When asked how long he had been working for the 1st Defendant, Mr. Awoyomi stated that he began working for the 1st Defendant in 2019 and is no longer employed by the 1st Defendant. He explained that under the OOUTH Edict, the Honourable Commissioner for Health has the authority to act in the Board's absence and did so during that period, handling all appointments. When asked how the Claimant was referred to the Honourable Commissioner, he clarified that the Claimant was never directed to appear before the commissioner.

 

          Evaluation of evidence

 

41.     I have carefully read, understood, and thoroughly reviewed the evidence presented by both parties, including oral and documentary evidence. From the overall evidence, it is evident that there is no dispute regarding the Claimant's employment with Olabisi Onabanjo University Teaching Hospital, represented by the 1st Defendant (see paragraphs 2, 9-11 of the Claimant’s sworn statement and paragraphs 6 and 13 of the Defendants’ witness’s sworn statement, and Exhibits 15, 16, 17, and D1). Both parties agree that the Claimant’s employment had statutory protection (see paragraphs 12 and 34 of the Claimant’s sworn statement and paragraph 6 of the Defendants’ witness’s sworn statement). It is also undisputed that on 5th October 2020, the Claimant participated in an online interview on “Nurses Arise Radio,” during which she discussed various issues concerning Olabisi Onabanjo University Teaching Hospital without the Hospital's prior authorisation. This action breached Rule 04420(1)(d) of the Public Service Rules applicable in Ogun State (refer to paragraph 18(k) of the Claimant’s sworn statement and paragraphs 25, 26, and 27 of the Defendants’ witness’s sworn statement). Both parties agree that the Claimant was subsequently queried following this interview and that she provided a response to the query (see paragraph 18(l) and (m) of the Claimant’s sworn statement as well as paragraphs 29 and 30 of the Defendants’ witness’s sworn statement and Exhibits 18 and D7). The Claimant was later invited to an investigative panel established after her response to the query, and she attended the panel session held on 13th November 2020 (see paragraphs 18(n) and 21 of the Claimant’s sworn statement and paragraphs 31-37 of the Defendants’ witness’s sworn statement, along with Exhibits 20, D9, and D11). The investigative panel found her culpable and recommended that she appear before the Senior Staff Disciplinary Committee and that her employment be terminated (see Exhibits D12 and D13). It is also agreed that the Claimant was invited to and attended the Senior Staff Disciplinary Committee meeting (refer to paragraph 23 of the Claimant’s sworn statement and paragraphs 38 and 39 of the Defendants’ witness’s sworn statement, along with Exhibits D14 and 2). The Senior Staff Disciplinary Committee also found the Claimant culpable, affirming the investigative panel's recommendation to terminate her appointment with immediate effect and to pay her one month’s salary in lieu of notice (see paragraph 39 of the Defendants’ witness’s sworn statement and Exhibit D15). It is acknowledged that the Claimant’s employment was officially terminated on 25th November 2020 (refer to paragraph 23 of the Claimant’s sworn statement and paragraph 40 of the Defendants’ witness’s sworn statement, along with Exhibits 22 and D16). Facts admitted require no further proof. See Section 123 of the Evidence Act. The only point of contention is whether the termination of the Claimant’s employment was wrongful.

 

Was the Claimant’s employment wrongfully terminated? 

 

42.     As stated in this judgment, an employee who claims that her employment was wrongfully terminated bears the responsibility of providing details about the terms and conditions of her employment contract and demonstrating how the employer violated those terms. In the case of employment with a statutory flavour, the employee must identify the specific provisions of the statute or conditions of service that the employer failed to follow during the disciplinary process leading to the termination of her employment. It is the employee's responsibility to demonstrate that the termination was wrongful. Please see Sections 131(1) and 136(1) of the Evidence Act, and the case of Onwusukwu v. Civil Service Commission [2020] 10 NWLR (Pt 1731) 179 at 200. Furthermore, in an action for wrongful termination, the Court considers whether the termination complied with the terms of the Claimant’s employment and whether the Claimant was given a fair hearing. See Momoh v. CBN [2007] 14 NWLR (Pt 1055) 504 at 526 – 527 and Skye Bank Plc v. Adegun [2024] 15 NWLR (Pt 1960) 1 at 36. Whether the employer’s decision is right or wrong is not material at this point.

 

43.     It is the Claimant’s evidence that her employment enjoys statutory protection, given that it is governed by the relevant provisions of the Olabisi Onabanjo University Teaching Hospital Edict No. 6 of 1987 and other enabling laws. The Claimant also stated that she was given the Staff Regulations and Conditions of Service Handbook upon assumption of duty (see paragraphs 12 and 13 of the Claimant’s sworn statement, and Exhibit 1). I have carefully considered the Claimant’s evidence, apart from reiterating her evidence that her employment is regulated by statute, the investigative panel’s report was not given to her, and that she was not paid the one month’s salary in lieu of notice, there is no pleading or evidence on the specific provision of the relevant statute or conditions of service that the 1st Defendant breached. The learned Claimant’s counsel tried to make up for this dearth of pleading and evidence in paragraph 3.10 of the final written address, and paragraph 1.3 of the reply on points of law. It is important to state that counsel, in the guise of a final address, cannot lead evidence to fill any lacuna in his client’s case. He is not permitted to do so. Final written addresses, no matter how brilliantly couched, cannot constitute evidence. See the case of Lawali v. State [2019] 4 NWLR (Pt 1663) 457 at 469.

 

44.      Nonetheless, I have examined the Staff Regulations and Conditions of Service, Exhibit 1, which was pleaded and admitted in evidence without objection. The disciplinary procedure is on pages 31-35. Clause 1 states, “The power to dismiss, suspend, and to exercise disciplinary control over employees holding offices in the Olabisi Onabanjo University Teaching Hospital, Sagamu, is vested in the Board of Management. This power may be delegated to a Committee or an Officer of the Board. For the purpose of this regulation, the power to dismiss, suspend, and exercise disciplinary measures over all employees on HATISS 01-05 is hereby delegated to the Chief Medical Director, and final appeal to the Board.” There is no evidence before me that the Management Board's approval was obtained before the Claimant’s employment was terminated. Both parties agree that the Claimant’s employment was terminated on 25th November 2020, the same day that she appeared before the Senior Staff Disciplinary Committee. Parties also agree that there was no Management Board in place at the time, the Board was inaugurated on 7th December 2020 (see paragraph 25 of the Claimant’s sworn statement and paragraph 44 of the Defendants’ witness’s sworn statement).

 

45.      The learned counsel for the Defendants argued in paragraphs 4.22 of the final written address that the Hospital Management employed the Claimant, not the Management Board. While this may be so based on the literal interpretation of the offer of appointment, Exhibits 15 and D1, the parties agreed that the Claimant’s employment enjoyed statutory protection and that the Public Service Rules and the Staff Regulations and Conditions of Service regulated the Claimant’s employment. Clause 1, page 31 of the Staff Regulations and Conditions of Service specifically delegated to the Management Board the power to dismiss, suspend, and exercise disciplinary control over employees at the Olabisi Onabanjo University Teaching Hospital, Sagamu, except employees on HATISS 01-05. As I said earlier, an employer has the inherent right to terminate an employee's services, whether the employment is protected by law or governed by a contract. However, when an employer decides to disengage an employee, it is essential to comply with the terms and conditions outlined in the employment contract. Failing to adhere to these terms may result in wrongful termination, for which the employer could be held liable for damages or, in cases of statutory employment, be required to reinstate the employee. Relevant cases are Oforishe v. Nigerian Gas Company Ltd [2018] 2 NWLR (Pt 1602) 35 at 53-54, 61; Ovivie & Ors v. Delta Steel Company Limited [2023] 14 NWLR (Pt 1904) 203 at 229, 236; and Dangote Cement Plc v. Ager & Anor [2024] 10 NWLR (Pt 1945) 1 at 36.

 

46.      Furthermore, it is the law that parties are bound by the terms of the contract they voluntarily entered into and cannot act outside the terms and conditions of that contract. In the same vein, neither of the parties to a contract can alter nor read into a written agreement a term which is not embodied in it. Please see Obanye v. Union Bank of Nigeria Plc [2018] 17 NWLR (Pt 1648) 375 at 389 and African International Bank Ltd v. Integrated Dimensional System Ltd & Ors [2012] 17 NWLR (Pt 1328) 1 at 50. Therefore, notwithstanding that the 1st Defendant granted the Claimant a fair hearing in the proceedings leading up to the termination of her employment, they were unduly hasty in failing to obtain the Board approval or the approval of the relevant supervising Commissioner for the termination of the Claimant’s employment. Ninety-nine percent compliance equals non-compliance. Where the rules are agreed, they must be strictly complied with.

 

47.      While the Senior Staff Disciplinary Committee recommended that the Claimant’s employment be terminated with immediate effect with the payment of one month’s salary in lieu of notice, this was not done. Exhibit D19, dated 15th December 2020, is insufficient. The Claimant asserted in paragraph 27 of her sworn statement that the one month’s salary in lieu of notice was not paid when due, and when it was eventually paid, it was immediately reversed and has not been paid to date. The Defendants’ response in paragraph 45(a) of their witness’s sworn statement is that a First Bank cheque was issued in favour of the Claimant, who did not come to collect it. The Claimant denied this evidence in paragraph 20 of her additional sworn evidence. During cross-examination, the defence witness admitted that staff salaries are paid by bank transfer, but retiring staff are paid by cheque. The fact is, there is no evidence that the 1st Defendant informed the Claimant that her cheque was ready for collection. Based on the foregoing, I find as a fact that the termination of the Claimant’s employment without the Board's approval is wrongful. However, it is not oppressive or unconstitutional.

 

            Was the Claimant harassed, victimised, discriminated against, or subjected to unfair labour practices?

 

48.      The Claimant alleged unfair labour practices, victimisation, and discrimination, and particularised these in paragraphs 18 to 20 of her sworn statement. The instances of the victimisation, discrimination, and workplace harassment include being discriminated against, harassed, and threatened by the 5th Defendant while fighting the cause of graduate nurses on Chief Nursing officer position who took part in the 2017 interview and were not promoted, transfer from her previous unit within 15 months to general out-patient department, made to sign a movement register within the hospital premises and her movement was monitored by the 6th and 7th Defendants and when she resumed work on 26th November 2020, the 1st Defendant’s security attacked her and bundled her out of the 1st Defendant’s premises like a criminal. The Defendants denied these allegations, insisting that the Claimant was not harassed, victimised, or discriminated against. They emphasised that any staff member of the Hospital can be posted to any duty post. The Defendants also denied that the Claimant was bundled out of their premises on 26th November 2020.

 

49.      Order 14(2) of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017, provides that “Where in an action before the Court, a Claimant alleges workplace discrimination, such Claimant shall state whether the alleged workplace discrimination is on any of the following grounds: ancestry, religion, gender, marital status, family situation, genetic heritage, ethnic origin, political or ideological convictions, union affiliations, tribe, handicap or disability, health, pregnancy, and any other ground.” Subrule 3 states that the Claimant shall also indicate the activity (including the mode, manner, correspondence, and communication) that constitutes the workplace discrimination.

 

50.      In relation to the Claimant's annual leave, it is clear that the Claimant has no valid grounds for complaint. While Exhibit 8, which consists of WhatsApp messages, indicates that the Claimant initially requested leave from 27th July 2020 to 14th August 2020, Exhibit D2 reveals that in the Claimant’s formal leave application dated 23rd June 2020, the Claimant actually requested only 10 days of leave instead of 15. The requested leave dates were from 22nd July 2020 to 4th August 2020. This application was approved on 26th June 2020. Furthermore, the Claimant sought a correction of the annual leave dates on 29th July 2020, more than a month after the approval and after the leave roster, as shown in Exhibit D4, had been prepared and circulated.

 

51.      Additionally, the Claimant's appearance on Nurses Arise Radio on 5th October 2020, in direct violation of Rule 04420(1)(d) of the Public Service Rules applicable in Ogun State, constitutes extreme recklessness. As indicated in Exhibit 18, the query, this act constitutes gross misconduct. Despite receiving this query and an invitation to the investigative panel and the Senior Staff Disciplinary Committee, the Claimant refused to apologise. The Claimant also brought up the cases of a nurse who was forced to remove her hijab and Mr. Ovwiomodiowho, citing them as examples of victimisation, harassment, discrimination, and unfair labour practices. Discrimination involves differential treatment, especially a failure to treat all individuals equally when no reasonable distinction can be made between those favoured and those not, as illustrated in Lawal v. Federal Republic of Nigeria [2013] 3 NWLR (Pt 1342) 451 at 467-468. Upon reviewing the oral and documentary evidence on this matter, I firmly believe that none of the cited cases constitute discrimination, victimisation, harassment, or unfair labour practices. The evidence shows that these cases were unrelated to the Claimant. The investigative panel noted that the Claimant does not respect the Nursing Department and Hospital Management and displays a high degree of insubordination. She fails to understand that her rights end where the rules begin. Additionally, she was described as highly combative. Based on the evidence, I conclude that the Claimant was neither harassed, victimised, nor discriminated against. The incidents reported do not amount to unfair labour practices.

 

52.      It needs restating that no right is absolute. In fact, fundamental rights are not absolute. The right of a citizen ends where that of another citizen begins. Please refer to Yaki & Anor v. Bagudu & Ors [2015] 18 NWLR (Pt 1491) 288 at 317, Pharmabase Nigeria Limited v. Olatokunbo [2020] 10 NWLR (Pt 1732) 379 at 402, and Sambo & Ors v. The Nigeria Army Council & Ors [2017] 7 NWLR (Pt 1565) 400 at 428. The requirement in the Public Service Rules for prior express authorisation before granting an interview about the government or its agencies does not infringe on the Claimant’s right to freedom of expression. This regulation is designed to ensure the order and good governance of the State and its agencies, including the Olabisi Onabanjo University Teaching Hospital. The workplace is for serious business, not for unwarranted activism. Furthermore, the Claimant’s role as treasurer in the union does not qualify her to serve as the guardian or spokesperson for the nurses.

 

For these reasons, the sole issue for determination is resolved in part in favour of the Claimant.

 

Consideration of the reliefs

 

53.     Relief one is for a declaration that the purported termination of the Claimant’s employment via a letter dated 25th November 2020 is wrongful, illegal, oppressive, unconstitutional, and constitutes unfair labour practice. Although I found that the termination of the Claimant’s employment without the Board's approval is wrongful, it is not illegal, oppressive, or unconstitutional, nor does it constitute an unfair labour practice. Therefore, this claim is partially successful.

 

54.     Relief two is for an order setting aside the purported 25th November 2020 letter of termination of service of the Claimant. This relief is ancillary to the first relief, which has been partially granted. Therefore, it is successful. The letter terminating the Claimant’s employment, dated 25th November 2020, is hereby set aside.

 

55.     Relief three is for an order reinstating the Claimant to the employment of the 1st Defendant without loss in rank and promotion. Where an employee's service is protected by statute, and the employment is wrongfully terminated, the employee would be entitled to re-instatement and damages for lost wages during the termination period. Please see Central Bank of Nigeria & Anor v. Igwillo [2007] 14 NWLR (Pt 1054) 393 at 420. Since it has been established that the Claimant's employment is protected by statute and was wrongfully terminated, the appropriate remedy for this violation is reinstatement. Therefore, the Claimant is to be reinstated to her position without any loss of rank or promotion. Thus, this claim is granted.

 

56.     Relief four is for an order mandating the 1st Defendant to pay the Claimant arrears of salary from 25th November 2020 till she is reinstated into the employment of the Defendant. This flows from relief three, and it is hereby granted as requested. Please see Central Bank of Nigeria & Anor v. Igwillo [2007] 14 NWLR (Pt 1054) 393 at 420.

 

57.     Relief five is an order mandating the 1st Defendant to remit the backlogs of the Claimant’s contribution to the PFA. Any relief sought in a case must be supported by the pleadings. It is important to note that the relief a party seeks does not form part of the factual allegations in the pleading, and it cannot be granted unless there are specific facts in the party’s pleading that are supported by evidence. Relevant cases are Ishola v. Union Bank of Nigeria Limited [2005] 6 NWLR (Pt 922) 422 at 438-439, Ironbar v. Federal Mortgage Finance [2009] 15 NWLR (Pt 1165) 506 at 529, and Trade Bank Plc & Ors v. Pharmatek Industrial Projects Ltd [2020] 8 NWLR (Pt 1725) 124 at 169-170. Since there is no pleading or evidence to substantiate this claim, it is therefore denied.

 

58.      Relief six is for an order restraining the Defendants jointly and severally from intimidating, harassing, or molesting the Claimant in her duty post upon reinstatement. In this judgment, I concluded that the Claimant was neither harassed, victimised, nor discriminated against. I also found that the incidents she reported do not constitute unfair labour practices. Furthermore, there is evidence indicating that the Claimant does not respect the Nursing Department or the Hospital Management and displays a significant degree of insubordination. She has been described as highly combative. An injunction is an equitable remedy, and anyone seeking equity must come with clean hands and do equity, as illustrated in the cases of County & City Bricks Development Company Limited v. Hon. Minister of Environment, Housing & Urban Development & Anor [2019] 5 NWLR (Pt 1666) 484 at 503 and Boye Industries Limited & Anor v. Sowemimo & Anor [2022] 3 NWLR (Pt 1817) 195 at 216. I find that the Claimant’s actions do not meet this standard, and a Court of equity cannot support her claims. Therefore, this claim has not been substantiated and is accordingly denied.

 

59.     Relief seven is for an order mandating the 1st Defendant to remit all Claimant’s contributions in the staff Cooperative, social welfare in NANNM, Nightingale Scheme monies, and other benefits to the Claimant’s account. Any relief sought in a case must be supported by the pleadings. It is important to note that the relief a party seeks does not form part of the factual allegations in the pleading, and it cannot be granted unless there are specific facts in the party’s pleading that are supported by evidence. Relevant cases are Ishola v. Union Bank of Nigeria Limited [2005] 6 NWLR (Pt 922) 422 at 438-439, Ironbar v. Federal Mortgage Finance [2009] 15 NWLR (Pt 1165) 506 at 529, and Trade Bank Plc & Ors v. Pharmatek Industrial Projects Ltd [2020] 8 NWLR (Pt 1725) 124 at 169-170. There is no pleading or evidence to support this claim. Although Exhibit 3, which is the Claimant’s payslip for October 2020, shows various deductions, this does not remedy the lack of pleadings and evidence. Furthermore, the relief sought is vague, as the monetary claims are presented collectively without specific details. I conclude that this claim has not been proven, and therefore, I deny it.

 

60.     Relief eight seeks one million naira (N1,000,000.00) only as the cost of action. Litigation costs follow the outcome of the case, and the successful party is entitled to recover her costs, unless there are exceptional reasons to deny them. This principle is illustrated in cases such as Egypt Air Limited v. Ibrahim & Anor [2021] LPELR-55882[CA] 35-36, Ezennaka v. C.O.P., Cross River State [2022] 18 NWLR (Pt 1862) 369 at 420, Yakubu v. Min. Housing & Environment, Bauchi State [2021] 12 NWLR (Pt 1791) 465 at 485, and Ubani-Ukoma & Anor v. Seven-Up Bottling Company Plc & Anor [2023] 2 NWLR (Pt 1867) 117 at 184. Costs are awarded to partially compensate the successful party for losses incurred during the litigation. The Court has the discretion under Order 55 Rule 1 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017, to award costs, and this discretion must be exercised both judicially and judiciously. Furthermore, under Order 55 Rule 2 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017, the Court is empowered to order the successful party to pay the costs of any specific proceedings in the suit, regardless of the party’s overall success in the case. After determining that the Claimant was not subject to harassment, victimisation, or discrimination, and that there were no instances of unfair labour practices, I found evidence suggesting that the Claimant does not show respect for the Nursing Department or the Hospital Management. The Claimant has exhibited significant insubordination and has been described as highly combative. I believe this suit could have been avoided had the Claimant offered an apology and submitted to established authority. Given the facts and circumstances of this case, I conclude that the Claimant is not entitled to recover the costs associated with this action. Therefore, this claim is denied.

 

61.     Relief nine seeks five million naira (N5,000,000.00) for specific and exemplary damages for the unlawful harassment of the Claimant by the 1st Defendant’s security personnel and State Security Personnel (SSS) at the Claimant’s duty post. The Claimant combined two types of damages in this claim. Special damages, by their nature, must be specifically pleaded and proven. However, it is unclear how the Claimant arrived at the sum of N5 million. For this claim to be granted, it must be properly pleaded and detailed, which is currently lacking. Exemplary damages are generally awarded when the Defendants' conduct is sufficiently egregious to warrant punishment, such as in cases involving malice, fraud, cruelty, insolence, or flagrant disregard for the law. To justify an award of exemplary damages, it is not enough for the Claimant to simply show that the Defendants committed the alleged wrongful act; the Claimant must also prove that the Defendants' behaviour was high-handed, insolent, vindictive, and showed a complete disregard for the Claimant's rights. Consequently, a claim for exemplary damages must be strictly proved. Please see Aice Investment Company Limited & Anor v. Fidelity Bank Plc [2025] 3 NWLR (Pt 1979) 279 at 297-298. In this judgment, I found that the Claimant was neither harassed nor victimised, and there was no evidence of discrimination. Additionally, the incidents she reported do not amount to unfair labour practices. Furthermore, evidence suggests that the Claimant does not show respect for the Nursing Department or the Hospital Management and exhibits significant insubordination. She has been described as highly combative. Based on these findings, I conclude that the Claimant has not demonstrated any entitlement to this claim, and it is therefore denied.

 

62.     Before I conclude, let me reiterate that termination of an employee’s appointment is a serious matter that demands careful consideration from those who manage personnel within an organisation. It is crucial to thoroughly review and comply with all applicable regulations, especially when the employer is a public institution. Public affairs should always be conducted with transparency, integrity, and utmost care. Please see Mr. Bamisaye Olawale Olutola v. University of Lagos, Suit No. NICN/LA/441/2021, paragraph 41, page 24, judgment delivered on 17th July 2025.

 

63.    In the final analysis, the claim is partially successful. Reliefs 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 are dismissed. Relief 1 is granted partially. Reliefs 2, 3, and 4 are granted as prayed. For the avoidance of doubt, judgment is entered as follows:

 

a.      It is declared that the termination of the Claimant’s employment is wrongful.

 

b.     The letter of termination of appointment dated 25th November 2020 is hereby set aside.

 

c.      The 1st Defendant is hereby directed to reinstate the Claimant to her position without loss of rank or promotion.

 

d.     The 1st Defendant is hereby directed to pay the Claimant’s salary from December 2020 to the date of reinstatement.

 

Judgment is entered accordingly.

 

 

 

…………………………………..

IKECHI GERALD NWENEKA

JUDGE

            16/3/2026

 

            Attendance: The Claimant is present; the 1st Defendant is represented.

 

            Appearances

 

M. O. Gbadamosi Esq. for the Claimant

Adekunle Manuwa Esq., Assistant Director, Civil Litigation, Ogun State Ministry of Justice, with A. O. Adebajo Esq., State Counsel, for the Defendants