Media
- Home
- Details
Ibadan – Presiding Judge of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, Ibadan division, His Lordship, Hon. Justice Dele Peters has declared the suspension and purported dismissal of Mr. D.O Olasoji by Obafemi Awolowo University Teaching Hospitals Management Board as communicated via letters dated 7th November, 1996 and 27th January, 1997 respectively as null and void, that the act and manner of the dismissal is ultra vires, illegal and unconstitutional being in breach of the Act of 1990 establishing the institution.
This case has a rather long and chequered history. By a Writ of Summons dated 21/11/97, the Claimant had commenced this case at the Federal High Court, Osogbo and the Court upheld the preliminary objection that the matter was barred with the law of limitation, Public Officers' Protection Act, Cap. P41, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 and accordingly dismissed the suit for lack of jurisdiction.
The Court of Appeal remitted the case back to the lower Court for trial. Now, with the coming in to force of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, (Third Alteration) Act, 2010, the case was transferred to the National Industrial Court of Nigeria for hearing and determination.
In his originating processes filed on 6/5/14, the Claimant sought against defendant among others; Declaration that the purported dismissal of the claimant from defendant’s service as communicated to the claimant in a letter ref. PC.6080/43 of 27th January, 1997 is null and void as the act and manner of the said dismissal is ultra vires, illegal and unconstitutional being in breach of the said Act of 1990 and claimant’s constitutional right of hearing.
Declaration that the suspension of the claimant by a letter dated 7thNovember, 1996 is null and void being contrary to the provision of the Act of 1990 and therefore of no effect whatsoever.
Likewise, An order directing the defendant to refund to the claimant such sum as have been wrongfully withheld from him as a result of the wrongful suspension effected by virtue of letter ref. 6080/41 of 7th November, 1996.
The case of the Claimant as revealed from his evidence in chief is that he was appointed by the respondent as a Clerical Assistant by a letter of 11/1/83 but upgraded to a Clerical Officer 19/10/83 that he received a query dated 29/10/96 to which he responded; later invited before the Panel of Enquiry set up by the “Management” and subsequently suspended by the “Management” through a letter on 7/11/96; that consequent upon the report of the Panel set up by the ‘Management’ he was dismissed which was communicated to him through a letter dated 27/1/97.
That he instituted the case when there was no response to his letter of appeal dated 29/9/97; that his appointment is permanent and pensionable and had spent 14 years in the defendant’s service and still has more years to serve until he reaches retirement age.
The case of the Defendant from the evidence in chief of the witness was that the claimant was alleged of misconduct and Panel was conducted in compliance with the rules of natural justice and the constitutional demands of fair hearing; that the Claimant was given all opportunity to make his case and he did make his case without fear or bias; that the Panel thoroughly investigated the facts surrounding the conduct of the Claimant as a staff of the Defendant; that the facts before the Panel were “overwhelmingly convincing” of the case against the Claimant; that the Panel found that the Claimant’s acts have brought serious damage to the image and reputation of the Defendant, that the Panel found the acts of the Claimant as gross misconduct warranting his dismissal from the Defendant’s service.
That Claimant was treated in accordance with all laws, rules and extant provisions relating to his employment and his status in the defendant's employ and also that both the suspension and dismissal of the Claimant are not contrary to the University Teaching Hospitals (Reconstitution of Boards, etc) Act, 1990 and that the statute the service of the Claimant with the Defendant is one protected by that statute that the Claimant being a junior staff of the Defendant his employment does not enjoy statutory protection.
After careful evaluation of all the processes filed, and the submissions of the learned Counsel from both sides. The Court presided by Hon. Justice Dele Peters expressed thus;
“I have examined nearly in detail the statutory provision on the establishment and powers of the Defendant. It was not argued before me that the Claimant was not a staff of the Defendant. It is also obvious from the provision of the statute that notwithstanding that the Claimant was a junior staff, the Act establishing the Defendant offered his employment some measure of protection especially respecting the determination of same.
“I dare add that the argument that the Claimant being a junior staff of the Defendant his employment is not protected by the statute tends to demean the contribution of a junior staff to an establishment.
“The alleged Panel of Enquiry was not set up either by or on behalf of the Chief Medical Director. It is not out of place to say that the Chief Medical Director abdicated his statutory responsibility in relation the discipline of the Claimant in the instant case.
“My finding is that the Defendant did not comply with the procedure laid down in its establishment Act in dismissing the Claimant."
The court declared the suspension and purported dismissal of the claimant from defendant’s service as communicated to the claimant on 7th November, 1996 and 27th January, 1997 respectively as null and void as the act and manner of the said dismissal is ultra vires, illegal and unconstitutional being in breach of the said Act of 1990 establishing the Defendant.
His Lordship ordered Defendant to reinstate the Claimant to his post and office as Clerical Officer in its service with all his salaries and entitlement due since the unlawful dismissal and without prejudice to his promotion prospects.
“The Defendant is here ordered to refund to the Claimant such sum as have been wrongfully withheld from him as a result of the wrongful suspension effected by virtue of letter ref. 6080/41 of 7th November, 1996” and =N=100,000.00 cost of action.
In all, all terms contained in the judgment are to be complied with within 30 days from today.--His Lordship rules
