** *** ******** INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

** *** AWKA ******** DIVISION

****** AT AWKA.

BEFORE *** LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE J. I. TARGEMA, PhD

 

DATE: JULY 30, 2026                             

SUIT NO: NICN/AWK/07/2022

 

*******   

Dr. Albert Tobechukwu Nwamaradi                           -                  Claimant 

 

AND

  1. Federal ******* of Education (Technical) Umunze
  2. The ********* Council, Federal ******* of 

Education (Technical), Umunze 

  1. Dr. Tessy Okoli (Provost)  
  2. Mrs. B.C. **** (Registrar)                                                -                  Defendants

     

 

REPRESENTATION

C.K. Idenyi, Esq., for the Claimant.

P.U.P. Onuorah, Esq., **** Obinwa Ezeife, Esq., for *** Defendats

 

  JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

  1. The claimant filed **** case on 5th ***** 2022 ******* *** defendants vide a ********* together **** accompanying ********* of facts, statement ** oath, **** of documents *** copies ** the documents. By *** complaint *** ********* of facts, *** ******** is praying *** the following reliefs:
  2. The declaration by the Honourable ***** that the actions of the defendants as ********** in the paragraphs of *** claimants (sic) statement of claim, constitutes acts which constructively coerced the claimant **** resigning his appointment from *** services of *** 1st defendant.
  3. A declaration by the Honourable Court **** the claimant was ************** ********* **** the service ** *** 1st defendant by *** actions of the 3rd *** 4th defendants.
  4. A declaration by *** Honourable ***** that *** ************ and use of ad hoc ********** to try the claimant while ** the ******* ** the 1st defendant for ******** *** known ** *** is ***** and same to ** condemned.
  5. A declaration by the Honourable ***** **** the 3rd defendant had no capacity to discipline the claimant being **** *** claimant was a ***** ******** in CONPCASS 09 as ** 2016.
  6. A declaration by *** ********** ***** that the ****** proceedings conducted by the Ad Hoc Committee and ****** ***** ************ ********** of the 1st ********* *** ***** the claimant while in *** services of the 1st defendant, grossly ******** the claimants (sic) fundamental ***** right ** fair hearing and **** should be roundly condemned.
  7. A declaration by the ********** Court that the actions of the ********** against *** ******** *** ******* with malice.
  8. A declaration by *** ********** Court that *** ************ ****** ** the claimant was duly accepted ** *** defendants and as such, the defendants ** not have any capacity and power ** further try *** ******** ****** resigned his job *********** with the 1st and 2nd defendants. 
  9. A declaration ** the Honourable Court **** the defendants refusal ** transfer the service of *** claimant ** his new place of employment amounts to serious act of malice and withholding of document.
  10. A declaration ** the ********** Court that *** letters ** the defendants ***** 29/10/2021, 14/12/2021 and 1/4/2022 after *** claimant *** ******** his *********** with the 1st and 2nd defendants ******* to act of ultra vires, same done without capacity, being null, void and of no effect.
  11. A declaration ** the Honourable Court **** any recommendation and decision ** and ***** *** 7th day of April 2022 ** so soon thereafter ******* *** claimant during the pendency of this **** is done ******* capacity, same ***** null, void *** of no effect.
  12. An order ** Court compelling *** defendants ** ****** ** ********* apology to *** ******** and **** to be ********* in two national newspapers *** ************** ********** the ******** from *** services of the 1st defendant.
  13. A declaration by the ********** Court **** *** 3rd defendant defamed *** ******** in her publication ** 8th October 2019 ** contained in *** joint ******* affidavit in **** No. HOS/MISC12/2020.
  14. A declaration by the Honourable ***** that *** 3rd defendant defamed the claimant in her oral publication of Thursday 11th day ** November 2021 ****** an emergency College Management ******** with *** staff ** Federal College ** Education (Technical), Umunze ** Dr. Alex Ekwueme Auditorium, Campus 1 **** she **** the following ********** publications to wit:
  15. “****** Okeke and Dr. Churchill Okonkwo whatever **** are writing ** ********* list, **** are writing ** behalf of Nwamaradi, everything **** *** writing is Nwamaradi , Nwamaradi, Nwamaradi”. (36:34-36:57).
  16. That is what we **** to let the entire College to know, that these two people, I don’t know, ***** that are fanning them is trying to paint our ******* in black again. *** the ****** we *** trying ** clean up *** name ******* there, since Nwamaradi became the ******** of COEASU **** Sunday Okeke, Churchill ******* with *** those of them that are ** **** committee, *** in *** past, they don’t want to *** this ******* in **** light (38:01- 38:31) 
  17. “Since ********* ****** the chairman ** COEASU with Sunday Okeke, ********* ******* **** all ***** of **** that are in **** committee, now in the past, they don’t want to see this College in **** light” (38:18-38:44)
  18. “I don’t think that six ** them or *** ** them is **** more than 1000 of us here. Are ** going to ***** them ** ** that?” (38:35- 38:43) etc; imputing the ******** ** an outlaw which defamed the claimant and instigates staff against the claimant.
  19. An order ** Court ********** the defendants transfer the service of *** claimant to Nnamdi Azikiwe University **** **** immediate effect.
  20. An ***** ** **** ********** ***** *********** the defendants, their privies, cronies, surrogates or *** ****** who takes instructions from them in further interfering with the rights and privileges ** the claimant.
  21. An order of ***** awarding *** claimant the sum of Nine Hundred ******* naira (?900,000,000.00) only as damages for the intimidation, harassment, loss of earnings, psychological and emotional ****** suffered by *** claimant ** a result of *** constructive dismissal.
  22. ** order ** Court ******** the claimant *** sum of One ******* *** ***** Million naira (?150,000,000.** only to the claimant as ******* *** *** constructive dismissal of *** claimant, breach of *** claimants (sic) *********** ***** right ** fair hearing among ***** reliefs.
  23. *** *** such order or ******* orders ** the Honourable ***** *** deem fit ** make in the circumstances of justice.

 

THE CASE ****** *** COURT

  1. The **** of *** claimant ** **** ** is a Nigerian Citizen *** *** ** employee of the 1st ********* **** **** No. FCE(T)/UMZ/REG/SP.67 attached to the school of Sciences, Department ** *********** Education, Federal ******* ** Education (Technical) Umunze until the 10th day ** February 2020 when due to the activities and actions of the 3rd and 4th defendants; that he was constructively ******* *** ****** to resign his *********** with *** 1st ********* *** secured another appointment **** ****** ******* University Awka; **** ** ** the claimant’s case that ** was ******** by *** 1st ********* on 26th day of April, 1991 ** ** ********* Lecturer on Temporary Appointment and *** *********** was subsequently ********* **** a ****** of ************ dated 25th *** of October, 2007 and ** **** ****** from the 6th day of May 1993. **** *** claimant was sometime erroneously removed from the services of the 1st defendant *** a rationalization ******** ** April 1999 and was recalled to the service ** the 1st ********* on 22nd *** of ****** 2007 vide a ****** ********* “Recall to the Service of Federal College of Education (Technical) Umunze” *** *** promoted over the years from Assistant Lecturer to *** **** of Lecturer II ** the rank ** Senior Lecturer ** *** rank ** ********* Lecturer *** finally to the rank ** Chief Lecturer **** the following letters:
    1. “Notification ** Promotion” from ********* Lecturer ** ******** II dated 28th day of ******** 1994
    2. “Notification of Promotion” from Lecturer II to Senior Lecturer dated 23rd April, 1996.
    3. “Reduction ** **** arising **** double Promotion twice” **** the rank of Senior ******** to Lecturer I dated 5th March 1998.
    4. “Notification of Promotion” from ****** ******** I to Senior ******** ***** 20th July 2009
    5. “Notification ** Promotion” from Senior Lecturer to ********* Lecturer dated 25th ***** 2013.
    6. “Notification of Promotion” from ********* Lecturer to Chief ******** ***** 6th April 2018 to take effect from 1st October, 2016. 

 

  1. The claimant ********* **** *** promotions with *** 1st defendant went through due process *** *** never found wanting ** any ** his credentials by the 1st *** 2nd defendants, he *** *** found wanting *** continue in *** ******* of *** 1st ********* without *** interruption. That ** is the claimant **** that *** employment with *** 1st defendant is governed ** *** Regulations Governing the Conditions of ******* ** Staff ** ******** of Education ** Nigeria, herein referred ** as “***** and Condition of Service *** ******** of Education” as contained in the ******* Republic of Nigeria  Revised Condition ** ******* for ******** of Education 2015 ***** **** *** claimant’s *********** with ********* flavor; that the ******** has served *** 1st defendant for Twenty-Nine years ******* *** valid query; that even queries *** warnings maliciously issued by the 3rd defendant were withdrawn without reasons by *** College management upon the 2nd defendant’s intervention on claimant’s appeal, same was officially ************ ** *** claimant. That claimant as a ***** of 1st defendant was the chairman of College ** Education Academic Staff ***** (COEASU), of the 1st defendant, and at the same time, the ***** East Zonal Coordinator of the national Union (COEASU) ** the full knowledge ** the defendants; that during the ******** ****** as the Chairman ** ****** while in the services ** the 1st defendant, in **** 2017, there *** a notice of industrial action COEASU ** *** 1st defendant ***** to illegal deduction of Peculiar Academic Allowance from the salaries of the academic staff; that owing to this ****** of industrial action ** COEASU of the 1st defendant, *** ********** of the 1st defendant employed divide-and-**** strategy and split the Union leading to the emergence of “Aggrieved Members of COEASU”.  

 

  1. The claimant submitted that Dr T.O. Okoli (the 3rd defendant) *** one of the ******* members ** *** **** “Aggrieved Members of COEASU”; that the 3rd ********* midwifed the (sic) ******** captioned “Conduct ****** to cause Breach ** ****** Peace: An Appeal for ****** Urgent Action” alongside others to *** ********** ****** Officer (DPO) ******* the claimant for alleged “Criminal Abuse of Office” ***** 11th April, 2017, **** in a bid to destabilize the claimant’s office. That the ************ ** the COEASU (as amended 2016) provided *** the right of an individual member ** ******* 17 on ********** ********* which was not complied with ** the 3rd defendant and her cohorts; that the police never found the ******** guilty of any of *** offences ****** in the petition ****** ***** cited; **** *** Constitution of College ** ********* Academic ***** Union (COEASU) (** amended 2016) provided for the right of ** individual ****** ** ******* 17 on grievances procedure which *** *** ******** ** the 3rd defendant *** her cohorts; that *** 3rd defendant shortly ****** the Provost of the 1st defendant and **** over administration on 28th May, 2018 from where the 3rd defendant decided to unduly use *** office and power to witch hunt *** ******** against the provisions of Chapter 18.1.2(iii) of the ***** and Conditions of Service for Staff of Colleges of Education; that ** ********* 2018, ***** was a national industrial ****** by the national union of COEASU ** respect of stalled renegotiation of a           new ******** minimum wage which all chairmen ** chapters were ******** to monitor compliance and *** claimant as the chairman of COEASU of the 1st defendant was actively involved.

 

  1. *** claimant went on that some members of *** “Aggrieved members of COEASU” namely: Mr. Chidi Uzor, Mr. K.C. Agajelu *** Dr. D.I. ***** (******* in-law ** the 3rd defendant) sabotaged the ****** conditions and **** queried by *** Chairman of ****** (*** is the claimant); that these queried members of *** ***** reported their case ** the Provost (the 3rd defendant) who in reaction threatened to deal with *** Chairman of the ***** (*** claimant); that **** *** ****** got ** the ******** ********** of *** union, it ******** *** queries issued ** the chapter chairman (*** claimant) as union’s ******** disciplinary measures which was neither ******** to ********* the 1st defendant’s ************** machinery nor a ***** hunt ** ******* of *** ***** issued **** the queries; **** the ******** union regretted reporting the matter to the 3rd ********* and stated in its letter dated 2nd January 2019 to the 3rd defendant that the union could not, ***** the circumstances, **** referred the ****** to the 3rd defendant for adjudication; that the 3rd defendant has no respect and ****** for the ********* ********** ** committees ** ******** by the “******* Conditions of ******* *** ******** ** ********* (RCSCE)”. **** ** line with the ********** culture ** the College, *************** of Unions *** normally invited by the 1st ********* whenever decision(s) which will ****** staff either ** promotions, discipline, ** any other matter ** being taken and despite the **** that the Civil Services rule provide for statutory committees ******* **** the responsibility of ********** and ********** ** staff, the 3rd defendant ******** to constituting ad *** committees for ******** that *** not known to the ***** and ********** of Service for Colleges ** ********* ******* the claimant, *** in a bid to ************** *** *** claimant out of service; that *** Civil ******* **** provides that the members of a Committee or panel shall ** selected with *** regard ** the ****** of the officer involved in *** disciplinary case but the 3rd defendant ******* Committees for *** claimants trial from ******* of the defunct “Aggrieved Members ** COEASU without regard to *** claimant’s rank as a chief lecturer.

 

  1. *** claimant further ********* that on 11th October 2018, the claimant *** summoned ** ****** before ** Ad hoc Committee against ** alleged letter of ********* written against the claimant by one Oselu Christopher C. with ************ number NCE/FAA/2015/15991; that *** 3rd defendant in ************ *** ** *** Committee to try the Claimant ********* Dr. Mrs. Okafor *** Dr. ********* Udegbe who were ******* of *** defunct “Aggrieved Members ** COEASU” and signatories to the ******** herein afore stated in ********* 17(d) ******* the ******** and *** 3rd defendant’s ******* in-law, Dr. **** Okoli; including Ms Obiageli ***** *** are ****** ******* to the ******** *** no Union representative *** invited during the claimant’s ***** ** the ad-hoc committee on *** alleged letter of complaint ** ***** Christopher C, which is a ****** ** *** claimant’s fundamental ***** ** fair hearing; that the ******** orally reminded *** Ad-Hoc ********* **** by the conditions of service **** the 3rd defendant **** not have the power ** discipline officers on ******** 07 and ***** and that such power rest ****** **** *** 2nd defendant as provided in ******* 5.0.4 of the ********** ** service; that the ******** ********* ** *** the alleged complaint letter of Oselu Christopher C from the ad-*** ********* for which he is being tried, which the ad-*** ********* refused ** ****** claimant. That the claimant applied to *** 3rd defendant for a copy ** *** alleged complaint letter of Oselu Christopher C. *** ***** he was standing trial vide a letter dated the 16th day of January 2019 and ********* Re: *********** *** letter of complaint of *** Oselu Christopher C.; that the ******** was denied opportunity ** sighting ** reacting to *** alleged ****** of complaint ** Christopher Oselu C. with registration ****** NCE/FAA/2015/15991.

 

  1. The claimant went ** that ** ***** his application *** the ****** of complaint ** one ***** *********** C, *** 3rd ********* refused the said *********** on *** ******* **** it was a ******* classified ******** via a letter dated *** 16/01/2019; that the ad-hoc committee without fair hearing ****** the claimant, the opportunity ** seeing his accuser, ****** him question(s) ** any *** without allowing the claimant a glance of the purported complaint found the claimant guilty ** fantastic offence ****** as “involvement ** a ****** that *** not concern you”. That *** 3rd defendant ******* ******** issued the claimant with a ****** of advice for an unknown offence ** respect of Oselu Christopher C. alleged complaint ******* regards ** the provisions of the ***** and ********** ** ******* ** Staff of College of Education; **** the claimant reacted ******* the letter ** advice via a letter dated the 7th day of January 2019 ******* *** ******** raised some issues bothering on the breach of his *********** human right to **** hearing; that the ******** applied *** the Certified True Copy of *** Record of proceedings by *** Ad-Hoc Committee report on *** Alledged (sic) Letter of Complaint Written by ***** Christopher C. NCE/FAA/2015/15991  which was *********** by the defendants. That ** yet another development, students ****** *** claimant as Academic Board Representative in the 6th Governing Council of the 2nd defendant on 31/7/2019 *** complained of the irregularity in the ******* union election processes; *** the ******** advised **** in *** capacity as *** academic board *************** to ********** route their complaint to *** 3rd defendant.

 

  1. He claimant submitted that ******* ***** answering students’ call on 31/7/2019 *** ******** ** his capacity as ** academic ***** representative sent a **** message to the 3rd defendant and informed *** of students’ complaint on the ******** processes; that ** Thursday 1st August 2019, *** student copied *** claimant a ****** captioned “Marginalization of Anglicans in Federal College of Education as Regards ******* ***** Politics”. That on the 2nd day ** September 2019, *** claimant was again copied ** another ****** by *** students captioned “**** of Confidence *** Trust in the 5- Man (sic) College ********* on the ********* SUG Election set up ** *** College Management.” The ******** *** copied alongside ****** ** ******* representative in council; that in ******* development, on *** 14th ********* 2019, one *** Nnubia Callistus C. on the instruction of the 3rd defendant **** the claimant a text message ** wit: “Good ******* Dr. Nwamaradi. I ** directed ** ****** you that the committee ** *** suspended *** election **** to have a session **** *** ** College/COEASU representative in College ******* ** Monday, 16th September 2019 at 10 am in the office of *** Dean, Agri/Homec. Thanks, Mrs Nnubia Callistus C. at about 6:50 am” inviting the claimant to a session **** *** Ad-*** Committee on suspended SUG election in his capacity ** College/****** representative in the College Council. That the ******** honoured the informal invitation and observed by way of oral questions ** wit:
    1. *** he was not officially invited.
    2. The type of Committee to enable him respond appropriately.
    3. The Committee *** ***** for student ***** *** ** ******* representative. *** in the membership of the Committee.
    4. Why *** invitation.

That after the claimant’s ******* **** *** Ad-Hoc Committee on the suspended SUG election ** ****** representative on the 16th *** of September 2019, the claimant attention was drawn ** a friend to a false allegation in a publication as contained ** paragraph 7(iii) and 7(vi) of the 3rd, 12th and 13th ********** joint ******* ********* dated 8th October 2019 deposed to by the Secretary to the Ad-*** Committee on the suspended SUG election **** ** alleged ********* and oral ******* of the 1st to the 3rd defendants.

 

  1. *** claimant **** on that his attention was ******* ***** to the attachment in *** ***** counter ********* being a report of *** ********* on *** suspended SUG election ***** 2oth Sept 2019 ****** as Exhibit R6 and Exhibit R9 ** contained ** ********* 7(iii) *** &(vi) respectively; that after the publication by the ********** as contained in the joint counter affidavit date 8th October 2019 ********** *** ****** ** the ********* on SUG election, the claimant received a query dated 9th December 2019 which ******* that the claimant’s meeting with *** Ad-Hoc Committee on SUG election metamorphosed into student’s crises **** **** place on 2nd ****** 2019. The query *** no ****** ** the ******** ** COEASU ************** but the said ***** was ****** to the claimant in his personal ******** without specifying ********** acts of wrongdoing as provided in the conditions of service; that the ******** was never communicated ****** ****** or in writing as to **** been indicted after his session with the Ad-Hoc Committee on *** ********* SUG ******** *** was never tried by *** committee prior to *** publication of the defendants as ********* in *** ***** counter ********* ** 8th October 2019. That the defendant hurriedly met on the 20/9/2019 for *** purposes ** receiving *** ****** of *** Committee ** suspended SUG ******** ***** was submitted the same *** and **** ***** upon by the ********** *** the purposes of attaching same as an exhibit in Suit No. Hos/Misc 12/2019; that the claimant replied *** query of the defendant wherein he raised some very fundamental ****** ** ** his being ****** **** hearing in a letter dated the 11th day ** December 2019. That on 20th January 2020, *** claimant was invited by *** Senior Staff Disciplinary Committee in *** personal ******** for ** alleged interaction as regard the case of an alleged involvement in students’ ******** ******* him; **** *** ******** attended the ********** ** *** Senior Staff ************ Committee, and observed ****** that his indictment *** recommended punishment had already been published in *** ***** counter affidavit filed at the High Court of Anambra State ** Nigeria, ** *** High Court ** Orumba ***** ******** Division holden ** Umunze in Suit No. HOS/MISC.12/2020 and that ** did not **** *********** in ********* himself in a ****** which ******** *** punishment had been recommended ** *** Ad-Hoc Committee ** suspended *** election.

 

  1. The claimant ******* ********* that the COEASU representative ****** his trial by SSDC told the claimant and ** verily ******** *** that ** *** tried using a pre-record audio played on the 30th January 2020 claimed by the 2nd defendant as *** claimant’s ***** ******* recourse to hearing **** the claimant; that the ******** *** never confronted ** the defendants with *** purported audio record purporting to be *** voice ****** or after the use; that the claimant ******* through *** counsel for the certified true copy of *** records ** proceedings of the Senior Staff ************ Committee ***** the 9th March 2020 to *** 3rd defendant and his ***** (COEASU). The management of the 1st ********* ******* the application. That the Chairman of COEASU forwarded a **** of *** union’s ******** report on *** **** ***** of the claimant dated 5/2/2020 made ** the 3rd defendant; that ********* the concomitant ****** ** fabricated offences without due process *** libels ** the ********* hard ****** image, he was coerced ** resigned his *********** **** the ******* ** the 1st defendant with effect **** 10/2/2020 *** a letter dated 6th ******** 2020; **** equally owing to the concomitant fraught abuse of the claimant’s *********** rights ********** ****** to fair hearing, freedom ** speech and oppressive work environment *** ******** resigned *** ********** of the 2nd defendant via a ****** ***** 7th ******** 2020 ******* he ****** his ******* for resigning his *********** with *** 1st ********* which amounts to constructive dismissal.

 

  1. The claimant continued that ***** to the *********** threats, witch hunt, vendetta and ******* ***** of the claimant’s fundamental human rights ** was coerced to resign and take up a **** and monthly financial take home that ** **** ***** his rank ** Nnamdi ******* University Awka without negotiation; that the claimant letter of resignation from the ******** of *** 1st defendant was noted ** the defendants via a letter dated 17th February 2020; that the claimant shell ******* that the defendant haven noted *** resignation vide a letter dated the 17/2/2020 *** no powers and capacity to entertain and handle any other issue(s) concerning the claimant haven ******** from the services of the 1st defendant. that *** claimant, ** way of ***** to the letter of 17/2/2020 vide a letter dated 9th March 2020 demanded ** know what *********** that **** pending ******* *** as raised in paragraph 3 of the defendants’ ****** ** 17/2/2020 ***** **** letter was never ******* till *** ******** applied *** his transfer ** service ** Nnamdi ******* ********** Awka his *** place of employ, and was ******* ** the defendants; that on *** 14th day of *** 2020, he 3rd defendant wrote a ***** ******** to the ************ of Police captioned “Re: ***** ** the ******* *** Threat to Kidnap Members of the College ********** and their Family Members” against *** ******** without primary investigation. **** ******** was written the same day *** alleged arson happened; that following the ****** invitation and arrest ** *** claimant in 2020 and the subsequent grant of ************** bail, the case has since ******** in abeyance, notwithstanding several letters written ** the ******** to the Police urging the ********** of investigation **** *** matter.

 

  1. The claimant submitted that until date ****** has not done ******** *** invited the claimant in ******* ** the ******* arson *** kidnap by the 3rd defendant; that the National ********** of the claimant’s union ******** to know *** the claimant ***** a former Zonal *********** *** ******* Chairman was alleged to be ******** in arson and kidnap ******* the Union ******** *** Secretary ** the 1st defendant; that *** reply ** the defendants ** **** ****** of *** Union’s National  Leadership *** a ***** to the ****** of the ********* *** holding brief for the claimant who is a non-***** ** the College; that the claimant petitioned to *** Presidential ********** ***** to the 1st defendant, via a letter of 7th May 2021 *** ********* “********* use of ***** ******* to: abuse ** my rights, libel to ** person & constructive dismissal”; that on 5th October 2021, the ******** applied for the transfer of his service from the 1st defendant to Nnamdi Azikiwe University Awka; **** ****** than *** defendants complying **** the claimant’s letter of 5/10/2021, the 3rd ********* scheduled ** emergency ******** of the 2nd defendant with *** her staff on Thursday 11th ******** 2021, and there at the meeting, made some defamatory publications ******* the claimant in the ********* words:
  2. “Sunday Okeke and Dr. Churchill Okonkwo whatever **** are writing ** Nwamaradi list, they *** ******* on ****** of Nnwamaradi, everything they are writing is Nnwamaradi, Nnwamaradi, Nnwamaradi, Nnwamaradi” (36:32)
  3. “Nnwamaradi want ** *** them ** ******* **** our college peace”
  4. “***** Nnwamaradi became *** ******** of COEASU with Sunday Okeke, Churchill Okonkwo with all ***** of them that *** in that committee, now in the past, they don’t want to see this College in good light (38:18)
  5. I don’t think that six of **** ** *** of **** is much more than 1000 of us. Are we ***** ** allow them to do that?” (38:31) etc. by accusing ** of being the cause of the ******** in *** 1st defendant institution imputing me as an outlaw which ******* me.

**** the ********** suddenly woke up *** ****** the claimant with a letter dated the 29th day ** ******* 2021, ***** the 14th December 2021 and a letter dated the 14/2/2022 purporting to be a reply to claimant letter of 5th October 2021 on ******** ** ******* and ** invitation with session **** *** ****** Staff Disciplinary ********* ** *** 1st defendant in respect ** *** NYSC ********** Certificate ***** *** never been in issue until the claimant resigned from the services ** the 1st ********* *** ******* for *** ******** ** his service with the 1st defendant.

 

  1. *** claimant further submitted that even after ** has successfully resigned from the services of the defendants while ******** his transfer of service **** the defendants, the 4th defendant ** ****** connivance with the 3rd defendant *** ********* to annoy, intimidate and derogate the ******** by issuing him **** ***** dated *** 3rd March 2022 ******** that he *** ******* employed with the 1st defendant; **** the actions of the ********** ** using ad hoc ********** in trying the claimant *** offences *** known ** the Terms *** Conditions of ******* for Colleges of Education amounts ** forcing the claimant ** ***** out his **** ** an ****** or substandard environment; that *** ******* of the ********** to **** with the claimant’s ********** raised ********* and failure to ***** out a ************ process ****** or in line with procedure establishing *** claimant’s ************ *** made it impossible for *** ******** to continue in *** job with the defendants ***** by *********** *** denied *** ******** **** of ***** *** confidence and as a ****** of the claimant been bullied in his workplace has left with ** other option but to resign; ******* with their ******* to ******** *** claimant’s ****** of service to *** new place ** work hence this suit.

 

THE *********** ** THE DEFENDANTS

  1. The ********** submitted **** issues for determination, namely:
  2. ******* claimant has a ***** *********** with 1st defendant, **** which he ** capable ** ********* ** ***** constructively dismissed.
  3. Assuming ******* conceding **** the claimant has a valid appointment with the 1st defendant; whether the defendants can ** compelled to transfer claimant’s file/service to *** institution, being a discretionary ************** of the defendants and having in mind *** resignation notice of the claimant (Exhibit CW40)
  4. ******* in the ************* of this case, ******** has proved his **** on *** preponderance of evidence to be entitled to judgment
  5. Whether the defendants *** entitled to ***** counter-claim

 

  1. *** ***** (1), the defendant ******** *** above issue in the ******** and submitted **** the claimant **** *** have a valid appointment **** the 1st defendant from which he is ******* of resigning and/or being constructively dismissed; that Exhibits CW1 and CW2 juxtaposed with Exhibit DW1 are null and void; that Exhibits *** and CW2 are ******** ‘s letter of offer ** Appointment and Letter confirmation ** appointment, both ***** 26/4/1991 *** 25/10/2007 respectively. ******* DW1 ** claimant’s ******** Youth Service Corp (NYSC) *********** dated 1st May, 1993; **** ** is ********* ** note that the ******** was employed ** the ******** of the 1st defendant more than two ***** before ** possessed the qualification **** Certificate for the employment; that claimant’s employment/appointment with the 1st defendant is fundamental ********* and void *** ni tio (sic).

 

  1. The defendants further ********* that Chapter 2, ********** 2.1.1 (ii) of ******* terms and ********** of service for ******** of Education, 2015 (Exhibit CW11) provides that an applicant ********** in ******* College ** Education (********* 1st defendant) must possess *** requisite qualifications ******** ** *** ****** of Service or as *** ** ********* from **** to time. The defendants’ ******* ******** the Court to the provision of Scheme of Service for the ******* ******** of Education and Federal Polytechnic, 1989 on ****** of entry/appointment/********** ** Assistant Lecturer (***** ******** applied *** and was employed); that the said ********* specifically provides thus:

“By appointment of a holder ** good ****** degree or equivalent recognized qualification with NYSC Certificate plus ******** of Post-Secondary Teaching Qualification.”

The defendants continued that the claimant never had *** of the ***** ********* requirements as at the time ** his employment **** the 1st defendant to wit:

  1. A ****** of good honors degree ** equivalent recognized qualification.
  2. A holder ** NYSC Certificate.
  3. A holder with evidence ** Post-Secondary ******** Qualification.

The ********** ********* that *** of the requisites for the appointment into service of the 1st ********* is the National ***** Service **** (NYSC) Certificate; that section 12 of NYSC *** Cap N84, LFN, 2004 made it mandatory for every ******** ** demand from an applicant, ** evidence that he has completed his ***** service, to **** *** *********** of this requirement, ******* 13 ** the **** NYSC Act, criminalize *** ************* ** any provisions of the Act. ** the ******* case, it is ** evidence that *** claimant *** appointed into *** service of *** College on 26th April 1991 (Exhibit CW1) before ** ******** *** NYSC *********** in May 1993 (******* DW1). The defendant further ********* that none possession of *** **** **** Certificate at the time of employment renders the ******** ********** void ab inito.

 

  1. The defendants went on that when the ******** *** confronted under cross-examination on 6/2/2024 with this fundamental mischief on his appointment/employment in the service of *** 1st defendant, the claimant 2024 (sic) admitted, he was aware he had no NYSC Certificate, but claimed his *********** was probationary. The defendants’ ******* cited NICN/ABJ/138/2015 Anthony Achi **** v. ****** of Public Procurement, published on https://www.nicnadr.gov.ng/judgment/details.php?id=8005, in considering the status of ** employment without the requisite **** Certificate ** exemption **** thus:

“** section 12(1) of the **** *** and paragraph 7.1 ** the staff condition ** service; possession and ************ ** either NYSC discharge certificate or *** exemption certificate is a prerequisite for employment in the defendant. the **** that the ******** did not possess ****** NYSC discharge certificate or ********* certificate at *** time of his employment made him *********** *** employment by *** defendant. The claimant’s ********** was therefore faulty *** ********* ab initio. It was entered into in contravention of the NYSC Act. The ********** was not a valid or lawful employment. A ******** ******* into contrary ** ********** ** a statute is illegal and the Courts cannot enforce such a contract. See Felix George and ******* Ltd v. Afinotan (2015) All FWLR (Pt. 778) 920 at 951.” Underline ******** *** emphasis.

 

  1. On the ****** ** Exhibit CW2 (Claimant’s Confirmation of Appointment). *** defendants submitted that it is ******* that one cannot place something on nothing and ****** it to stand. *** *** ****** of Lord Denning ** ****** v. United Africa Co. Ltd. (1961) 3 All ER 1169. The defendants contended that the void status of claimant’s Exhibit CW1 ****** be remedied by ******* CW2, especially ***** ******* CW2 attempts to act ** retrospect, by ********** ** confirm claimant’s earlier appointment as ** Assistant Lecturer; that ******* must be made **** before Exhibit CW2 ** 2007 (sic), *** ******** had on the strength of Exhibit CW1, climbed the promotion ladder ** ********* Lecturer and ******** II, ***** other promotions. The ********** contended that an employment entered ** violation of ********* statutory requirements for such an ********** is invalid **** and void. Thus, where a statute prescribes requirements for validly of *** act, ******* ** comply with the requirements vitiates *** ***** the act. *** ********** referred *** Court to ******* v. Gomwalk (2017) All **** (Pt. 882) 1182 at 1209. **** *** claimant’s employment with the defendant is void ab initio. Its implication ** that ***** *** no valid employment in the first place **** ***** the claimant can resign or constructively ********* ** alleged by the claimant. The defendants ***** the ***** to ** hold, thereby resolving this ***** in favor of the defendants.

 

  1. For issue (2), Assuming without ********* that the claimant *** a valid appointment with the 1st defendant; whether the defendants *** be compelled ** transfer claimant’s file/service to *** institution, being a discretionary ************** of the defendants and having in mind the *********** notice of the claimant (Exhibit CW40). The ********** ****** the above in the negative and submitted that the defendants ** *** ************* of **** case, cannot be ********* to ******** the claimant’s file ** Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka ** any Institution; that this ** ******* the decision or recommendation *** transfer of file/service ** any staff, **** the claimant is *** ************** ** the Management ********* ** provided in ********** 4.0.2 of the ******* ***** Service Rules, 2015 (Exhibit CW11); that in doing so, the ********* ***** at the ****** of the applicant to determine, whether ***** *** pending disciplinary issues against such applicant; ******** *** college’s ******** among others. See Exhibit CW48. This ************** of the relevant committees, leave *** discretion on ******* or not ** ******** with the 2nd defendant. 

 

  1. *** defendants continued that the claimant’s resignation **** *** service of 1st ********* ********** any ******** ***** of transfer (if any), ** ** affects *** service to any other institution. The defendants ******** the Court to Elukpo v. MD, FMC, Lokoja (2021) LPELR-53104 (CA), *** Court of Appeal at Pp 10-12 paras E-A in considering the meaning of mandamus and ******** in which order of mandamus **** *** be granted held thus:

“Furthermore, when an applicant ********** a Court to compel a Court, Tribunal ** authorities, he ** **** in the instant case calling for ***** of mandamus. Mandamus *** **** *********** defined as a **** ****** from a ***** of competent jurisdiction commanding inferior Tribunal, ***** or corporation to perform a purely ministerial duty or mandatory duty ***** there is a clear legal right ** the plaintiff *** a ************* duty on defendant and a want of any other appropriate and adequate remedy. See Ayida & *** v. **** Planning Authority & anor (2013) LPELR; ******* v. *** Registrar General CAC (2010) LPLER-456 (SC) and Associated ******** House Ltd v. ******** of FCT 2013) LPELR-20088 (SC) where Ariwoola, JSC, **** *** ****** of ******** to include the facts that the ***** of mandamus will **** issue to a body, person(s) ** co-operation requiring him ** them to do some particular thing therein ******* which ******** to his ** their office and ** is in the ****** of a public duty. There must ** a public duty and not merely a discretionary ***** in the proposed ********* of *** order. A ********* ***** the appellant is seeking for a confirmation of ** information *** within the ****** of the respondent cannot be subjected to an order of mandamus. The learned ***** ***** ** *** the circumstances of this case cannot ** ******* for the decision ** gave ******** the order of mandamus.”

The defendants submitted **** by *** provisions of Exhibit **** (******* Civil ******* Rules, 2015, Regulation 4.0.2 thereof) it is *** discretionary power of ********** ** recommend such a transfer ** file. *** recommendation starts with ************ and Promotions Committee ** the ********** Committee, **** ** the Council (2nd defendant). *** defendants contended **** there is no such legal right in *** claimant, nor a *********** ************** ** the ********** ** warrant the order **** the Court.

 

  1. The defendants went on that the claimant has *** shown that the Management ********* of *** 2nd defendant, through the Appointments and ********** Committee, ** compliance with Exhibit CW11, have recommended the transfer of his files ** Nnamdi Azikiwe University, but for *** ******* of 2nd ********* to approve same. Exhibit CW48 *** 49 (sic) are clear on what the ******** must do to have *** **** transferred. The defendants cited the case of CBN v. ****** Application ******* (Nig) *** (2004) LPELR-5432 (CA) the Court, Per ******* ***** Muhamad, *** (Pp 23-24, ***** D-E) in answering *** question “at **** point **** a Court not make ** ***** of mandamus” held thus:

“***** *** also circumstances were ***** ** mandamus cannot be granted. ***** circumstances are- (i) ***** ***** is a discretion to act. See Akintemi & ors. v. **** Onwumechili & ors (1985) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1) 68, (1985) 1 SC 132 at page 173. (ii) where the order asks for ********* ***** is impossible of performance. (iii) where the doing of the act ordered would ******* ************* of the law. See The Republic v. Registrar ** Trade Marks (1967) NMLR 324. (iv) where ***** is alternative specific ****** at law which is not less convenient ********** *** effective. *** R v. Registrar of Joint Stock Companies (1888) 21 *** 131; Prof Onwumechill’s case (supra). (v) where there has been undue ***** by the applicant ****** bringing his application. See ********* v. Com. of Stamp ****** (1889) AC 25. Vol. II, Pg. 84 of Halbury **** ** England provides thus: "******** is ** ***** ** a **** extensive remedial nature and is, in form, a command issuing from High Court of Justice, directed ** any person, corporation, ** inferior ******** requiring him or them to do particular thing therein specified which ********** to his or ***** office and in the nature ** public duty. ***** a statute, which imposes a duty, leaves ********** as ** *** **** ** ********** duty in *** ***** of the party, on **** *** obligation ** laid, mandamus cannot command the **** ** ******** to ** carried out in a specific way.” (********* Ours) 

That the compliance with the provisions of Revised Terms and Conditions ** Service for Colleges ** Education should be encouraged in the circumstances; that the ********** cannot ** compelled to act, where *** provisions of chapter 4 of the ******* ***** and Condition of Service *** Colleges of Education, 2015, have not been ******** with. The defendants urged the Court to so hold *** resolve this issue in ****** of *** defendants.

 

  1. On issue (3), Whether ** the circumstances of this case, claimant has ****** *** case on the preponderance ** evidence to be ******** to judgment. *** ********** answer the above ** the negative *** ********* that *** claimant has not prove *** **** on the preponderance of evidence as ** be ******** ** judgment; that *** law is settled **** he who asserts **** ***** his assertion, founded ** *** ***** maxim: ‘********** non neganti, ******** probotio.’ The Supreme ***** ****** on section 131(1) ** Evidence *** 2011 and ********** this principle ** *** case of Sharing Cross Educational Services Ltd v. ***** Adamu ********** *** & ors (2020) LPELR-49567 (SC), Per Ejembi Eko, JSC (Pp 7-8, Paras F-A) where it held that: 

“******* desires any ***** to give ******** as ** any ***** right/liability dependent on the ********* of ***** which he asserts, **** prove that those empirical facts exist.” 

That the crux of the claimant’s case ** that he *** constructively ******* to ****** from the service of *** 1st defendant and that ******* his resignation from *** ******* of the 1st defendant, *** defendants have ******* to transfer his **** and/or ******* to Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka; that *** summary of *** case of the claimant *** be said to be the alleged willful refusal ** *** ********** to ******** his file or service to another public service. That *** ******** now left to be answered by the Court, ** ******* on *** strength of Exhibits CW48 and CW49, the defendants ********* ******* to transfer the claimant’s file to *** new place of service?”

 

  1. The ********** went ** **** neither Exhibit CW48 *** CW49 *** any ***** ***** of ******** placed before the ***** by ******** *********** the ******* ******* refusal ** the part of the defendants ** transfer claimant’s file/service to Nnamdi ******* University. That by *** combine reading of Regulation 2.6 and 4.0.2 of Revised Terms *** Conditions of Service *** Colleges ** Education, 2015 (Exhibit CW11), and sections 6(1(j), 12(1), 15 and 17 of ******* ******** ** ********* Act, CAP. F8 LFN 2004, the ********** are empowered to **** ******* and **** **** *** files ** its staff, ********* the claimant; that *** ******** ******** this, when ** was confronted on *** ***** ****** cross *********** ** 6th February, 2024 as follows:

“It is true as suggested ** ** that the 2nd ********* ** ********* to regularly review and ***** ***** of staff of the college, including me.”

**** the claimant was not ****** about his ******* records or relationship with the defendants. **** confronted ****** cross-*********** in respect ** ******* issued ** him, the claimant admitted ** had been issued ****** of queries *** was also ********* ** the ************ committee, alongside one Dr. Churchill, over their unruly activities and actions ** the college. The defendants referred the Court to Exhibit DW2 (report on the work history of the Claimant with the 1st defendant); that ******* CW48, CW49, CW50 and CW51 ****** the reason for the delay ** *** transfer of *** claimant’s file/******* ** Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka. 

 

  1. *** ********** submitted **** ******** CW48, CW49, CW50 and CW51 ****** ***** are pending issues and ******* between *** claimant *** *** defendants. That *** said ******** ******* ********* that *** claimant was duly invited by *** ********** to **** *** ***** the issues, but the ******** bluntly refused. The ********** further submitted that ***** is ******* the claimant has set out ** achieve in this suit, other **** to shield ******* **** investigation, **** the ******* committed ** *** ********** with the 1st defendant. it is settled law that a party ****** *** the Court as a shield **** investigation. The defendants cited the case of Omereonye v. Asst. IGP. Zone ll & ors (2019) LPELR-50690 (CA) where *** Court **** thus:

“I don’t ***** it is open t *** Appellant to seek to use the judicial ******* to ********* *** being ************ ** the Police. The *** is that a person should not go ** Court in order to be shielded against criminal investigation ** that will be ** interference **** the powers given ** law officers ** respect of criminal investigation. *** ***** is *** to issue a judicial **** preventing law enforcement agencies from *** ******** ** their statutory powers. See AG ******* ***** v. ***** Uba (2005) 15 **** (Pt. 947) 44 at 67.”

That *** claimant *** two options, ****** to clear *** ambiguity in *** employment with the 1st ********* or ***** the transfer ** the said file/service; **** *** claimant has *** proved *** case ** preponderance ** evidence to warrant *** Court issue an order of ******** against the ********** to transfer the claimant’s service to ****** ******* University, Awka or in the alternative, ** entitled to judgment. The defendants urged the Court to so hold, thereby ********* this issue ** ***** of the ********** and also ***** the ***** to ******* the case of the claimant ** *** entirety with punitive **** ***** an abuse of *** process of Court.

     

  1. On issue (4), is Whether *** defendants are entitled to their counter-claim? *** ********** answer this question in *** positive and submitted that the defendants are entitled ** their counter-claim having ****** ***** case ** the ******* of probability. It is *** case of the ********** that *** ******** was employed ** the service of *** 1st defendant in ******** ********* ** the ********** of the ******** ****** ******* Rules; Terms and Conditions ** Service for Colleges ** Education ** well as the provisions ** the NYSC Act, *** N84 LFN, 2004. **** **** was possible mischievously crafted because *** claimant was assisted by his relation, Mr. Titus Eze, *** was the **** Provost ** the 1st defendant; that the claimant admitted this fact when he answered ** ******* during cross-examination:

“Yes, I do know one Mr. ***** Eze, He *** one **** my Provost. ** is true ** ********* to me by ******* to the ********** **** at one time ** ***** 1991, Titus Eze was the provost ** the 1st defendant. Mr. ***** Eze *** the provost, who employed me. Mr. Titus Eze is from the **** ***** Government **** me. As ** the time of ** employment, I had *** yet gone for NYSC with a reason.”

The defendants submitted **** a ******** ******* **** contrary to provisions ** a statute is ******* and the ****** cannot enforce **** a contract; that this ******** in the employment of the ******** was discovered by the audit/review of *** record of staff recently conducted by the defendants, which compelled ******** to tender his resignation, ******* that he has been exposed; **** ******* 12 ** the **** Act, *** N84, LFN, 2004 **** it mandatory *** ***** employer to ****** **** an applicant, an evidence that he/*** *** ********* his youth service. The ********* continued that to show *** seriousness of this requirement, ******* 13 ** the **** Act, Cap N84, LFN, 2004 went further to criminalize *** contravention of any provisions of the Act. In the ******* case, it is in ******** that *** claimant was appointed **** *** service ** the College (1st defendant) on 26th April, 1991 (******* CW1) ****** he obtained his NYSC Discharge Certificate in May, 1993 (Exhibit DW1).

 

  1. ** is *** defendants’ contention that the entirety ** the claimant’s confirmation, promotion *** service in the 1st defendants is null and void. *** defendants **** ** the decision ** this ***** ** ******* Achi Ikor v. ****** ** ****** Procurement (supra) and **** ** *** judgment ** this Court in **** No. NICN/ABJ/20/2023 Saifullah Muhammad Aliyu v. Nigeria Ports Authority ********* at https://www.nicnadr.gov.ng/judgment.php?id. That *** claimant ** bound therefore, to refund all renumeration received while in *** service ** the 1st defendant **** 1991 **** the date of his resignation; that the case of *** defendants remained ************ and uncontroverted. It ** trite that ************** and ************ evidence ****** *** should be ******** ** the Court as long ** such evidence is credible and admissible; **** in such a ********* there is nothing to *** on the ********* scale *** it is the duty of ***** to rely and *** on such evidence. The ********** rely ** SPDCN *** v. Edamkue (2009) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1160) Pg. 1 ** 33; ***** v. Orlu (2023) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1904) 319. That the ******** of defendant’s (sic) witness even during cross examination remained unshaken. The ********** ***** the Court to rely on it in entering ******** for the defendants *** resolve this issue in favor ** the defendants and also ***** judgment for the defendants as *** their counter-claim.

 

  1. In conclusion, the defendants submitted that it is manifest from *** evidence ****** the Court that the ******** did not prove *** **** ** constructive dismissal from ********** ** *** ******* ******* of *** defendants to ******** *** file/service ** Nnamdi Azikiwe University; that the ******** is not entitled to ******** as *** the reliefs in *** claim and the defendants urged the Court ** dismiss the claimant’s case with heavy costs and enter ******** in ****** of the defendants as per their counter-claim.

 

THE *********** OF *** CLAIMANT

  1. The claimant submitted **** ****** for determination, namely:
    1. ******* the claimant has a valid *********** **** *** 1st defendant.
    2. ******* the defendants can ** compelled to transfer claimant’s service records.
    3. Whether *********** the totality ** all **** transpired between *** claimant and *** defendants, if the ******** *** given fair hearing.
    4. ******* the claimant as ****** his case on the balance of *********** to ******* him ** his claims/reliefs ****** ** this suit.

 

  1. *** ***** (1), *** claimant submitted **** for the purposes of this final written ******* on *** issue of the validity of the claimant’s appointment, ** is posited that by *** provision Federal Republic ** ******* Revised ********** ** Service *** Colleges of Education 2015 at Chapter 2 **** 7 which bothers on appointment particularly ** 2.5 1(b) the appointment of the ******** was **** in accordance with the same Rules guiding Colleges of Education which by the same rules as provided ** 13 2.7 the appointment was confirmed which *** **** same appointment with ********* flavor. **** ** the provision of section 2.7 of the Condition of Service for Colleges of Education which ******** for ********* for the confirmation of appointments Article 2.7.1 provides thus: “To be eligible for conformation of appointment ** the College, an officer ********* ** probation is required to pass the ********** *********** ****** *** ************ period *** to complete his probationary ****** to *** satisfaction of the ********* ********* to appoint him at the end of the ****** of probation *** passing *** prescribed examination the ***** will be confirmed in his appointment .” it is submitted ** counsel to *** ******** that *** claimant ********* the statutory appointment authority, to earn confirmation, *** irregularity ** inception of the claimant’s appointment as cured once the Governing Council ********* same.

 

  1. ******* counsel ** *** claimant referred the ***** ** ******** CW2, CW4, CW5, CW6, CW7, CW8 and CW9 in ****** the Court ** **** issue (1) in ****** of the claimant. ******* ** ******** ******* commended the ***** ** *** **** of Olaniyan v. UNILAG (1985) 2 **** (Pt. 9) 599; Musa Yunusa v. **** State ******* ** Education (sic) wherein the held (sic) that employment with statutory flavor cannot be terminated ****** ** strict ********** with the laid **** ********* in the enabling statute.

 

  1. For issue (2), on whether defendants *** be ********* ** transfer claimant’s ******* records, *** claimant ******** in the affirmative ** ******* **** ******** of service ******* (it is submitted) **** it is a ********* **** not discretion, once employment is valid; **** the claimant haven (sic) ********* *** *********** **** the defendant (sic) up to *** *********** ** as of a right entitled to *** ******** of his record service ** *** new place of employ; that the defendants are bound to transfer same ** the application of the claimant.

 

  1. The ******** ******** the Court to the case ** ********* v. Abdul-Raheem (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 384; where the Supreme Court held that: 1. ***** employment ** ******** ** statute, *** employer must comply **** the statute. **** ******** lies ** compel performance of ********* duties, ********** where refusal is malicious ** oppressive; applied in this *** defendants have a ********* duty under the Federal Colleges of Education Act ** maintain *** transfer service records they cannot refused (sic) arbitrarily. ***** on *** cited authority, the ******** ***** the Court ** hold **** *** defendants are bound to transfer the record of service of *** claimant to *** new ***** of employ.

 

  1. On issue 3, the claimant’s answer is in the negative that the claimant was *** ***** fair hearing *** fair trial; that ** prove (sic) ** the facts, the Court was ******** to Exhibits CW13, CW14, CW16, CW21, CW26, CW28, CW30, CW34, CW35, CW38, CW43, CW40, CW41, CW44, CW47, CW50, CW52, CW55, CW56, CW57, CW58 and CW59 which ************ systemic bias and denial ** fair hearing, proving ******* ** hear *** claimant was malicious. Exhibit CW16 shows **** the 3rd defendant on record (Dr. T.O. Okoli was (Serial No. 2), while Dr. Mrs. E.N. Okafor (Serial No. 28), Mrs. **** Okafor (****** No. 58) and Dr. G.I. Udegbe (Serial No. 24) ****** the ******** to the DPO Umunze against the claimant. These same individuals later sat in judgment against the claimant in the Ad-hoc ********* and **** proceedings. This establishes ***** **** *** conflict of interest, ********* *** cordial principle of justice “**** ***** in ***** sua”.

 

  1. It is ********* ** the claimant **** Exhibit CW28 shows the claimant’s **** faith ****** ** the 3rd defendant ** handle student union election complaints dispassionately contradicting *********** ** interference. That ******* CW40 shows lawful ************ under duress, with receipt of ?410, 620.00 paid in **** of ****** **** by *** ******** in **** faith; that ******* CW47 contains certified audio of the 3rd defendant inciting staff ******* the claimant, proving ****** and reputational injury. The claimant continued that ******* CW55, a COEASU letter dated 14 November 2022, signed ** Comr. Dr. A.T Nwamaradi ** chairman and Comr. C.C. Okonkwo as secretary, ******** that tax ******* were union-related and legitimately handled by COEASU leadership. That this corroborates Exhibit CW56 and CW57 (queries issued against the claimant ** 28 **** 2017) and proves **** management maliciously converted union matters into disciplinary prosecution.

 

  1. *** claimant continued that Exhibit CW56 and CW57, both dated 28 **** 2017 *** signed by Deputy ********* Ukeje A.C for Registrar, addressed to *** ******** as COEASU Chairman, demonstrate persecution through ******* queries- ** tax meeting invitation, the other on ******* ******* from meeting; that *** fact that **** **** ****** on *** same day and ** the person ** the claimant when the ********** *** on *** union proves deliberate ********** ** the claimant. The ******** went ** that ******* CW58, *** ******* Police ********* of Accused, certified **** copy, confirms that *** *********** **** purely ***** matters and not criminal abuse. That this collapses the defendants’ misconduct ********* and taints DW5 (SSDC report).

 

  1. Exhibit CW59 shows *********** verification ******* by Dr. J.C. Madichie with NCCE ********* which ******* the claimant *** suppressed ** defendants; that it is submitted that withholding the ****** of the Certificate Verification ********* *********** ** the defendants amounts to withholding ******** as provided ** section 167(d) of the Evidence Act 2011. That the Court may ******* that evidence ***** could be and is *** produced would, if produce be unfavourable ** the person who withholds it meaning **** *** ********** in refusing ** ******* *** said certificate ****** would have gone against the defendants’ case. The same applies to *** case of complaint ** one ***** Christopher C. ** 2018, whose report *** **** withheld by the ********** in ***** of several letters of application.

 

  1. It ** the claimant submission that flowing from *** ***** exhibits, it ** crystal ***** that the claimants’ (sic) accusers became judge in their *** case for ***** ***** proceedings are void as enunciated in *** case of Prof. B.J. ********* v. Prof. S.O. Abdul-Raheem & ors 2009 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) at 389 (supra)  ** is held that any disciplinary action or termination ***** by any ***** authority, ** ******* following *** laid down statutory procedure ** ******* **** and **** and ** so urge the Court ** **** **** all *** disciplinary actions meted on the ******** by the ********** *** illegal, null and void. *** claimant further submitted that phantom and fabricated cases under ****** v. UAC. (sic) which provided that *** cannot place something on ******* and expect ** to stand. That once foundation is incurably bad it is ***** ** collapse. *** claimant prayed *** ***** to find in favour ** *** claimant based on issue that the claimant *** not given fair ******* ** provided by section 36 ** the Constitution ** *** ******* Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended.

 

  1. On ***** (4) is ******* the ******** has proved his case on the balance of convenience to entitle him to his claims/******* sought in this suit. The claimant ********* that ** has proved his **** on the ******* of convenience to entitle *** ** his claims/reliefs sought ** this suit. That looking at ******* DW2- Registrar’s ******** authored by *** 4th defendant, biased, ********** and inadmissible under section 83(1) ** the Evidence Act 2011. ******* DW3 – ****** authored by Dr. D.I. Okoli (3rd defendant ******* in-law), biased and irrelevant. Exhibit DW5- **** report, is ******* ** **** since CW16 *********** sat ** judge; collapses ***** Olufeagba v. Abdul-Raheem (supra). ******* DW6- Minority report and ********* on suspended SUG election, irregular and fabricated; 4 of 9 members were very junior staff. Exhibit DW10- Solicitor’s ******** ******** wrongful employment, authored externally is inadmissible and worthless in law as ** has no nexus to the claimant’s case ** the ******** had long tendered his resignation before *** said petition. Exhibit DW10- is inadmissible, that no ****** ********** was **** prior to its ***** ******** and was not made ** any of the defendants. The claimant’s counsel ***** the Court ** section 83(1) ** *** Evidence Act 2*** which provide thus: In a proceeding ***** direct **** evidence of a fact ***** be admissible, any ********* made by a ****** ** a document which seems ** establish **** fact shall on the ********** of the original document, ** admissible as evidence ** that fact ** the following conditions *** satisfied:
    1. If the maker ** *** statement either-
  2. Had personal knowledge of the matters dealt **** by the statement; or 

******** the ********* ** section 83 (1a-b) ** *** Evidence Act to ******* DW10 renders ** inadmissible and worthless in law. That from the above cited Exhibits, malice *** *** faith is deducted *** **** justify the grant of ********** and ********* damages as provided ***** UBA v. Oranuba (2014) LPELR- 24208 (CA) and Rookes v. Bernard (1964) ** 1129 ******* it *** held that exemplary ******* may ** awarded in ******* in ******* circumstances, particularly: where the ********** conduct is oppressive, arbitral or unconstitutional, it is *** submission **** *** ********** ******* ** oppressive, arbitral ** unconstitutional. It is our ********** that the defendants if not in malice, ought to **** allowed the claimant exit to *** new place ** ****** ******* necessarily ****** ** hold him back, ** can be seen in Exhibit CW42, CW44, CW45, CW48, CW49 *** CW50 ***** the ******** *** resigned his appointment with the 1st and 2nd defendants. 

 

  1. The ******** **** on that all *** defendants ******** collapse under CW2, CW4, CW5, CW6, CW7, CW8, CW9, CW28, CW40, CW41, CW47, CW55, CW56, CW57, CW58 and CW59 which suggests constructive dismissal: persecution, fabricated petitions, systemic bias, hostile environment forced the claimant’s resignation. The claimant ******** the Court to the case of Emodi v. Diamond Bank Plc (2016) LPELR-40093 (CA) where *** Court **** **** constructive ********* arises when an employee resigns due to ******* or intolerable ********** created ** the ******** even though *** employee resign, *** law treats it ** if the employer wrongfully terminated the employment which means that employers cannot arbitrarily ***** employees *** ******* persecution and ******* conditions. Were (sic) *********** is compelled by *** employer’s oppressive conduct, the employee ** entitled ** remedies *** ******** termination including damages. *** claimant submitted that the defendants had made *** claimant’s place ** work intolerable *** unconducive which ******* the claimant into resigning his appointment.

 

  1. The claimant submitted that his ********* employment and career progression *** ***** *** valid; that the defendants acted ultra ***** their powers, maliciously and oppressively, fabricating petitions and suppressing exonerating evidence; that the defendants’ **** ******* *** claimant collapses under ******** CW2, CW4, CW5, CW6, CW7, CW8, CW9, CW28, CW40, CW41, CW47, CW55, CW56, CW57, CW58 and CW59. That *** claimant’s exhibits establish a consistent pattern ** malice, suppression of *********** evidence and constructive ********* CW28, CW40, CW41, CW47, CW55, CW56, CW57, CW58 and CW59 demonstrate lawful resignation under duress, defamatory, persecution and ************ injury, confirming constructive dismissal. That the defendants’ reliance on Exhibits DW2, DW3, DW5, DW6 and **** collapses ***** *** weight ** the claimant’s statutory ********** (******* CW5- CW9), Governing Council ********* (Exhibits CW2 *** CW4), union documents (******** CW55-CW57), *** independent Police clearance (Exhibit CW58); that *** law and equity ****** an apology ** the claimant, ******** of the claimant’s records *** damages **** general, aggravated and exemplary- ** punish the defendants’ conduct *** ***** future abuse.

 

  1. The claimant’s counsel prayed *** ***** ** dismissed the defendants’ counter-claim in its ******** in ********* that *** claimant was ************** dismissed ***** compelling *** ********** to transfer the claimant’s service records ** *** *********** authority and granting general ******* for constructive dismissal and reputational injury, as **** ** granting aggravated ******* *** proven malice, persecution with ********* damages to ****** the oppressive ******* of the defendants and deter future abuse; that the ******** has proved constructive dismissal, persecution and reputational injury. The defendants’ address and counter-claim ****** ** dismissed and *** claimant’s reliefs granted in full.

 

  1. It ** the ***** submission ** the ******** that the elements and ingredients ** constructive dismissal ** wit:
  2. That the ******** ** *** defendants was bad enough which made the claimant remaining in his job impossible.
  3. That the ******* of the defendants in using ** *** committees in trying *** claimant for offence *** known to the ***** and ********** ** Service for ******** of Education amounts ** ******* the ******** to carry out his work in an unsafe or substandard environment.
  4. That *** refusal ** the ********** ** **** **** claimant’s grievances ****** ********* and failure to ***** *** a disciplinary process ****** in line **** procedure establishing the claimant’s relationship has made ** ********** for the claimant ** ******** ** *** job with the defendants.
  5. That the behavior of *** defendants against the claimant by *********** has denied *** claimant duty of ***** *** confidence.
  6. That *** claimant *** been bullied in his workplace
  7. That the defendants ********* a repudiatory ****** ** the claimant’s employment contract.
  8. That *** unscrupulous behavior ** the defendants ******* the claimant in using ** hoc ********** to try him for offences that are not known ** law *** subjected the claimant ** ************ ** the hands of the defendants.
  9. **** the ******** relationship with the defendants cannot be ********** which left *** claimant with ** other option but to resign.

 

  1. In conclusion, *** claimant ***** the Court to resolve *** 4th issue, alongside **** *** the other issues ** ****** of *** claimant and also to enter judgment for the claimant on all the ******* sought and dismissed the ********** counter-claim.

 

DEFENDANTS’ REPLY ON POINTS OF LAW

  1. In ***** ** claimants’ final written address, the ********* contended **** *** submissions ** the claimant’s counsel in paragraph 2.2 of his final address to the effect, that the ****** ******** *********** is confirmed ** *** Authority, *** irregularity at inception was cured. That is *** the position of the law. *** *** is that you ****** ***** something on nothing and ****** it to stand. ******* 12 *** 13 od NYSC Act, did not distinguish as *** probationary or ********* employment; **** the said ******** specifically **** acquisition of NYSC ********* or ********* Certificate at the time of any public service employment mandatory; **** ********** ***** work, ********** when it is **** ** **** money. *** defendants cited the **** of Coca-Cola (Nig) Ltd v. Akinsanya (2013) 18 NWLR Pt. 1386 @ 225. The defendant submitted **** Exhibit CW1 clearly spelt out ***** ** the claimant’s employment, ***** included renumeration the ******** is ******** to, within the ****** ** *** employment. The defendants **** on the decision of **** ***** ** **** No. NICN/ABJ/138/2015 Anthony **** **** v. Bureau of Public Procurement, published on https:www.nicnadr.gov.ng/judgment/details.php?id=800 that *** employment of *** claimant in the service of the 1st defendant *** void ab initio having not complied with *** provisions the ********** 2.1 of Exhibit CW11, *** ****** of Service and **** Act; that ***** was ******* to confirm by ******* CW2.

 

  1. *** defendants submitted **** the argument of ******* on issue 2, ‘whether *** defendants can be compelled to transfer claimant ******* records’ ** misconceived, ** counsel did not appreciate the ******* of ********** 4.0.2 of ******* ***** ******* Rules, 2015 (Exhibit CW11). That the **** of Olufeagba v. Abdul-Rahem cited **** not apply, as the *** is **** ***** a ****** officer vested with public duty *** ** ********* to perform such duty, it is not so where **** duty is discretionary. *** defendants ***** *** **** of *** v. ****** Application Products (Nig) Ltd (2004) LPELR-5432 (CA). the defendant further submitted that duty ** transfer the claimant’s service records is ************* and not mandatory. **** ********** 4.0.2 of Exhibit CW11 clearly made *** transfer ** the service records discretionary, where a staff ** the 1st defendant is still in active service; that this is done ** the recommendation ** the Management Committee of 2nd defendant ******* the Appointments *** Promotions Committee. That **** this presupposes is **** where the ********* ** not recommend same; no transfer takes place. Even where such recommendation *** transfer of service is made by the Management ********* *** ** is not ******** by the 2nd defendant, ** transfer takes place. The Court of Appeal in Tangale *********** ******* v. Fawu (2001) 17 NWLR Pt 742 @ 293 P. 327, Paras D-F, while considering *** meaning of recommendation *** this to say:

“************** ** the *** of *** person ** giving to another a favourable account of *** character, responsibility, ** skill of a third. ************** ****** to an ****** which is advisory in nature ****** than one ****** *** binding effect. ** the instant case, the use of the word ************** in Exhibit “Q1” connotes that Tangale/**** Traditional ******* in ********* Exhibit “Q1” sought to advise Military Government of the **** and ********* ** selecting and ********** an Emir/Chief of Tangale.”

**** the argument do not apply ** this case as claimant voluntarily resigned **** the ******* ** the 1st defendant *** he ****** **** for his ******* ** be transferred to ****** ******* University, **** as he is no longer a staff of 1st defendant. the question of whether or not he *** granted **** ******* in *** previous dealings **** 1st defendant is of no moment ** the claimant ** same had been overtaken by the voluntary *********** of the ******** (See Exhibits CW40 and CW41) *** thus the ***** remains academic. *** PDP V. Jarigbe (2021) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1796) 239.

 

  1. The defendants **** ** that even ***** **** ** relevant, *** Committee *** ** by the defendant **** set up in ********** **** *** rules/terms and conditions of service; that there is no iota of evidence showing the claimant was *** given an opportunity to ***** *** case before the committees; that mention must be made **** ***** committees *** headed ** ******* qualified to do so within the **** s of *** 1st defendant, who *** play an ******** role to the defendants; and are not capable of taking final decisions.

 

  1. The defendants submitted that ***** is ** ******** that the ******** was ************** dismissed in *** employment of *** 1st defendant, rather ***** is an ******** **** ******** voluntarily, *** mischievously ******** to shield himself from investigation of ******* ********** ** crime (his ********** contrary to the provisions of *** NYSC Act). That the **** ** Emodi v. Diamond **** Plc relied on by *** ******** does not ***** ** the facts ** this case, as same are distinguishable from the instant case; that *** Emodi’s case *** decided based on *** terms and conditions in a ******* ********** ** contract of service; that the claimant’s case is one with ********* ****** **** *** modus ****** by Revised ***** *** Conditions of Service among others.

 

  1. ** conclusion, *** defendants urged *** ***** to dismiss the claim of *** claimant in its ******** and enter judgment for the defendants as *** ***** counter-claim.

 

COURT’S DECISION

  1. I have ********* ********** *** processes ***** and the submissions of the parties.  ** ***** (1) *** claimant is ******* for “Whether the claimant has a valid appointment with the 1st defendant.”  issue (2) is whether defendants can ** compelled to transfer claimant’s service records.  ***** (3) Seeks ******* considering the totality ** all that transpired ******* the ******** and the defendants if *** ******** was ***** fair hearing.  issue (4) is ******* *** claimant *** ****** his case on *** balance ** convenience to ******* *** ** his claims/reliefs sought in this suit.

 

  1. It is submitted by the claimant **** ** *** provisions of Revised Conditions of Service *** ******** of Education ** Chapter 2 page 7 which bothers on *********** particularly ** 25.5 1(b) the appointment of the claimant was made in accordance with *** **** ***** guiding Colleges ** Education.  By the provision of Section 2.7 of the Condition of Service *** ******** of Education ***** provides for procedure for the ************ of appointments.  ** is ********* that *** claimant ********* *** ********* appointment ********* to earn confirmation, any irregularity at ********* of *** claimants (sic) *********** *** cured **** the Governing Council ********* same.  The ******** **** referred ** ******** CW2, CW4, CW5, CW6, CW7, CW8 and CW9 ** urging the Court to find issue (1) in favour of the claimant.  See **** the case of Olanyan v. UNILAG (1985) 2 NWLR (** 9) 599; Musa Yunusa v. Kogi ******* ** Education (Uncited).  

 

  1. Exhibit CW2 ** claimant’s confirmation ** appointment; ******** CW3 which ** claimant’s withdrawal from *** Federal Civil Service ** the **** of State, Commander- in-Chief of *** Armed Forces, Federal Republic ** ******* *** ******* by *** claimant.  Exhibits CW5, CW6, CW7, CW8 and CW9 however were notification ** promotions.  In suit ** NICN/LA/2019 between Oyebola & ors v. ******* Airport ********* of Nigeria the ******** of ***** *** delivered on May 12, 2019, the Judgment ** ***** was ********* by *** Lordship Hon. Justice B.B. Kanyip, PhD, *** Court **** thus:

“… The interpretation of document is not the function of a witness.  It is a function of *** meant for the Court.  *** Ambassador D.C.B. Nwanna v. ******** ************ Agency & 2 ors unreported **** No NICN/ABJ/123/2011, the ******** of which *** ********* on 16th December 2013, Mr. ********* v. First ********* Pension Ltd, unreported Suit ** NICN/ABJ/2/2011, the judgment of ***** *** ********* on 2nd February, 2011 and Mr. Akinade Adeleke (2) v. ****** ******** Nigeria Limited unreported Suit No NICN/LA/211/2016; the judgment of which was delivered on 15th May 2019.   ** is not in DW’S ***** to tell the Court whether a document is ********** or not.  That question can only ** determined upon a proper interpretation ** the words of *** documents itself.  *** *** ** come by *** fact **** Exhibits C20 *** C21 only ***** to Organizations and Parastatals **** ** not **** ********** of service?  ** DW not in *** guise of ****** evidence, ************ ***** documents?  I think so.   The defendant ** an agency of the Federal Government and so especially ******* C21 is applicable ** Ministries, Departments *** Agencies (MDA) is applicable ** this case.  I so find *** hold.

 

  1. On ******* *** claimant has a valid appointment with *** 1st defendant, the position of the law is that when ** employment or Contract ** Service has ********* ******* in the sense that its ***** and ********** of service are specifically provided *** by statute ** regulations **** there under, it ** said ** be ********* by ******* and any person ** **** employment ****** a special ***** status **** and above *** ******** common law master and servant relationship. ** ******* ** termination ** discipline under such a contract the procedure laid down in *** applicable statute or regulations made there ***** must be *********** followed as *** breach would render *** exercise **** *** void.   In such a case, *** determination of the ******** ** termination or other disciplinary measure should be based *** ** *** agreement ******* the parties but ** *** terms as ********** ** the statute or *********** **** there under.  In Olaniyan & Ors v. University of Lagos (1985) 2 **** (Part 9) 509 *** Eporekun v. University of Lagos (1986) 4 NWLR (**** 34) 162 *** ********* were ********** on the provision ** section 17(1) of *** University of Lagos Act No. 3 of 1967.

 

  1. ** *** issue of appointment, *** document(s) which ********* *** relationship ******* employee is the service agreement or *** contract of service *** not a collective agreement. A ********** agreement, ** not binding on an individual employee *** the ******** unless **** ********** agreement is incorporated into the contract ** service or adopted ** **** of the ******** or ********* ** service. *** U.B.N Plc v. Soares. Suit No. CA/L/396/2000. Also cited in (2012) ** **** P. 50. See also A.C.B (Nig) *** v. Nwodikes (1996) 4 NWLR (** 443); UBN Ltd v. Edet (1993) 4 **** (Pt. 287) 288; Shiaubi v. *** Plc (1995) 4 NWLR (Pt. 388) 173.

 

  1. *** term “employer” ** stated to mean “any person who *** entered into a contract of employment ** ****** *** other person as an employee (worker) ****** for himself or for the service of any other person and includes *** agent, manager, or ****** of **** first ********* person and ***** ******** representative ** a deceased factor…” Exhibit CW1 dated 26th April 1991 *** headed: “OFFER OF APPOINTMENT ****** **** with reference to the claimant’s *********** for employment, *** Governing ******* ** FCE Technical, Umunze ** offer the claimant temporary *********** ** Assistant Lecturer on salary grade level USS 7/2 *** annum ** the ******* College of Education (Technical) ****** Anambra State. Notwithstanding **** *** ******** ******** his ****** ** *********** from *** services of Federal College of Education (Technical) ****** dated 6th ******** 2020 to *** Provost of the ******* (Exhibit CW40), ** ***** stands to reason **** the claimant had a valid *********** **** the 1st defendant. I ** hold.

 

  1. On ***** (2) whether *** ********** can ** compelled ** transfer the claimant’s service records, the ******** answered in the *********** that transfer of service ******* is a statutory **** not discretion, once ********** is valid; ** is submitted by the claimant that haven (sic) commenced his appointment **** the 1st ********* up to his resignation is as of ***** ******** to the transfer of *** record of service ** his new place of employ; that the ********** are ***** to transfer same upon the application of the claimant.

 

  1. To the claimant, the law is ******* **** ***** a public authority *** a ***** duty, mandamus **** lie. The ******** referred *** Court to the **** of ********* v. Abdul-Raheem (2009) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 384, where the Supreme Court **** that: (1) ***** employment is governed by statute, *** ******** must ****** strictly with the statute. (3) **** mandamus lies ** compel *********** of statutory duties, especially ***** refusal ** malicious ** ********** ******* in this *** (sic) ********** have a statutory **** under *** ******* Colleges ** Education Act to maintain *** transfer service records they ****** refused (sic) arbitrarily. **** based on this authority, *** claimant ***** the Court to hold **** the defendants *** bound ** transfer the record ** ******* of the ******** to his new place of employ.

 

  1. Exhibit CW11 is the 1st defendant’s ******* Conditions of Service for Colleges of Education. Chapter 15 on ********* of Service states that a senior ****** of staff on ********* appointment may resign his *********** by ****** ***** months’ notice ** writing to the Governing ******* or ** payment of one month’s ****** in lieu of notice unless his ***** ** appointment provided otherwise. ***** it becomes necessary *** the ******* to discontinue with *** services ** a member of staff on permanent appointment, the ******* ***** *********** with *** services of such member ** staff by giving three months’ salary (**** sum) in lieu of notice. *** ******** did not cite *** provision of Exhibit CW1. *** claimant’s ********** **** haven (sic) commenced his appointment with the 1st ********* without ********* to ******* CW1 (Revised Conditions of Service) ******* ********* ** *** ******* Conditions of Service ******* citing *** ********* therefore goes ** no issue. I so hold.

 

  1. I so hold because in the case of Olufeagba v. Abdul-Raheem, the appellants who were engaged as lecturers of, the University ** Ilorin **** actively involved ** ASUU strikes **** they disrupted ******** activities and examinations. The ‘respondents’ ******* to ****** an invitation ** the ********** authorities to **** *** *** matter, **** **** dismissed **** the ******** of the University on the ground of misconduct, ** wit ******* to discharge their ******** responsibilities and to comply with ******* directives. The ********** **** sued the *********** for declarations, inter alia, that *** *********** of their ************ with 3rd respondent is **** and void and **** the *********** were ***** ** comply **** the directives ** the ******* Government of ******* ** reinstate them.

 

  1. The case of ********* v. Abdul-Raheem (2009) 12 SC Part II had ********** to do with termination ** appointment *** 10 reliefs ****** by *** appellants *** ********** to do with ************* of the appellants. The claimant in the case at hand has nothing to ** with *********** of employment.

 

  1. Exhibit DW8 ***** 6th February 2020 and ****** thus by the claimant: Resignation from the Services of Federal College of Education (Technical), Umunze” in which *** ******** ***** ** officially notify *** Provost of F.C.E (T) Umunze of *** resignation **** *** services ** Federal College of ********* (Technical) Umunze as a chief lecturer **** Monday 10th day ** February 2020. Having voluntarily ******** from the ******* ** Education (Technical) Umunze, it is my determination that the ********** cannot be ********* to transfer claimant’s ******* records. I so hold. 

 

  1. Issue (3) is ******* considering the ******** of all that ********** between the claimant *** *** defendants, if *** claimant was ***** fair hearing. ** the claimant, the ********* ** 22 ******** *********** clear bias and ******** ** interest, ********* the cardinal ********* of justices “nemo judex ** causa sua”. ** *** claimant, ** is submitted that Exhibit CW28 ***** *** claimant’s good faith advice ** *** 3rd defendant ** handle ******* union election complaints dispassionate, ************* allegations ** interference. To *** claimant, a cursory look at Exhibit CW41 ***** persecution, ******* complaints, irregular, Ad-*** Committees, expulsion from Council ************* and **** trial relying ** fabricated evidence. ** is *** claimant’s ********** that phantom *** fabricated cases collapse under ****** v. UAC. ***** ******** **** one cannot ***** something on ******* and ****** it ** stand. That **** the ********** ** incurably bad it is bound to collapse.

 

  1. The ******** prayed *** Court to **** in favour ** the claimant ***** ** issue (3) that claimant was not given fair hearing as ******** for by section 36 ** *** ************ of *** Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended. On section 36 of 1999 Constitution, this Court **** in Suit No. NICN/LA/351/2013 between Prince Benjamin ***** Ikani v. Chairman/Chief Executive ******** Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA) & 2 ors, the ******** of which was delivered by Justice B.B. Kanyip PhD held ** paragraph 32 thus: 

“Part ** the claimant’s case especially in ***** of his ****** (1) ** that he *** retired ******* being heard ********** as the ******** was **** ** ** a product of petitions against him; ** such section 36(1) ** the 1999 Constitution *** breached. *** **** side as regards this submission ** that it **** foul of the Supreme ***** in Rev. Paul ***** v. Chidi Okoroafor & ors (2017) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1577) 410. In that case, the Supreme Court relying on Bakare v. LSCS (1992) 218 NWLR (Pt. 266) 699-700 *** ******* v. CBN (2013) 15 NWLR (1377) 224 at 262-263, held that ****** of a fundamental right under ******* 36(1) of *** ************ arises only ***** the denial of fair hearing has **** charged against a Court of Tribunal established ** law *** not ****** ******** ** standing ad-*** tribunal raised departmentally by parties. In other words, ***** would ** no case of infringement of *** right to fair ******* under section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution ** *** claimant would accordingly be uncalled for ***** the disciplinary process *** ******** complains of ** the instant **** ** *** ******** ** a **** **** ** not a Court or Tribunal established by law ** to enable *** ******** assert that the defendants did not ****** with section 36(1) ** *** 1999 Constitution. Because the claimant is relying on section 36(1) of the 1999 ************ it cannot ******* in *** ****** (1) ****** the ********* of Rev Prof **** Emeka v. *** Dr. ***** Okoroafor & ors. Relief (1) *********** fails and is dismissed.”  

 

  1. ** the **** of University of Uyo v. Essel (2006) ***** (Pt. 315) 80 at *** para C-E the ***** ** ****** **** per Adamu *** thus: Courts do not ********* with the internal administration of an institution or university. Fair hearing need not ** oral, ******* ***** equally good and ********** hearing. All that is ******** ** for the Committee/***** to write ** the ***** and confront him **** the ********** **** against him. ** need not ** ******* to ****** ****** at *** alteration ** the Committee/***** where his fate *** determined. Abubakar ****** Ali *********** v. Maina (2005) 10 **** (Pt. 934) Page 487 ** page 516 Paras D-F *** Ogbuagu, *** (** ** then was). ***** by the authorities ***** it is clear and evident that the claimant was given fair hearing ** *** defendants. I so hold. Section 36 of the 1999 ************ (** amended) and going by the cases cited, the claimant was given fair ******* by the 1st defendant. I so hold.

 

  1. ***** (4) is whether *** ******** has proved his case on the ******* ** convenience to entitle him to his claims/******* ****** in this suit.  It is *** submission of *** claimant **** he *** ****** his case on the ******* of *********** to entitle *** to *** claims/reliefs sought in this suit. That ******* at Exhibit DW2 – Registrar’s document authored by the 4th defendant, ****** fabricated, and ************ under section 83 (1) of the Evidence Act 2011; that Exhibit DW3 – ****** authored by Dr. D.I. ***** (3rd ********* brother-in-law) biased and irrelevant.  **** ******* DW5 – SSDC report is tainted by bias ***** CW16 *********** sat as judge; collapses ***** ********* v. ***** Raheem (supra); that Exhibit DW6 – Minority report and affidavit on suspended SUG election, irregular and fabricated; 4of 9 ******* **** very junior staff.

 

  1. ** is the claimant’s submission that all the ********** exhibits ******** ***** CW12, CW4, CW5, CW6, CW7, CW8, CW9, CW28, CW40, CW41, CW47, CW55, CW56, CW57, CW58 *** CW59 which suggests that constructive dismissal persecution, fabricated petitions, systemic bias, hostile *********** ****** the claimant’s resignation.  The claimant ******** the Court to *** case of ***** v. ******* Bank Plc (2016) LPELR – 400093 (CA) where *** ***** held that constructive dismissal ****** when ** employee resigns (sic) due to hostile ** *********** conditions created by the employer, **** though the employee resigns due ** hostile ** intolerable ********** ******* by the employer, even though the employee resigns”, the law ****** it as if the employer wrongfully terminated *** employment which means that ********* cannot *********** force ********* out through persecution *** ******* conditions.  **** were *********** is ********* ** the employer’s oppressive conduct, the employee is entitled to remedies for wrongful *********** including damages. The ******** submitted **** the defendants had made the ********* place of work intolerable *** inconducive which ******* *** ******** into ********* his appointment.

 

  1. Having dismissed ****** (2) and (3) of the claimant’s claim. I am of the **** view that the ********** to consider issue (4) tantamounts ** a hypothetical/academic exercise. See Imegwu v. Okolocha & ors (2013) LPELR-19886 (SC), Olafisoye v. FRN (2004) 4 NWLR (Pt. 864) 580 at 654-655, Mamman v. Salaudeen (2005) 125 SCM 260; (2005) 18 NWLR (Pt. 958) 478 at 500

 

  1. Claimant’s case fails *** ** ****** dismissed. I so order.

 

  1. ******** is ******* accordingly. I make ** ***** as ** cost.

 

Hon. Justice J.I. Targema, PhD

 

Created with WordToHTML.net trial.