NICN - JUDGMENT
IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA
IN THE UYO JUDICIAL DIVISION
HOLDEN AT UYO
BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: HON. JUSTICE S. H. DANJIDDA
DATE: 14th July, 2026
SUIT NO: NICN/UY/09/2023
BETWEEN:
DR. PAULINUS ETIM EKPO - - - - Claimant
AND:
AKWA IBOM STATE POLYTECHNIC - - - Defendant
REPRESENTATION:
Etim Offiong for the Claimant
Nsikak Effiong with Ekemini Umoh for the Defendant
JUDGMENT
The Claimant commenced this suit by way of a General Form of Complaint and other accompanying processes dated and filed on 27/2/2023, wherein he sought against the Defendant the following reliefs as set out in his Statement of Facts:
“1. An Order setting aside the perpetual termination of the Claimant's appointment with the Defendant forthwith.
2. An Order restoring the Claimant to his rank, salaries and all entitlements up to date.
3. The sum of ?100 million being damages for unlawful termination of employment.”
Upon service of the originating processes, the Defendant filed a Memorandum of Conditional Appearance and Statement of Defence on 5th March, 2024 by an order of Court for extention of time to that effect.
In reaction to the Defendant's Statement of Defence, the Claimant filed his Reply on 19th day of March, 2024.
FACTS OF THE CASE
It is the case of the Claimant that he was a Senior Staff of the Defendant attached to the Department of Public Administration as Chief Lecturer and Head of Department until 12th December, 2022 when his appointment was purportedly terminated by the Defendant on 12/12/2022.
That the Defendant is an educational institution established under Section 1 of the Polytechnic Law, Laws of Akwa Ibom State, 2000.
Claimant also avers that he was first employed by the Defendant as Lecturer 1 on 26th July, 2005 and had served for seventeen (17) years before his purported termination.
That in the course of his employment, he has been promoted on several occasions and was last promoted from the position of Principal Lecturer to Chief Lecturer.
Claimant further states that around the 4th day of October, 2022, he received a query on allegations raised against him by one Mr. Nsikan D. Umoh in his appeal against the termination of his appointment by the Defendant.
It was contended by the Claimant that the query issued to him was signed by the Defendant's Deputy Registrar/Secretary to Council instead of his Head of Department as required by law.
Claimant also contended that it was Mr. Nsikan D. Umoh's appeal against his termination that was converted into a petition against the Claimant. That he was also invited to appear before a purported Senior Staff Appointment, Promotion and Disciplinary Committee (SSAP & DC), which also serves as Mr. Nsikan's Appeal Committee.
Claimant alleged that as a senior staff of the Defendant, he can only be terminated by council of the Defendant on the recommendation of Appointment, Promotion and Disciplinary Committee of the Defendant. That the purported (SSAP & DC) which was not even properly constituted cannot terminate his appointment or make recommendation for the termination of his appointment.
That the Defendant breached his right to fair hearing and that the purported letter of termination failed to state reasons for the termination of his appointment.
However, the Defendant on its part denied the claim of the Claimant and contended that Mr. Nsikan Dickson Umoh, who was a lecturer in the Department of the Claimant was indicted for padding marks and grade for a certain student (Elizabeth Linus Okon). That after investigation was conducted, Mr. Nsikan's appointment was terminated.
That when Mr. Nsikan wrote an appeal letter to the Defendant's Governing Council against his termination, he admitted to have committed the misconduct and indicted the Claimant, clearly stating that it was the Claimant as his Head of Department that approached him and directed him verbally to assist him to enter a pass grade in the course for Elizabeth Linus, whom the Claimant said was his girlfriend.
That he also stated that the Claimant assisted him in replying the query and aided him to lie throughout the entire process when he appeared before the Disciplinary Committee.
Defendant averred that it was arising from the admission of Mr. Nsikan Dickson Umoh, that the Claimant was issued a query and invited to the Disciplinary Committee.
Defendant further averred that the Claimant was invited by the Senior Staff Appointment, Promotion and Disciplinary Committee of the Defendant to defend himself and confront Mr. Nsikak D. Umoh on the allegations against him. That he freely elected to appear before the Committee and also stated his case and confronted his accuser and was afforded all the opportunities and his right to fair hearing, but the report of the Committee showed that the Claimant was found guilty of the allegations against him and that he was not fit to continue in the employment and services of the Defendant.
It is also the contention of the Defendant that the Disciplinary Committee after its deliberations made its recommendations to the Governing Council of the Defendant and it was based on the decision of the Council that the Claimant's appointment was terminated.
TRIAL
At the trial, the Claimant, in proof of his case, testified as CW1 and tendered 8 Exhibits, marked as Exhibits PEI, PE2, PE3, PE4, PE5, PEG, PE7 and PE8. CW1 was cross-examined and discharged.
In defence, the Defendant testified by calling Mr. Aniefiok Affiah who testified as DWI and tendered four (4) Exhibits, marked as Exhibits AKPI, AKP2, AKP3 and AKP4A-D. DW1 was also cross-examined and discharged and the matter was adjourned for adoption of final written addresses.
WRITTEN ADDRESS OF THE DEFENDANT
Defendant's Final Written Address was filed on 20/4/2026 wherein counsel to the Defendant formulated three issues for determination to wit;
“1. Whether or not the failure to join the Governing Council as a party in this suit is prejudicial to the right of the parties before this Honourable Court?
2. Whether or not the procedure that led to the termination of the appointment of the Claimant complied with the law?
3. Whether or not the Claimant was afforded the right to fair hearing before the termination of his appointment?”
On Issue One, counsel contends that the Claimant’s case rests on an incorrect claim that his termination was ordered by the senior staff disciplinary committee rather than the Governing Council. But Exhibits PE1 through PE5 demonstrate that the Governing Council was the key decision-making body throughout his employment and termination.
Counsel also contends that the Governing Council cannot be ignored as a necessary party in this case. The failure to join the Governing Council would be procedurally improper, since it would result in a judgment being given without giving that body a chance to be heard - especially given that the Claimant has repeatedly made the Governing Council the foundation and focal point of his entire case. Counsel cited the case of PDP V. INEC (2022) 18 NWLR (PT. 1863) 653 at 787, that allegations made against a person or persons who are not parties to a case go to no issue.
On Issue Two, counsel argued that since the Claimant's employment has statutory undertones, then the Court must look to the Conditions of Service governing both parties, and any decision on the Claimant's alleged unlawful termination must be grounded in those rules, as they outline each party's rights and duties.
It was also argued that employment relationships are contractual, and it is well-established law that when an employee seeks to assert employment rights, the terms of engagement and all underlying documents must be submitted to the court. Additionally, counsel argued that Exhibit PE1 is a documentary piece of evidence that is self-explanatory; having been admitted, its contents cannot be challenged or contradicted by oral testimony. Counsel cited the cases of Gateway Bank of Nig. Plc V. Abosede (2005) 4 NLLR (Pt.10) 289 at 315 para G; G. O. Dudusola V. Nigeria Gas Company Ltd (2013) 39 NLLR (Pt.120)1 @ 21, Para E-F (SC). Counsel also cited the case of Anyanwu & its V. Uzowuaka & Ors (2009) 1 NSCQR (PT. 40) 1 at 20.
That it is therefore the Claimant's responsibility to present these facts and supporting documents to the Court in order to establish his case, as the law requires that any party seeking a Court order must provide sufficient proof of their right to that order. Counsel relied on the case of Orient Properties Dev. Co. Ltd V. Fed. Min. H & U. D (2025) 10 NWLR PT 1996) 307 AT 326 para G.
Defendant further argued that the addition of the words "senior staff" to the committee's proper legal description does not make it invalid - it is merely surplus age.
That the Claimant has admitted to appearing before that same committee multiple times, from his interview for the position of Lecturer I, through his promotions, and even while serving as Head of Department. Therefore the Claimant cannot blow hot and cold - he cannot rely on the committee's existence when it suits him and deny its legality now. That the law is settled that once a commission of enquiry or committee is set up, the presumption is that its proceedings and findings will be reduced into writing. Counsel cited the case of Kingibe V. Musa (2004) All FWLR (Pt. 191), 1555.
Counsel contends that absence of some members of the committee does not invalidate the composition of the committee. Counsel placed reliance on section 25 of the Polytechnic Law Cap 97 Laws of Akwa Ibom State 2000, which provides that; “Anybody of persons established by or under this Law may act notwithstanding any vacancy in its membership, or any defect in the appointment of a member, or the absence of a member”.
That the argument that there was no Head of Department in the composition of the committee is non sequitor, because the Claimant was the Head of Department of public administration of the Defendant whose presence was sufficient for the purpose since there could not have been two heads of Department at the same time. The number of members of the committee was enough to satisfy the requirements of the law for the discipline of a staff.
Counsel argues that the contention of the Claimant that the Defendant should have communicated reasons for termination of his appointment is hollow and unknown to law. Counsel cited the case of NNPC V. Idoniboye (1996) 1 NWLR (Pt.655) 671-672 Para G-H, where it was held that an employer is under no obligation to give reasons for terminating employment. Where he states no reason, court is not to embark on a voyage of discovery and import reasons or motives.
On Issue Three, it was argued that the Claimant was given a fair hearing. Counsel referred to Exhibit AKP 4A-C. That Exhibit PE3 was issued by the Deputy Registrar/Secretary to council in the absence of Head of Department since the claimant was the Head of Department of Public Administration at the time as such could not have been the person to issue the query to himself. That it was an act of delegation of power in an extra-ordinary situation which was not contemplated under the law establishing the Defendant. Citing Oluwabukola V. A. G. Lagos State (2022) 2 NWLR Pt. 1815) 499 @ 571, para D. That the fact that the Claimant responded to the query is a waiver and acquiescence to the process and procedure adopted to afford him a fair hearing.
Counsel continues that the Claimant who appeared before the committee knew of its composition, but chose to submit to the panel. Consequently, he cannot complain later about the same committee. Counsel relied on the case of Jibril V. The Military Administrator Kwara State & Ors (2013) 37 NLLR (Pt. 113) 167 @ 199, where it was held that an employee facing an investigation panel cannot complain about the integrity of the panel which he had not challenged during the proceedings.
In conclusion, counsel urged the Court to resolve all the issues in favour of the Defendant and dismiss the suit.
CLAIMANT'S FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESS
Claimant's final written address was filed on 11/12/2025 wherein counsel formulated one issue for determination to wit;
“Whether the Defendant followed the disciplinary procedure under Section 14 of the Polytechnic Law, 2000 before the purported termination of the Claimant's employment?”
Counsel submits that the answer to Issue One is in the negative. That the Defendant did not follow disciplinary procedure of termination of the Claimant's employment as required by Section 14 of the Polytechnic Law, 2000. In the instant case, the Claimant was last promoted to the position of Chief Lecturer which automatically placed him in the position of a Senior Staff of the Defendant. Counsel cited Section 14(1)(2) and (4) of the Polytechnic Law 2000, on the disciplinary procedure of a Senior Staff of the Defendant. Claimant raises several fundamental procedural irregularities in his termination.
On the issuance of query, reply to the query and transmission of both the query and reply to the Senior Staff Promotion, Appointment & Disciplinary Committee (SSPA & DC), counsel contends that the Defendant did not comply with the statutory mandatory disciplinary procedures enumerated by law. That the query in the instant case was not issued by the Head of Department, instead it was issued by a non-academic staff who claims to be the Deputy Registrar/Secretary to council of the Defendant. That this was outside his authority and renders the action a nullity. Counsel cited the case of Citco Comm. Ltd V. Daily Times Nig. Plc (2020) All FWLR PT. 1059) page 1, para E-B.
It was also alleged by the Claimant that the disciplinary committee that dealt with his case was originally set up to hear the appeal of another staff member (Nsikan Dickson Umoh). But it had no power to originate a query or hear the Claimant's separate case.
Claimant also contended that the same committee that issued the query also determined it, violating the constitutional right to fair hearing under Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution, which requires impartiality. Counsel cited the case of Dr. Taiwo Oloruntoba-Oju V. Prof. Shuaib O. Abdul-raheem (2009) All FWLR PT. 497) page 1, para D-E.
It was also contended that the committee included a Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Education and recorders whose membership is not provided for under the Polytechnic Law 2000.
Claimant's counsel argued that the disciplinary committee purportedly sent its recommendations directly to the Council without first informing the Claimant, thereby denying him the opportunity to appeal within the 21-day window allowed under Section 17 of the Polytechnic Law, 2000.
It was further argued by counsel that the Defendant's Council did not properly consider his case. That no record of Council proceedings was tendered to prove that the Council actually met and approved the termination, despite DW1's assertion. That the termination letter itself does not reference the Council or Rector as the terminating authority, contrary to Section 14(5) of the Polytechnic Law 2000, which vests termination power solely in the Council.
Counsel asserts that the disciplinary procedure was not duly followed and that the disciplinary committee was not properly constituted as provided by law.The consequence is that all actions or steps taken by the Defendant based on the query and the recommendations of the disciplinary committee is null and void and of no effect. Counsel relied on the case of Prof. F. N. Ndili V. Mr. J. M. Akinsumade (2000) NWLR (Pt. 668) PG. 293, particularly page 344, para. A-D.
In concluding, counsel urged the Court to grant all the reliefs sought by the Claimant in this case.
DECISION OF THE COURT
From the pleadings and evidence of the parties as well as the submissions of counsel which I have all critically studied, I have decided to adopt the lone issue for determination as formulated by the Claimant with little modification. The issue is thus;
Whether the Defendant followed the disciplinary procedure under Section 14 of the Polytechnic Law, Laws of Akwa Ibom State, 2000 before the termination of the Claimant's employment?
It is a settled law that in civil proceedings, the Claimant carries the burden of proof; until that burden is discharged, the Defendant need not call any evidence. A party asserting infringement of rights or seeking a remedy must succeed on the strength of its own case, proving facts on a balance of probabilities as prescribed by Sections 131 and 135 of the Evidence Act 2011.
Specifically, in unlawful-termination suits, the Claimant must first establish the contractual terms and conditions governing the employment relationship, show the laid down procedure for valid determination of his employment and in what manner same was breached by his employer. See Katto V. Central Bank of Nigeria (1999) 6 NWLR (Pt. 607) 390– 394.
It is important to highlight that there are three categories of employment relationships. However, there is no dispute in this case that the employment of the Claimant is protected by statute. Defendant admitted this much.
Therefore, where an employment enjoys statutory flavour, the relationship between the employer and the employee is regulated by the provisions of a statute or regulations derived from a statute and they invest the employee with a legal status higher than the ordinary one of master and servant. They accordingly enjoy statutory flavour. See Imoloame V. West African Examinations Council (1999) 9 NWLR (265).
The crux of the Claimant’s grievance is the propriety of the manner of termination of his appointment by the Defendant. The Claimant alleged that the procedure for the termination of his appointment was not as prescribed by the Law establishing the Defendant.
It is the law that in a written contract of service, the provisions are binding on the parties thereto and it is outside the powers of the Court to look elsewhere for the terms with regard to the termination of the contract other than in the written agreement. In other words, in interpreting the provisions of a written contract, the words used must be given effect to and no word should be imputed in the interpretation of the intention of the parties, otherwise the court will be seen as re-writing the agreement between the parties. See Bookshop House Ltd. V. Stanley Consultant Ltd. (1986) NWLR Pt.26 page 87 at 97.
It is imperative to state that the Court in determining the rights and obligations of the parties is to ensure compliance with the terms and conditions of employment. It should then ensure that the procedure laid down in the statute and the defendant’s conditions of service are complied with. The case of Comptroller General of Customs & Ors V. Gusau [2017] LPELR- 42081 is instructive.
Now, let me refer to Section 14(1), (2), (3), (4) and (5) and section 17 of the Polytechnic Law, 2000, which provide for the disciplinary procedure of a Senior Staff of the Defendant as follows:-
“14. Appointment promotion and discipline of senior staff.
(1) Subject to sub-section (2) of this Section, all senior staff of the Polytechnic other than those to whom Section 12 of this Law apply, shall be appointed, promoted and disciplined by the Council on the recommendation of the Appointment, Promotion and Disciplinary Committee.
(2) For purposes of this Section, there is hereby established a Committee to be known as the Appointment, Promotion and Disciplinary Committee which shall consist of-
(a) the Rector who shall be the Chairman;
(b) two members of the Council to be elected by the Council;
(c) two members of the Academic Board to be elected by the Board; and
(d) two members elected by the Congregation from among its members, one of whom shall be the Head of the Department for which the appointment, promotion or discipline is being made,
(3) The quorum for this Committee shall be five.
(4) If a senior staff commits a misconduct or is unable to perform the functions of his office, he shall be issued with a query by the Head of the Department, who shall thereafter forward the query and its reply to the Appointment, Promotion and Disciplinary Committee.
(5) The Appointment, Promotion and Disciplinary Committee shall be responsible for making recommendations to the Council with respect to the appointment, promotion and discipline including removal of members of staff as specified in sub-section (1) of this Section."
17. Appeal and effect of removal.
(1) Any member of staff who is dissatisfied with the decision of an Investigating Committee set up under Section 13 of this Law, or that of the Appointment, Promotion and Disciplinary Committee may appeal to Council twenty-one days from the date the decision is communicated to him.
(2) A member of staff who is removed from office shall be deprived of the rights and privileges attached to such office.”
Claimant has contended that the person who issued him the query was incompetent, however it is trite law that where an employee is alleged of misconduct, the employer must acquaint him of the allegation by issuing him a written notice or query stating the grounds of the misconduct against him, give him a chance to defend himself and invite him to make an appropriate representation or defence thereto. See the cases of Benin Electricity Distribution Company Ltd V. Esealuka [2013] LPELR-20159 CA, Audu V. Petroleum Equalization Fund Management Board &Anor [2010] LPELR-3824(CA).
Where an employee is dismissed or his appointment is terminated on grounds of misconduct all that the employer needs to establish to justify his action is to show that the allegation was disclosed to the employee and that he was given an opportunity to be heard in his defence. That is to say that the requirements of fair hearing were met and that the disciplinary panel followed any laid down procedure. See University of Calabar V. Essien (1996) LPELR-3416(SC).
It is clear that the Claimant was issued a query (Exhibit PE3) which he responded to in Exhibit PE5 and later invited to a Disciplinary Committee by Exhibit PE6.
To me, going through the query and the documents attached, particularly the appeal filed by Mr. Nsikan (Exhibit PE4) and the response by the Claimant in Exhibit PE5, it cannot be believed that the Claimant was misled or was not aware of what he was responding to. See A. R. Momoh V. CBN (2007) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1055) 508 at 527, Per Aboki, JCA; Imonikhe V. Unity Bank Plc (2011) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1262) 624 SC.
In Aminetu Omolola Salami V. Union Bank On Nig. Plc (2010) LPELR-8975(CA), it was held that though the law requires employers to give a fair hearing before dismissing someone for gross misconduct. However, that hearing does not need to attain the standard or form obtainable in a court before it can be said to be fair. It just needs to be genuinely fair.
It needs to be emphasised that the importance of fairness and due process in disciplinary hearings and the key points that need to be highlighted are; that the employee must be informed of the nature of the charge against him to prepare for his defence; the employee should be given the opportunity to state his case, regardless of the circumstances and while the employee's physical presence throughout the hearing is not mandatory, he must still be given a fair chance to present his case. See the case of Ntewo V. UCTH (2013) LPELR 20332(CA).
To me, the fact that the query issued to the Claimant was not signed by the Head of Department, but by a non-academic staff (Deputy Registrar/Council Secretary) is inconsequential. What matters most to me is that, a query was issued to the Claimant and he has not proved to the Court that he was prejudiced or misled by the query.
It is the further contention of the Claimant that his letter of termination did not state any reason for his termination. Generally, the onus is on the Claimant to prove that the termination of his employment is wrongful. But where an employer gives a reason or cause for the termination of the appointment, the law imposes on the employer the duty to establish the reason to the satisfaction of the Court. See the cases of Shell V. Olarewaju (2008) 12 SCNJ (Pt. 11) 696-697 and Institute of Health ABU V. Anyip (2011) 5 SCNJ 262, where C. M. Chukwuma-Eneh JSC put it succinctly thus:
“Although it is trite that an employer is not obliged to give any reason for firing his servant, all the same it is settled law that where he has proffered any reason at all, it is obliged to satisfactorily prove the same as the onus is on him in that regard, otherwise the termination/dismissal may constitute a wrongful dismissal without more.”
Nevertheless, International best practice establishes the core principle that an employer cannot dismiss a worker without a "valid reason", which must be connected to the worker's capacity, his conduct or operational requirements. See Article 4 of ILO Convention No. 158.
In any case, the Defendant has in its defence, stated that the Claimant was terminated on the ground of misconduct, hence what remains now is for the Defendant to satisfactorily prove the same as the onus is on her in that regard, otherwise the termination may be declared unlawful.
Furthermore the Claimant argues that, only the Defendant's Governing Council holds the authority to terminate his employment, while the Disciplinary Committee is only restricted to making recommendations to the Council after hearing the Claimant. During cross-examination, DW1 stated as follows:-
“There is a difference between the Defendant's Governing Council and the Senior Staff Appointment, Promotion and Disciplinary Committee (SSAPDC).
When it comes to the issue of promotion and termination of a staff at the level of the Claimant, the duty of the committee is limited to making recommendation to the Governing Council of the Defendant.
Yes the (SSAPDC) only makes recommendation in respect of the termination of the Claimant, but it does not have the powers to terminate his appointment.
...................
...................
...................
Yes the Disciplinary Committee sent its recommendation to the Governing Council.
Yes the procedure of sending the recommendation is normally in writing. But I don't have the document containing the recommendation of the Disciplinary Committee to the Governing Council.
I cannot remember the date that the Governing Council sat on the recommendation of the Disciplinary Committee in respect of the termination of the Claimant.
.................
..................
.................
Yes the proceedings of the Governing Council concerning the termination of the Claimant is still with the Defendant.
The decision of the Governing Council was communicated to the Claimant......”
It is well-settled law that when a statute vests specific powers in a designated authority for performing particular acts, that authority alone - and no other - can exercise those powers. Any deviation from this principle is legally unsustainable. In Bamigboye V. Unilorin [1999] 6 SCNJ 295, the Supreme Court held:
“The person to whom an office is delegated cannot lawfully devolve the duty to another unless he is expressly authorized to do so. In the instant case, the power of the University Council to discipline senior administrative, academic and professional staff of the University of Ilorin Act was delegated to it by that Section of the Act, thus the Council cannot delegate it to another, that is the staff Disciplinary and Appeal Committee”.
Equally, it is a settled principle that disciplinary procedures must be strictly followed; failure to do so renders any decision affecting an employee's tenure or rights null and void. See U.N. T.H.M.B. & Ors V. Nnoli [1994] 8 NWLR (Pt 363) 376; Raji V. Unilorin [1999] All FWLR (Pt 345) 325; Ahmed V. Ahmadu Bello University Zaria & Anor [2016] LPELR 40261.
In this case, the Governing Council's powers under Section 14 of the Defendant's Law cannot be exercised by the Disciplinary Committee. Moreover, no evidence has been presented to the Court showing that the Committee made any recommendation to the Governing Council. When asked, DW1 admitted he lacked the recommendation document and could not recall when the Council considered the Disciplinary Committee's recommendation regarding the Claimant's termination.
It is trite that the prescribed procedure for terminating statutory employment - such as the Claimant's - must be meticulously observed; otherwise, the termination is void, and the employee is deemed to have remained in service. See Shitta-Bey V. Federal Public Service Commission (supra); Olaniyan V. University of Lagos (supra); Iderima V. Rivers State Civil Service Commission (supra).
It must be stated unequivocally that the reasons or justifications for terminating the Claimant's appointment are irrelevant to this suit. The question really is not whether the Claimant committed any act of gross misconduct, but the germane question is whether in terminating his appointment, the statutorily prescribed procedure was complied with. And whether the authority to terminate the Claimant's appointment properly lies with the purported Senior Staff Promotion Appointment and Disciplinary Committee of the Defendant.
In the case of Council of Federal Polytechnic, Ede & Ors V. Olowookere (2012) LPELR – 7935 (CA), His Lordship M. A. Adumien, JCA while delivering the Lead Judgment stated thus:
“Here, one is not concerned with the gravity of the respondent’s misconduct complained of or the evidence available in that respect. It was the failure by the appellants to fully comply with the statutory procedure for terminating the respondent’s appointment which has statutory backing or flavor that is the real issue here. No matter how black or grave the allegations against an employee whose employment is statutorily spiced, the employer must adhere to full compliance with the procedure provided by the statute.”
Similarly in the case of Federal Polytechnic, Ede & Ors V. Oyebanji (2012) LPELR – 19696 (CA), the Court of Appeal also held thus:
“It is quite baffling that in spite of the plethora of authorities on this subject, institutions continue to mishandle cases of removal of corrupt employees to such a level that their decisions are constantly being upturned by the Courts. It is advisable that these institutions seek proper legal advice before taking any step in these matters.”
Finally the Apex Court in the case of The Council of Federal Polytechnic Mubi V. T.L.M. Yusuf & Anor (1998) LPELR – 3168 (SC), per S. M. A. Belgore, JSC, also lamented the rate at which institutions fail to uphold their enabling statutes, stating as follows:
“Removal from office is not impossible once the statutory provisions are adhered to in carrying out the exercise. But it seems some of these institutions overlook the clear and unambiguous provisions of their statutes. See Olaniyan & Ors V. University of Lagos (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 9) 599; Eperokun & Ors V. University of Lagos (1986) 4 NWLR (Pt. 34) 162; Shitta-Bay V. Federal Public Service Commission (1981) 1 SC 40; Aiyetan V. NIFOR (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt. 59) 48; Olatunbosun V. NISER (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt. 80) 25; Federal Civil Service Commission V. Laoye (1989) 2 NWLR (Pt. 106) 652.”
Upon reviewing the evidence before the Court, I am satisfied that the termination of the Claimant’s appointment was not in accordance with the Polytechnic Law 2000. Therefore, I find and hold that the Defendant did not strictly and fully comply with the provisions of Section 14 of the Polytechnic Law 2000, and was therefore in breach thereof. The lone issue for determination identified is accordingly resolved in favour of the Claimant against the Defendant.
Learned counsel for the Defendant vigorously argued that the Claimant was given a fair hearing, with adequate opportunity to defend himself. However, I consider it unnecessary to delve into the details of fair hearing, given my finding that the prescribed procedure was not strictly followed. The rationale is that any failure to comply with a procedural condition amounts to non-compliance - there can be no partial or substantial compliance. The absence of a recommendation to the Governing Council renders the entire decision a nullity. I so hold.
Having held that the Defendant did not strictly and fully comply with the provisions of the Polytechnic Law 2000, the purported termination of the Claimant is hereby set aside as same is unlawful, null, void and of no effect whatsoever. I so hold.
In light of the above, what is then is the effect of unlawful termination of an employee whose appointment enjoys statutory flavour?
In Central Bank of Nigeria & Ors V. Igwillo [2007] 14 NWLR (Pt. 1054) 343, the Supreme Court per Karibi - White JSC, (as he then was) held thus:-
“If termination or dismissal is illegal or unconstitutional or null and void and of no effect whatsoever, then a Court is entitled to order reinstatement as it happened in the instant case”.
Consequently, Claimant's case substantially succeeds and it is hereby ordered as follows:-
1. It is ordered that the purported termination of the Claimant’s appointment by the Defendant is hereby set aside.
2. The Defendant is ordered to reinstate the Claimant to his rank, and pay his salaries and all entitlements till date.
3. The prayer for ?100,000,000.00 damages is hereby declined. Having granted the order of reinstatement and payment of the Claimant's salaries and entitlements till date, I am sure, that has taken care of the Claimant's remedy in this case, and as such, granting the above prayer may amount to double compensation. See Ifeta V. SPDC Nig. Ltd (2006) LPELR – 1436 (SC), Board of Management of FMC, Makurdi V. Kwembe (2015) LPELR – 40486 (CA), Mogaji V. Benue State University (2022) LPELR – 56727 (CA), MTN (Nig.) Communications Ltd V. C.
Judgment is entered accordingly with no order as to cost.
................................................................
HON. JUSTICE S. H. DANJIDDA
(PRESIDING JUDGE)