The National Industrial Court, (NICN), Abuja, on Tuesday dismissed a suit against the Kogi State University ( KSU), Anyiagba by a former staff member, Egwuaba Edward Ukwubile, for his inability to prove a case of unlawful termination of his employment.
Others joined as co-defendants in the suit were the KSU Governing Council and the Registrar.
Justice Oyejoju Oyewumi, who delivered the judgment via virtual proceeding started by addressing issues raised by defence in its objection.
The defence in its statement of defence raised three issues.
It averred that the none of the guiding rules of the NICN was adhered to by the claimant’s counsel in filing the suit.
The argument said one of the processes ought to have been titled ‘complaint’ but instead it was wrongly titled ‘ writ’ which was applicable in civil proceeding.
In her ruling, Oyewumi had aligned with the claimant counsel’s submission that stated that it was a typographical error on his part, an oversight that should not be visited on his client.
The judge therefore discountenanced the objection which she attributed to mere irregularity and held that the suit through the originating summon was competent.
Another issue raised by the defence was the absence of the claimant’s signature which according to them was not in line with Order 3, Rule 9 of the NICN proceeding, 2017 that stipulated that for any deposition to be deemed competent, it must be signed and must be before a constituted authority.
Oyewumi in her ruling however said there was partial compliance to the Oath Act as there was a stamp and signature of a commissioner of oath of the court on the document.
She therefore discountenanced the argument on ground that it lacked merit.
The third issue raised by defence was that the suit was status barred as the claimant instituted the suit 17 months after the termination of his employment.
Defendants argued that the Status of Limitation had caught up with the suit, which according to them, that the claimant failed to put into cognizance the provision of Section 2 ( A) of Public Officers Protection Act which stipulated that redress of any grievance against any public officer should be instituted within three months of the accrual of the action.
The court held that although the claimant’s employment was terminated via a letter dated Dec.19,2017 and he did not file the suit until April 5,2019, it was because he was waiting to get a response of his appeal from the first defendant, KSU.
The court in addition stated that the claimant only got response of his appeal from the university on March, 22, 2019 before he could institute the suit in accordance with the rules governing the contract of his employment, which states that an aggrieved staff must explore all the internal mechanism of resolving a dispute before approaching a court.
The judge stated that he that come to equity must come with a clean hand and that the defendants had failed in this regard. She therefore ruled that the suit was not caught up by provisions of section 2 ( A) of POPA and held that the suit was competent.
She then moved to address the crux of the suit which was the allegation of unlawful termination. She said the court raised two issues in order to determine the case.
Oyewumi said that the first issue was whether the claimant ‘s employment was unlawfully terminated and the second issue was whether the claimant through legal evidence established his case to entitle him to the reliefs sought.
The court said that the claimant claimed that the defendants did not follow laid down procedures as provided in the KSU governing conditions and schemes for senior staff, 2018 before ternating his appointment.
The claimant had equally submitted that there was no petition against him before he was issued a query on ground of misconduct and that his right to fair hearing as enshrined in section 36 of the condition of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, was violated
The court however ruled after quoting from the defendants manual of terms and conditions of service, steps that must be followed before disciplining an erring staff.
The court then held that due process was followed before the claimant’s employment was terminated, as the Security department of the university received a complaint of assault against the claimant.
The court further said the claimant was issued a query, and after getting an unsatisfactory response directed the claimant to appear before a senior staff disciplinary committee, while he was placed on half salary.
The court in conclusion said that the claimant failed to demonstrate how the defendants did not follow the laid down procedure before terminating his employment.
The Judge therefore granted none of the reliefs sought, and dismissed the suit in its entirety.
From the Statement of Facts, the claimant, Ukwubile was employed by the first defendant as an Assistant Lecturer in the department of Sociology, on a probationary level of two years, in 2016
He said he was therefore issued a query after a little misunderstanding with his fiance, Solomon Maria Omateri, a then 400-level student in the department of Political Science, of the university, which was a domestic issue that was amicably resolved later and that the incident happened outside of the university’s campus.
The claimant added that his employment was unlawfully terminated on Dec.19,2018 which necessitated his approachingt thecourt to seek redress by praying for some court declarations and orders.
One of the declaration was that the unlawful termination to be declared null, void and of no effect whatsoever.
A declaration that his employment still subsists, an order of reinstatement and payment of N100 million as damages, payment of her full salary, allowances and benefit from the date of the termination till the date of judgment.
He also sought for an order of N209,000 as cost of the suit
The defence had however argued that the claimant had barely into six months into his employment got involved in various act of misconduct that eventually led to the termination of his employment after following due process.
The defence had claimed that the Nigeria Police Force had to be called in altercation of assault of Omateri by the claimant.
The defence also submitted that the claimant had displayed an act of insurbodination to a visiting professor and had on one occasion disrupted a meeting he claimed he was supposed to be part of, but was not invited. However, that he later wrote an apology letter.
