BACK

NICN - JUDGMENT

IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE IBADAN JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT IBADAN

 BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE J.D. PETERS

 

DATE: 14TH JULY 2026                                             

SUIT NO: NICN/OS/03/2024

 

BETWEEN:

Awoniyi Ademola Alabi                    -                -                 - Claimant 

 

AND

1.         The Governing Council, Adeleke University, Ede

2.         The Vice-Chancellor, Adeleke University, Ede

3.         The Registrar, Adeleke University, Ede

4.         The Bursar, Adeleke University, Ede

5.         FCMB Pensions Ltd Administrators                         -       -   -Defendants

REPRESENTATION

Daniel O. Ola for the Claimant

G.P. Duru for the 1st to 4th Defendants

K.O. Nnamadin with A.A. Odumosu for the 5th Defendant

 

 

JUDGMENT

1.         Introduction & Claims

1.         The Claimant commenced this Suit by his General Form of Complaint dated and filed 22/11/24. By his amended General Form of Complaint dated and filed on 28/7/25 along with all other amended processes sought these reliefs against the Defendants jointly and severally –

 

1.         An Order that by virtue of the Claimant's Notice of Resignation as a Lecturer in Adeleke University dated 3rd June 2024, giving 3 (three) months’ notice, which expired on 3rd September 2024, and 1st to 4th Defendants’ approval and adoption of the Claimant’s accumulated annual leave as part of the required notice of resignation of appointment; the contract of employment between the Claimant and the 1st - 4th Defendants has been properly determined in accordance with all extant rules, regulations and laws governing employment with statutory flavour. 

2.         An Order that since the contract of employment between the Claimant and the 1st-4th Defendants has been validly determined, the 1st - 5th Defendants have no legal and/or constitutional rights to withhold any or all entitlements (financial and documentary) due to the Claimant from the 1st - 5th Defendants jointly and/or severally. 

3.         An Order that the 5th Defendant having acknowledged that the Claimant's contributory pensions up until July, 2024 had been remitted to the 5th Defendant, the Claimant is legally entitled to his funds in the custody of the 5th Defendant and it is illegal and unconstitutional for the 5th Defendant to deny the Claimant access to the balance of his funds as at 3rd September, 2024. 

4.         An Order that in the circumstances of this suit, the refusal by the 1st - 5th Defendants, jointly and severally to deny the Claimant his entitlements (financial and documentary) due from them to the Claimant, is illegal, unreasonable and a calculated attempts to annoy, harass and oppress the Claimant by virtue of their respective offices. 

5.         An Order that the purported policy of the 1st - 4th Defendants to bond the Claimant to compel him to work for the 1st - 4th Defendants after completion of Ph. D Programme because of Day-Release or 2-Day-Off is illegal, unconstitutional and oppressive and without any legal or binding effect, same having not been executed by the Claimant and not being in accordance with Articles 4.1.12 of Adeleke University, Ede, Osun State Staff Handbook Revised on June 29 2021 and/or any other staff Handbook subsequent thereto, as well as the Claimant’s Letter of Appointment dated 2nd December 2014. 

ALTERNATIVELY, An Order that the insistence by the 1st - 4th Defendants that the Claimant must pay any sum of money to the Defendants, the 1st 4th Defendants not having made any monetary contributions to the Claimant's Ph. D Programme, and the Claimant not having entered into any purported bond with the 1st-4th Defendants, the demands of the latter on the Claimant is unreasonable unwarranted, fraudulent, illegal and unconstitutional, and as such, null and void and of no effect whatsoever. 

6.         An Order that the 1st to 4th Defendants' occasional withholding and/or deductions of various amounts of moneys from the Claimant's salaries and emoluments without legal and reasonable cause typified in the months of June and July 2018 or thereabouts; July and / or August 2019 or thereabouts; and March 2024, constitute illegal, unlawful and misconducts unbecoming of higher institution of learning. 

7.         An Order that uploading of the Claimant's under-mentioned telephone lines: 08038170227 and 07063511273 by the 1st – 4th Defendants as 1st Defendant caller-tune without the consent of the Claimant and the continued use of same telephone lines as caller tune of the 1st Defendant after the Claimant had resigned from its employment is dishonest, unlawful, illegal and unconstitutional as it amounts to violation of the Claimant's right to private life and privacy.

8.         An Order of injunction restraining the 1st-5th Defendants from further withholding the Claimant's salary for the month of August, 2024, and all other financial obligations due from them to the Claimant which include the total balance already paid to the 5th Defendant by the 1st - 4th Defendants as at August, 2024; total tax deductions by the 1st - 4th Defendants from the Claimant's monthly salaries since the commencement of the contract of employment in 2014 up until its determination on 3rd September, 2024; all other illegal and unauthorized and/or unused monetary deductions from Claimant salaries since inception of the contract in 2014 up until 3rd of September, 2024 as well as all necessary documents due to the Claimant from the 1st - 5th Defendants. 

9.         An order compelling the 5th Defendant to pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=3,884,314.03k (Three Million, Eight Hundred and Eighty-Four Thousand, Three Hundred and Fourteen Naira, Three Kobo only) being the credit balance in the Claimant's account with the 5th Defendant, and additional amounts payable by the 1st - 4th Defendants to the 5th Defendant as Claimant's contributory Pensions for the month of August, 2024, forthwith. 

10.       An Order compelling the 1st - 4th Defendants to account for and pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=10,478.95 (Ten Thousand Four Hundred and Seventy Eight Naira, Ninety-Five Kobo per month, being the Claimant PAYE (Pay As You Earn) taxes deducted by the 1st to 4th Defendants from the Claimant's monthly salaries since December 2014 to August 2024. 

11.       An Order compelling the 1st - 4th Defendants to pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=304,361.04k (Three Hundred and Four Thousand Three Hundred and Sixty-one Naira Four Kobo being the salary of the Claimant for the month of August 2024 due from them and payable to the Claimant. 

12.       The sum of =N=10,000,000 (Ten Million Naira Only) as Exemplary and/or Aggravated Damages for the stress and hardships caused by the 1st - 5th Defendants' refusal and / or neglect to pay to the Claimant as at when due, his entitlements due from them and payable to the Claimant.

2.         Defence & Counter claims

2.         On 19/12/24, the Defendants entered an appearance and filed a joint statement of defence along with all requisite frontloaded processes. They denied all forms of liabilities to the Claimant. In their Consequential amended joint statement of defence and counterclaim, 1st to 4th Defendants sought the following counter claims against the Claimant –

  1. The 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants claim against the Claimant the sum of =N=391,321.26 (Three Hundred and Ninety-One Thousand, Three Hundred and Twenty-One Naira Twenty-Six Kobo) being the amount to be paid in lieu of bond for the approved two days off duty for the Claimant’s Ph. D Program.
  2. The 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants claim against the Claimant the sum of =N=20,000,000.00 (Twenty Million Naira) for damages for the breach of contract. 

3.         The 5th Defendant filed its statement of defence on 13/10/25. It was dated same day. It was filed along with list of witnesses, witness written statement on oath as well as list and copies of documents to be relied upon at trial.

3.         Case of the Claimant

4.         Claimant opened his case on 1/12/25 and testified as CW1. Witness adopted his witness depositions of 28/7/25 and 27/8/25 as his evidence in chief and tendered 25 documents as exhibits. The documents were admitted without objection and marked as Exh. AA1-Exh. AA25 respectively. One additional document was tendered through the witness under cross examination. The document was admitted in evidence and marked as Exh. AA26.

 

5.         While being cross examined, CW testified that he worked with 1st – 4th Defendants for more than 10 years; that in 2018, he was suspended for 2 months without pay; that he would recognise the second response given to him by 1st – 4th Defendants; that he recognised the internal memo to him dated 26/9/2023; he is only bound by Exh. AA1 and his letter of appointment; that correspondences between 1st - 4th and himself is via memo; that he bound by correspondences I signed for; that he did not provide the documents needed by the 5th Defendant to process his pension because they were to be issued by 1st - 4th Defendants; that his date of birth is 23/12/1962; that he was over 50 years when he resigned from 1st – 4th Defendants and that the amount in his RSA was paid monthly by 1st – 4th Defendants.

4.         Case of the Defendants

6.         On 21/1/26, the Defendants commenced their defence. They called on Aliyu Oladayo Tobiloba as their DW.1 DW1 adopted her witness deposition of 12/8/25 as her evidence in chief. Witness also tendered 20 documents which were admitted in evidence and marked as Exh. TO1-Exh. TO20

 

7.         While under cross examination, DW1stated that at the 1st Defendant, Academic staff are to attend devotion every Wednesday between 1pm - 2pm; that failure to attend leads to issuance of query; that she is aware that Claimant was suspended without pay on allegation of missing laptop; that the Safety Security Unit of 1st Defendant is the one charged with issues of security and it gives its report to the Vice Chancellor; that she is not aware that the Safety and Security Unit investigated the issue of missing laptop and exonerated the Claimant; that she is aware that the Unit made a report of its investigation; that she is aware Claimant was a Co-Ordinator of the Faculty of 1st Defendant at that time; that she knows Prof. Kunle Aina who was from the University of Ibadan; that she is not aware Claimant was given the Laptop in question as Co-Ordinator of Faculty of Law and he signed for it; that she does not know if a staff of 1st Defendant has to sign when given a University property; that the person who receives a property is accountable for it whenever an inventory is to be taken; that she does not know who signed for the missing Laptop; that she is not aware that Claimant informed the Disciplinary Panel that he signed for the Laptop; that she is not aware that Claimant was only found guilty of subordination by the Panel; that she is aware Claimant tendered letter of Resignation and the 1st – 4th Defendants refused because he did not comply with the University policy; that Claimant did not sign any bond with the Defendants and that it is not the practice of the University to process retirement benefits of academic staff who are yet to conclude their disengagement procedure. 

 

8.         On 22/4/26, Awotobi Dayo was called as witness for the 5th Defendant – DW2. Witness adopted her witness deposition of 13/10/25 as her evidence in chief and tendered 7 documents as exhibits. The documents were admitted in evidence and marked as Exh. D1-Exh. D7.

 

9.         Witness testified under cross examination that Claimant has Pension Contributory Fund account with the 5th Defendant; that 5th Defendant has not been receiving accurate pension remittance from 1st – 4th Defendants; that Claimant was grouped as an employee in private parastatal; that Claimant did not submit his notice of retirement to the 5th Defendant; that as at the time Claimant visited the 5th Defendant, his pension was sufficiently funded; that 5th Defendant wrote Adeleke University to confirm the resignation of the Claimant; that the response from Adeleke University was that the Defendant has not been fully disengaged; that Exh. D5 was the first response from Adeleke University and that Claimant was 59 years old when he resigned from Adeleke University. 

 

5.         Final Written Addresses

 10.      The 5th Defendant filed a 16-page final written address on 8/5/26. In it Counsel set down a lone issue for resolution thus –

 

Whether having regard to the facts and evidence adduced before this Court, the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought against the 5th Defendant as per his amended Complaint and statement of Facts.

 

11.       Counsel submitted that the case of the Claimant against it is that it refused to pay his retirement benefits even though he has resigned from the employment of the 1st – 4th Defendants; but that that the Claimant has not fulfilled all the prerequisites for having his retirement savings processed; that Claimant has not complied with Exh. D1 issued by National Pension Commission; that Claimant qualified for Mandatory retirement under the Regulation; that under Section 3.1 of the Regulation Claimant is expected to furnish the 5th Defendant with a. The official Notice/Acceptance of Retirement from his employer; b. Last three pay slips or any other evidence of total emolument; c. Enrolment slip for employees of FGN Treasury-Funded MDAs and d. Any other relevant documents as may be specified from time to time by the Commission. Learned Counsel submitted that Claimant did not the necessary information as admitted by him in his evidence in chief and not having met the necessary statutory conditions, the 5th Defendant would not be able to attend to the needs of the Claimant. Counsel urged the Court to resolve the sole issue in favor of the 5th Defendant and dismiss the case of the Claimant against it.

 

12.       The final written address of the 1st – 4th Defendants was dated and filed on 8/5/26. Counsel set down these two issues for determination –

  1. Whether or not the Claimant has been fully disengaged from the services of the 1st – 4th Defendants to be entitled to the reliefs sought on the face of his amended general form of complaint before this honourable Court. 
  2. Whether or not the 1st–4th Defendants have placed sufficient evidence to be entitled to the reliefs sought in the counter claim before this honourable Court.

13.       On the first issue learned Counsel submitted that Claimant has not fully disengaged from the services of 1st to 4th Defendants and hence not entitled to the reliefs sought against them; that Claimant was informed of the importance of sorting his bond issue to enable the 1st to 4th Defendants process his notice of resignation; that sorting out the bond issue was a condition precedent which must be fulfilled  citing Atolagbe v. Awuni (1997)9 NWLR (Pt. 522) 536 and that where parties make an act subject to fulfillment of a condition precedent, legal consequences do not follow until the fulfillment of that condition precedent citing Universal Properties Ltd v. Pinnacle Commercial Bank (2022)12 NWLR (Pt. 1845) 532. Learned Counsel urged the Court to hold that Claimant has not placed sufficient evidence before the Court to show he was fully disengaged from the employment of the 1st to 4th Defendants to entitle him the reliefs he is seeking before the Court.

14.       On the second issue, learned Counsel submitted that the Claimant stated under cross examination that writing of memorandum are ways of disseminating information between the Claimant and the 1st to 4th Defendants; that Claimant was informed via Exh. AA26 that the 2 days off is subject to a bond policy; that Claimant was informed via Exh. AA26 that he would pay =N=391,321.26 in lieu of the two days off and that yet the Claimant despite being aware of refused and neglected to pay the stated sum thereby breaching the bond policy of the 1st to 4th Defendants. Counsel urged the Court to resolve this issue in favor of the 1st to 4th Defendants; to dismiss the case of the Claimant and enter Judgment in favor of the 1st to 4th Defendants for the counter claims sought. 

 

15.       The final written address of the Claimant was dated 12/5/26 and filed on 13/5/26. In it, Counsel set down 2 issues for determination thus –

  1. Whether based on the totality of the evidence (oral and documentary, and relevant statutory and case law authorities before the Court, the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs being sought against the 1st - 4th Defendants and 5th Defendant jointly or severally. 
  2. Whether based on the totality of the evidence proffered by the 1st - 4th Defendants/Counter claimants, they have proved and entitled to the reliefs sought in the counterclaim.

16.       On issue 1, learned Counsel submitted that whoever desires a positive and favorable Judgment of Court has the burden of adducing cogent, credible and admissible in support of his case except where the said assertions or claims are admitted citing Section 131(1), Evidence Act, 2011 as amended; that Claimant never signed any Bond with the 1st to 4th Defendants; that the Adeleke University, Ede does not have any Bond Policy and that it is not disputed that Exh. AA1, AA3 & AA4 guide the employment relationship between the Claimant and the Adeleke University; that by Exh. AA3, either party is only expected to give a three-month notice of intention to terminate the relationship or pay equivalent salaries in lieu of notice and that indeed Claimant gave a three-month notice of his intention to resign from the Adeleke University which was admitted by the 1st to 4th Defendants via Exh. TO19. Counsel urged the Court to hold that Claimant gave adequate notice of his intention to resign from the Adeleke University. Counsel added that the assertion by the 1st to 4th Defendants that there exists a Bond Policy at the Defendants is not proved as it is trite that he who asserts must prove same; that Exh. TO1 tendered by the 1st – 4th Defendants has no nexus or bearing to Adeleke University as no mention of the University or the Claimant was contained therein; that not having been signed by any of the parties it is nothing short of a worthless document citing Faro Bottling Co. Ltd v. Osuji (2002)1 NWLR (Pt. 748)311 at 330-331; that it is not a Guide or publication of the Adeleke University and hence neither of the parties can take advantage of the exhibit citing Julius Berger (Nig.) Plc v. T.R.C.B Ltd (2019)5 NWLR (Pt. 1665) 219 & Ezenwa v. Oko (1999)14 NWLR (Pt. 637) 95.

 

17.       On relief 5, learned Counsel submitted that the alleged bond was not signed as required by Article 5.1.17(e)(v) of the Adeleke University Staff Handbook, 2021; that Adeleke University cannot legally hold the Claimant and his entitlement bound without any justifiable reason but on the basis of unsigned Bond; that resignation dates back from the date the notice is received; that it needs not be formally accepted and that while there is absolute power to resign there is no discretion to refuse or accept the notice of resignation citing Osho v. Adeleye (2024)8 NWLR (Pt. 1941) 431, Ibrahim v. Abdullahi (2019)17 NWLR (Pt. 1701) & Yesufu v. Governor of Edo State (2001)13 NWLR (Pt.731) 517. Counsel submitted that the refusal of the 1st – 4th Defendants to accept the resignation of the Claimant and process his entitlement on the unfounded basis that Claimant is still bonded to the University without any proof of due execution of the purported Bond Agreement is tantamount to forced labour contrary to Section 34(1)(c) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended, Section 7(1) of the Labour Act and the ILO Convention Concerning  Forced or Compulsory Labour, 1930 (No. 29). Counsel urged the Court to grant the 5th relief sought.   

 

18.       On relief no 2, learned Counsel submitted that 1st to 4th Defendants withheld Claimant’s salary for the month of August, 2024 in the sum of =N=304,361.04 and refused to acknowledge his resignation of appointment; that the money is deemed moveable properties of the Claimant and transferrable from one account to another; that such property is not to be forcefully taken from or deprived the owner as guaranteed  by section 44(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended. Counsel submitted that the refusal of the 1st to 4th Defendants to pay the Claimant his said salary for the month of August 2024 and withholding same till date despite demand is an action in detinue which the law frowns at and that there is no legal basis for the action of the 1st to 4th Defendants. Counsel urged the Court to grant this relief as sought.

 

19.       On the relief 3, Counsel submitted that upon resignation, Claimant approached the 5th Defendant’s office to request payment of his entitlement in its custody but that it refused despite acknowledging that Claimant’s account with it is sufficiently funded; that 5th Defendant admitted in paragraph 17 of its statement of defence that as at 10/10/25 the amount standing to the credit of the Claimant in its retirement savings account stands at =N=4,681,938.50 but also stated that it has not been receiving complete monthly remittance of the Claimant’s entitlements from the 1st to 4th Defendants in the course of Claimant’s employment with the Adeleke University; that by Clause 2.2.1 of the Revised Regulation on the Administration of Retirement and Terminal Benefit, Claimant is entitled to his retirement savings via Temporary loss of employment/disengagement; that the 5th Defendant’s failure to take or deem the 1st to 4th Defendants refusal to respond to its enquiry within 30 days for the purpose of processing the payment of the Claimant’s entitlement is an infraction by the 5th Defendant and an inaction in breach of its obligation as mandated by Clause 3.6 of the Revised Regulation on the Administration of Retirement and Terminal Benefit. Counsel urged the Court to grant this as sought.

 

20.       On relief 6, learned Counsel submitted that 1st to 4th Defendants made illegal deductions and surcharge from the salaries of the Claimant; that Claimant was suspended for 2 months without pay over his involvement in the missing laptop which allegation Claimant was eventually cleared by Exh. TO7 & Exh. TO8; that 1st to 4th Defendants admitted in their pleadings that Claimant was issued a strong warning from the University dated 24/6/19 for his role in allowing students to write examinations without financial clearance from the Bursary Unit as against the rules of Adeleke University when indeed 1st to 4th defendants stated in paragraph 14 of their consequential joint amended statement of defence that there is nowhere in the Adeleke University Staff Handbook where Claimant as a Lecturer or even examination Invigilator and who is not a staff of the Bursary Department is obligated to first ascertain which among the students intending to write an examination at the University has not paid for the referenced academic Term/session. Counsel further added that 1st to 4th Defendants also wrongfully and illegally decided to withhold Claimant’s salary for the month of August 2024 on the unsubstantiated ground that Claimant is liable to make such payment in lieu of a purported Bond agreement that Claimant never signed. Accordingly, learned Counsel urged the Court to hold that 1st to 4th Defendants’ series of deductions from the Claimant’s salaries is unconstitutional, illegal and without any basis. On the basis, learned Counsel thus urged the Court to grant reliefs 8 and 11 as sought

6.         Decision

21.       The facts of this case in brief as revealed from the pleadings filed and evidence led by the parties are that Claimant was employed as an academic staff of the Adeleke University; that while in the employment he secured an admission to study for a Doctor of Philosophy in Law Degree (Ph. D) at a University; that he applied for and was granted 2 days off duty per week to enable him pursue the Ph. D programme; that less than 2 years after commencing the programme he resigned from the University but the 1st to 4th Defendants refused to process his resignation on the ground inter alia that he was under a bond to the University for the 2 days off duty per week granted him and that he must pay some money for the period before he would be release. 5th Defendant – a Pension Fund Administrator also refused to process the pension entitlement of the Claimant with it contending that 1st to 4th Defendants claimed Claimant had not fully disengaged from the University not having complied with the alleged bond. Claimant approached this Court for positive intervention while the Defendants argued for the outright dismissal of the case of the Claimant.

 

22.       I read and understood all the processes filed by the parties on either side. I heard the oral testimonies of the witnesses called at trial, watched their demeanour and carefully evaluated all the exhibits tendered and admitted. I also heard the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties at the stage of adopting their final written addresses. Having done all this, I set down these issues for the just determination of this case as follows –

 

  1. Whether from the evidence led by the Claimant he is entitled to a grant of some or all the reliefs sought against the Defendants.
  2. Whether the 1st to 4th Defendants have led cogent, credible and admissible evidence in support of their counter claims.

 

23.       It remains a trite position of the law that who seeks positive disposition of the Court is under an obligation to adduce credible, cogent and admissible evidence in support of his case. Sections 131, 132 and 133, Evidence Act, 2011 and a long list of judicial decisions from the appellate Courts aptly support this notorious principle of law. The credible and cogent evidence required may be oral or documentary or both. Preference is however often accorded documentary evidence over oral evidence. Thus, in the instant case, the Claimant bears the burden of proving his entitlement to the reliefs he sought from this Court. Has the Claimant adduced sufficiently cogent and credible evidence in this case to entitle him to a grant of all or some of the reliefs sought? That is the first issue for determination here.

 

24.       Claimant sought 12 reliefs in all. The first relief sought is for: An Order that by virtue of the Claimant's Notice of Resignation as a Lecturer in Adeleke University dated 3rd June 2024, giving 3 (three) months’ notice, which expired on 3rd September 2024, and 1st to 4th Defendants’ approval and adoption of the Claimant’s accumulated annual leave as part of the required notice of resignation of appointment; the contract of employment between the Claimant and the 1st - 4th Defendants has been properly determined in accordance with all extant rules, regulations and laws governing employment with statutory flavour. In proof of his case, Claimant testified in chief that he dully resigned his appointment from the Adeleke University and gave the requisite notice under the contract. Claimant also tendered 26 exhibits. Of immediate relevance to this relief is Exh. AA20, Exh. AA22 – approving Claimant’s request that his 2024 annual leave be made part of the required notice of resignation. This latter exhibit however added that Claimant was to pay the sum of =N=391,321.26 as calculated by the Bursary unit in lieu of bond for your approved Ph. D program in the Department of Law, Faculty of Law, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Osun State. Both Exh. AA22 & Exh. AA23 acknowledged the receipt of Claimant’s notice of resignation. That fact is not in dispute. 1st to 4th Defendants however refused to process same on the ground of a bond sum of money which Claimant had to pay. 

 

25.       Employment relationship is a voluntary one and contractual one too with terms and conditions. Being a voluntary one, either party is at liberty to opt out of same subject only to fulfilling any attached terms. Now by the third paragraph of his letter of appointment Exh. AA3, Claimant is under an obligation to give a 3-months’notice of his intention to terminate the relationship with the 1st to 4th Defendants and by Exh. AA22 which emanated from the 1st to 4th Defendants, Claimant dully fulfilled that condition. The effect of resignation is that it terminates any employment relationship between the parties as in the instant case. The right to resign from employment is one conferred solely on an employee. The right is absolute and there is no discretion on an employer whether to accept or not to accept such resignation. In Okorie & Anor v. INEC (2024)LPELR-62967(CA) on when resignation takes effect Ekanem, JCA restated and emphasised the position that a letter of resignation of an employee takes effect from the date it is delivered to and received by an employer or its agent. Thus, from the day the 1st to 4th Defendants received Exh. AA20 Claimant ceased to be their staff member. 

 

26.       Accordingly, I grant the 1st relief sought but rather than making an order with respect to the first relief, I declare that by virtue of the Claimant's Notice of Resignation as a Lecturer in Adeleke University dated 3rd June 2024, giving 3 (three) months’ notice, which expired on 3rd September 2024, and 1st to 4th Defendants’ approval and adoption of the Claimant’s accumulated annual leave as part of the required notice of resignation of appointment; the contract of employment between the Claimant and the 1st - 4th Defendants has been properly determined in accordance with all extant rules, regulations and laws governing employment with statutory flavour. In much the same vein and consequent upon the granting of the first relief, I also grant the second relief. I declare that since the contract of employment between the Claimant and the 1st-4th Defendants has been validly determined, the 1st - 5th Defendants have no legal and/or constitutional rights to withhold any or all entitlements (financial and documentary) due to the Claimant from the 1st - 5th Defendants jointly and/or severally. Having so declared, I further declare Order that the 5th Defendant having acknowledged that the Claimant's contributory pensions up until July 2024 had been remitted to the 5th Defendant, the Claimant is legally entitled to his funds in the custody of the 5th Defendant and it is illegal and unconstitutional for the 5th Defendant to deny the Claimant access to the balance of his funds as at 3rd September 2024.

 

27.       The 5th relief is for an Order that the purported policy of the 1st - 4th Defendants to bond the Claimant to compel him to work for the 1st - 4th Defendants after completion of Ph. D Programme because of Day-Release or 2-Day-Off is illegal, unconstitutional and oppressive and without any legal or binding effect, same having not been executed by the Claimant and not being in accordance with Articles 4.1.12 of Adeleke University, Ede, Osun State Staff Handbook Revised on June 29 2021 and/or any other staff Handbook subsequent thereto, as well as the Claimant’s Letter of Appointment dated 2nd December 2014. The evidence available to the Court show that Claimant by Exh. AA17 notified the 1st to 4th Defendants of his admission to a Ph. D programme at the Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile Ife.  It is also in that exhibit that Claimant applied for a maximum of 2 days off duty in a week in pursuit of the programme. The request for 2 days off duty per week was granted by Exh. AA18. The approval was without any condition attached. I reproduce the content here for emphasis –

 

“Re: Request for Two (2) Days Weekly Off”

The above subject refers, please.

This is to inform you that the President/Vice Chancellor has approved you request for two (2) days off (Tuesday and Fridays) for your approved Ph. D program in the Department of law, faculty of Law at Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile Ife.

Please note that your record has been updated accordingly.

Thank you

Aliu, Oladayo

For: VP E & R/ Registrar”.

 

28.       This approval was without any condition or string attached to it. The unconditional approval is also in tandem with paragraph 4.1.12 of Exh. AA1 – Staff Handbook approved by the 1st Defendant. The facts of this case are clear and without ambiguity respecting this relief. The approval granted to the Claimant for 2 days off was without any string or condition. It is therefore late in the day for the 1st to 4th Defendants to attempt to shift the goal post and seek to impose some conditions on the Claimant for the 2 days off duty which the 1st to 4th Defendants voluntarily and without compulsion granted to the Claimant unconditionally. I must not feign ignorance of Exh. TO1 tendered by the 1st to 4th Defendants. The exhibit was said to be Aligned Bond Policy of the 1st to 4th Defendants. But upon a careful perusal, it is discovered that the exhibit makes no iota of reference to any of the parties in this suit. Though of 6 pages, not a single line in it has the name of Adeleke University or any of the 1st to 4th Defendants. Unfortunately, it is late in the day for any of them to offer parole evidence to fill up the vacuum in that exhibit to be able to take advantage of same. For it is a trite law as the Court of Appeal recently held in CAT Construction Group Limited v. UACN Property Development Co. Plc (2026) LPELR(CA) citing Shuaibu V. Muazu (2014) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1409) 207; Imerh V. Okon (2012) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1311) 270 that oral evidence would not be permitted to vary, add to, alter or change the content of a document. The exhibit is of no evidential utility to the just determination of this case. I discountenance it. I, accordingly, declare that the purported policy of the 1st - 4th Defendants to bond the Claimant to compel him to work for the 1st - 4th Defendants after completion of Ph. D Programme because of Day-Release or 2-Day-Off is illegal, unconstitutional and oppressive and without any legal or binding effect, same having not been executed by the Claimant and not being in accordance with Articles 4.1.12 of Adeleke University, Ede, Osun State Staff Handbook Revised on June 29 2021 and/or any other staff Handbook subsequent thereto, as well as the Claimant’s Letter of Appointment dated 2nd December 2014. Having granted this relief, I discountenance the relief sought in alternative.

 

29.       The 6th relief sought is for an Order that the 1st to 4th Defendants' occasional withholding and/or deductions of various amounts of moneys from the Claimant's salaries and emoluments without legal and reasonable cause typified in the months of June and July 2018 or thereabouts; July and / or August 2019 or thereabouts; and March 2024, constitute illegal, unlawful and misconducts unbecoming of higher institution of learning. Claimant testified in chief among others that his salaries for the months of June and July 2018 were withheld by the 1st to 4th Defendants and tendered Exh. AA8 in support arguing that such act of the 1st to 4th Defendants was unreasonable. Now, Exh. AA8 is the letter suspending the Claimant from work for 2 months without pay. In its second paragraph, the exhibit states thus –

 

“Based on the recommendation of the Staff Disciplinary Committee on the case of alleged missing laptop levied against you, the Pro-Chancellor and Chairman of Council has approved that you be placed on two (2) months suspension without pay with immediate effect for your involvement”. 

 

30.       It appears to me that there is more than meets the eye in the event leading to suspension of the Claimant without pay for 2 months. When the issue of missing laptop arose the Safety and Security Services Department of the 1st to 4th Defendants was mandated to investigate same. It did and filed a Report tendered and admitted as Exh. TO8. Two of the eleven findings of the Report are quite instructive. Its findings x & xi are “That there is no element/proof of stealing the laptop as evident except that the office of the incumbent HOD was not informed in due time of the removal” and “That Barr. Awoniyi Alabi never officially handed over the Laptop away without the consent of the HOD”.

 

31.       It appeared however that 1st to 4th Defendants were not satisfied with this Report not having indicted the Claimant and hence it set up another which produced the type of report favourable to it. Available facts show that the Laptop was officially handed over to the Claimant while he was the acting HOD of Private and Property Law. Thus, the issue of its missing ought not ordinarily have arisen. I find Exh. AA8 to have been written in bad faith and with intention to place the Claimant in a bad light. Accordingly, I order the 1st to 4th Defendants to pay back to the Claimant his salaries for the months of June and July 2018. By Exh. AA12(1-3) while Claimant’s monthly gross salary was =N=304,361.04, his net monthly pay was =N=278,557.64. Accordingly, 1st to 4th Defendants are ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=557,115.28 being Claimant’s unpaid salaries for the months of June and July 2018 withheld on the basis of an alleged missing laptop.

 

32.       Relief 7 is for an Order that uploading of the Claimant's under-mentioned telephone lines: 08038170227 and 07063511273 by the 1st – 4th Defendants as 1st Defendant caller-tune without the consent of the Claimant and the continued use of same telephone lines as caller tune of the 1st Defendant after the Claimant had resigned from its employment is dishonest, unlawful, illegal and unconstitutional as it amounts to violation of the Claimant's right to private life and privacy. Claimant merely made assertions with regards to this relief. The assertions were not backed up with evidence. I find no cogent, credible and admissible evidence in support of this relief. I thus refuse and dismiss same. 

 

33.       Claimant further sought An Order compelling the 1st - 4th Defendants to pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=304,361.04k (Three Hundred and Four Thousand Three Hundred and Sixty-One Naira Four Kobo being the salary of the Claimant for the month of August 2024 due from them and payable to the Claimant. There is evidence before the Court to the effect that Claimant was not paid his salary for the month of August 2024. Indeed, Aliu Oladayo Tobiloba testified in chief for the 1st to 4th Defendants that it is the standard practice of the 1st to 4th Defendants to put all payments on hold for any member of staff who signifies a desire to disengage until the process of disengagement is completed. Thus, Claimant is yet to be paid his salary for the month of August 2024. Now, the sum claimed by the Claimant under this head of claim is a sum certain. It amounts to a claim in special damages which the law expects to be specially pleaded and strictly proved. In proof of this claim, Claimant tendered Exh. AA11(1-8) & Exh. AA12(1-3). These are copies of his Payslips. None of these exhibits supports the assertion by the Claimant that his salary as at August 2024 was =N=304,361.04k. Indeed, by the exhibit tendered by the Claimant his net salary after all deductions as at June 2024 was =N=278,557.64. Accordingly, the 1st to 4th Defendants are ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=278,557.64 being his unpaid salary for the month of August 2024.

 

34.       The 9th relief is for an order compelling the 5th Defendant to pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=3,884,314.03k (Three Million, Eight Hundred and Eighty-Four Thousand, Three Hundred and Fourteen Naira, Three Kobo only) being the credit balance in the Claimant's account with the 5th Defendant, and additional amounts payable by the 1st - 4th Defendants to the 5th Defendant as Claimant's contributory Pensions for the month of August 2024, forthwith. The 5th Defendant is a Pension Fund Administrator and Claimant is one of its clients. Thus, it is not out of place to assume that the 5th Defendant should be all out to protect the interest of its client. Now, joining the 5th Defendant in this case is to enable the Claimant to access his Retirement Savings Account with it. It would appear however that both the Claimant and the 5th Defendant are operating at cross purpose for in paragraph 21 of her witness deposition, 5th Defendant averred “... that the Claimant’s claims against the 5th Defendant are frivolous”. Dayo Awotobi 5th Defendant’s witness testified in chief and acknowledged that the Claimant has an account with it and that “as at 10th October 2025, the amount standing to the credit of the Claimant in his retirement savings account stands at =N=4,651,938.50 (for million six hundred and eighty-one thousand nine hundred and thirty-eight naira fifty kobo) which amount is subject to investment returns”. This is an admission which needs no further proof. Does this money belong to the Claimant? I answer in the affirmative. Is the Claimant entitled to what belongs to him? Again, I answer in the affirmative.  I find this relief proved. I grant same. The 5th Defendant is ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=3,884,314.03k (Three Million, Eight Hundred and Eighty-Four Thousand, Three Hundred and Fourteen Naira, Three Kobo only) being the credit balance in the Claimant's account with the 5th Defendant, and additional amounts payable by the 1st - 4th Defendants to the 5th Defendant as Claimant's contributory Pensions for the month of August 2024, forthwith.

 

35.       Claimant also sought: An Order of injunction restraining the 1st-5th Defendants from further withholding the Claimant's salary for the month of August, 2024, and all other financial obligations due from them to the Claimant which include the total balance already paid to the 5th Defendant by the 1st - 4th Defendants as at August, 2024; total tax deductions by the 1st - 4th Defendants from the Claimant's monthly salaries since the commencement of the contract of employment in 2014 up until its determination on 3rd September, 2024; all other illegal and unauthorized and/or unused monetary deductions from Claimant salaries since inception of the contract in 2014 up until 3rd of September, 2024 as well as all necessary documents due to the Claimant from the 1st - 5th Defendants. An injunction, according to BIASE Plantation Ltd v. Ivere (2025) LPELR-81076(CA), may be described as an order of Court which commands or forbids in its legal sense. It is a judicial process or mandate operating in personam by which certain established principles of equity, a party is required to do or refrain from doing a particular thing. An Injunction is therefore by nature an order of Court directing a party to the proceedings to do or refrain from doing a specified act. 

 

36.       This Court has already ordered that Claimant’s salary for the month of August 2024 be paid to him. It also ordered the 5th Defendant to pay to the Claimant the sum standing as balance in his account with it. An order of injunction in a case of this nature is not out of place especially to protect the right of the Claimant already identified and prevent further infringement. Accordingly, an Order of injunction is issued restraining the 1st-5th Defendants from further withholding the Claimant's salary for the month of August, 2024, and all other financial obligations due from them to the Claimant which include the total balance already paid to the 5th Defendant by the 1st - 4th Defendants as at August, 2024; total tax deductions by the 1st - 4th Defendants from the Claimant's monthly salaries since the commencement of the contract of employment in 2014 up until its determination on 3rd September, 2024; all other illegal and unauthorized and/or unused monetary deductions from Claimant salaries since inception of the contract in 2014 up until 3rd of September, 2024 as well as all necessary documents due to the Claimant from the 1st - 5th Defendants.  

 

37.       The 10th relief is for An Order compelling the 1st - 4th Defendants to account for and pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=10,478.95 (Ten Thousand Four Hundred and Seventy-Eight Naira, Ninety-Five Kobo per month, being the Claimant PAYE (Pay As You Earn) taxes deducted by the 1st to 4th Defendants from the Claimant's monthly salaries since December 2014 to August 2024. Tax deductions are ideally to be remitted to the Government. To order that any sum of money deducted as for purposes of tax to be paid over to individual is against tax policy and the role such moneys play in governance. Accordingly, I refuse and dismiss this head of relief. 

 

38.       Finally, Claimant also sought payment to him of the sum of =N=10,000,000 (Ten Million Naira Only) as Exemplary and/or Aggravated Damages for the stress and hardships caused by the 1st - 5th Defendants' refusal and / or neglect to pay to the Claimant as at when due, his entitlements due from them and payable to the Claimant. The primary object of an award of damages, according to Muhammed Bello JSC (as he then was) (later Hon CJN) in Anthony Odiba v. Tule Azege (1998) LPELR-2215 (SC) at p. 15, is to compensate the Plaintiff for the harm done to him or a possible secondary object is to punish the Defendant for his conduct in inflicting that harm. Such a secondary object can be achieved by awarding, in addition to the normal compensatory damages, damages which go by various names to wit: Exemplary damages, Punitive damages, Vindictive damages, even Retributory damages. This comes into play whenever the Defendant's conduct is sufficiently outrageous to merit punishment as where it discloses malice, fraud, cruelty, insolence, flagrant disregard of the law and the like. In law, exemplary or punitive damages, as the name implies, are damages on an increased scale over and above special or actual or ordinary damages. It is only awarded in aggravated circumstances and are thus, punitive in nature to address proven acts of recklessness. Thus, Damages are 'punitive' or 'exemplary' when they are awarded by way of punishment of the Defendant, or as a deterrent and are for atonement for the Claimant's loss. Punitive or exemplary damages are awarded usually in addition to general damages and are usually a way for the Court to express its aversion to the conduct of the Defendant complained of by the Claimant. Now what are the conducts of the Defendant for which it ought to be punished by award of punitive and exemplary damages against it? I see none. Accordingly, I award none. I refuse and dismiss this relief. 

 

39.       The 2nd issue for determination is whether the 1st to 4th Defendants have adduced sufficiently cogent and credible evidence in support of their counter claims. 1st to 4th Defendants sought 2 main counterclaims. They are as follows – (1). The 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants claim against the Claimant the sum of =N=391,321.26 (Three Hundred and Ninety-One Thousand Twenty-One Naira Twenty-Six Kobo) being the amount to be paid in lieu of bond for the approved two days off duty for the Claimant’s Ph. D Program. (2). The 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants claim against the Claimant the sum of =N=20,000,000.00 (Twenty Million) for damages for the breach of contract.

 

40.       Generally speaking, counter claim by its nature is a separate and independent suit being maintained by the Defendant in the main or original suit.   Accordingly, a counterclaimant is obliged to display the same standard of proof as would a Claimant. Commenting on the nature and meaning of counterclaim the Court of Appeal in Hassan v. Bunu & Anor. (2019) LPELR-47746 (CA) relying on and quoting Effiom v. Iron Bar (2000) 1 NWLR (Pt. 678) 341 stated the position thus – 

 

"A counter-claim is an independent action and it needs not relate to or be in any way connected with the plaintiffs' claim or raise out of the same transaction. It is not even analogous to the plaintiff's claim. It need not be an action of the same nature as the original claim. A counterclaim is to be treated for all purposes for which justice requires it to be treated as an independent action."

 

41.       Counter-claim, on the authority of Okonkwo v. C. C. B. (2003) FWLR (Pt.154) 457 at 508, though related to the principal action is a separate and independent action and our adjectival Law requires that it must be filed separately. The separate and independent nature of a counter claim is borne out from the fact that it allows the Defendant to maintain an action against the plaintiff as profitably as in a separate suit. It is a weapon of defence which enables the Defendant to enforce a claim against the Plaintiff as effectually as an independent action. As a matter of law a counter claim is a cross action with its separate pleadings, judgments and costs. Though a separate claim, as Nimpar JCA held in Chidi Onwueringo v. Mrs. M. A. Adedapo (2020) LPELR-52491(CA) the evidence before the Court is considered in determining the counterclaim, the fact that the Claimant/Defendant to counterclaim did not file a defence would not automatically result in giving the counterclaimant judgment except the counterclaim is proved and that it is the totality of evidence before the Court that is used for both the main claim and the counterclaim. In other words, Counter claimant bears the burden of proof of the counter claims sought just as the burden of proof in the main suit lies of the Claimant.

 

42.       The sum of money claimed in the first head of counter claim is akin to a claim in special damages. The law requires that it be pleaded and strictly proved. It is not clear to this Court and no evidence is led as to how the 1st to 4th Defendants arrived at the sum claimed. Secondly, Exh. TO1 which is the Aligned Bond Policy has no nexus to this case or even the parties. The exhibit does not contain the name of either the Claimant or any of 1st to 4th Defendants. All this aside, there is nothing in Exh. AA1 holding the Claimant liable to the 1st to 4th Defendants in Bond. This head of counter claim is not proved. I thus refuse and dismiss it. Considering this finding, relief 2 in counter claim must also fail. I dismiss the whole counter claims for lack of proof 

 

7.         Conclusion

43.       Finally, for the avoidance of doubt and for all the reasons as contained in this Judgment, -

  1. I grant the 1st relief sought but rather than making an order with respect to the first relief, I declare that by virtue of the Claimant's Notice of Resignation as a Lecturer in Adeleke University dated 3rd June 2024, giving 3 (three) months’ notice, which expired on 3rd September 2024, and 1st to 4th Defendants’ approval and adoption of the Claimant’s accumulated annual leave as part of the required notice of resignation of appointment; the contract of employment between the Claimant and the 1st - 4th Defendants has been properly determined in accordance with all extant rules, regulations and laws governing employment of the Claimant. 
  2. Consequent upon the granting of the first relief, I also grant the second relief. I declare that since the contract of employment between the Claimant and the 1st-4th Defendants has been validly determined, the 1st - 5th Defendants have no legal and/or constitutional rights to withhold any or all entitlements (financial and documentary) due to the Claimant from the 1st - 5th Defendants jointly and/or severally.
  3. I declare that the purported policy of the 1st - 4th Defendants to bond the Claimant to compel him to work for the 1st - 4th Defendants after completion of Ph. D Programme because of Day-Release or 2-Day-Off is illegal, unconstitutional and oppressive and without any legal or binding effect, same having not been executed by the Claimant and not being in accordance with Articles 4.1.12 of Adeleke University, Ede, Osun State Staff Handbook Revised on June 29 2021 and/or any other staff Handbook subsequent thereto, as well as the Claimant’s Letter of Appointment dated 2nd December 2014.
  4. 1st to 4th Defendants are ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=557,115.28 being Claimant’s unpaid salaries for the months of June and July 2018 withheld on the basis of an alleged missing laptop.
  5. An Order of injunction is issued restraining the 1st-5th Defendants from further withholding the Claimant's salary for the month of August, 2024, and all other financial obligations due from them to the Claimant which include the total balance already paid to the 5th Defendant by the 1st - 4th Defendants as at August, 2024; total tax deductions by the 1st - 4th Defendants from the Claimant's monthly salaries since the commencement of the contract of employment in 2014 up until its determination on 3rd September, 2024; all other illegal and unauthorized and/or unused monetary deductions from Claimant salaries since inception of the contract in 2014 up until 3rd of September, 2024 as well as all necessary documents due to the Claimant from the 1st - 5th Defendants.
  6. The 5th Defendant is ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=3,884,314.03k (Three Million, Eight Hundred and Eighty-Four Thousand, Three Hundred and Fourteen Naira, Three Kobo only) being the credit balance in the Claimant's account with the 5th Defendant, and additional amounts payable by the 1st - 4th Defendants to the 5th Defendant as Claimant's contributory Pensions for the month of August 2024, forthwith.
  7. The 1st to 4th Defendants are ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=278,557.64 being Claimant’s unpaid salary for the month of August 2024.
  8. I refuse and dismiss relief 12.
  9. I refuse and dismiss the entire counter claims sought for lack of proof.

 

44.       1st to 4th Defendants are ordered to pay to the Claimant the cost of this action assessed at One Million Naira only.

  

45.       All the terms of this Judgment shall be complied with within 30 days from today after which all the monetary sums except cost shall attract interest at the rate of 20% per annum until final liquidation.

 

46.       Judgment is entered accordingly.

 

____________________

Hon. Justice J. D. Peters

Presiding Judge