IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA IN THE IBADAN JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT IBADAN

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE Y. M. HASSAN

 

DATE: 23TH JULY, 2025. SUIT NO. NICN/IB/54/2023

BETWEEN

MR. MATTHEW OLANIYI OLADEJI ------------------- CLAIMANT

AND

THE OKE-OGUN POLYTECHNIC, SAKI

(For Himself and On Behalf of Other Members of the Governing Council of The Oke-Ogun Polytechnic, Saki)

2. The OKE-OGUN POLYTECHNIC, SAKI
3.  ATTORNEY GENERAL AND COMMISSIONER FOR JUSTICE OF OYO STATE.

 

REPRESENTATION

D. S. Olabode for the Claimant.

Chief Olusola Orobode with Adewale Adegoke for the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants.

JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

1. By a General Form of Complaint dated the 26^th day of September, 2023 and filed on 28^th day of September, 2023, accompanied by

 

statement of facts and other originating processes, wherein the Claimant sought for the following reliefs agents the Defendants as follows:-

 

 

 

 

aside the query, suspension and the dismissal of the Claimant from the service of the 2^nd Defendant by the 1^st Defendant forthwith.

 

REINSTATING the Claimant forthwith, to the service of the 2^nd Defendant and be placed on the status and position of Chief Lecturer which the Claimant was but for the illegal and irregular dismissal of the Claimant from the service of the 2^nd Defendant on 06/07/2023 by the 1^st Defendant.

 

1^st and 2^nd Defendants jointly and severally to pay the sum of N541,303.22 being the half salary of the Claimant, irregularly withheld by 1^st and 2^nd Defendants for the months of May and June, 2023, forthwith.

 

1^st and 2^nd Defendants jointly and severally to pay the Claimant forthwith, a sum of N10,000,000 (Ten Million Naira) general damages for wrongful, irregular and illegal dismissal of the Claimant by the 1^st Defendant from the service of the 2^nd Defendant.

 

1^st and 2^nd Defendants jointly and severally to pay the Claimant forthwith, a sum of N100,000,000 (One Hundred Million Naira) as punitive and exemplary damages for irregular, illegal, wrongful, arbitrary and intentional dismissal of the Claimant by the 1^st Defendant from the service of the 2^nd Defendant.

 

ALTERNATIVELY:

1^st and 2^nd Defendants jointly and severally to pay the Claimant forthwith, the sum of N24,358,644.90 being the total salary of the Claimant between July, 2023 and March, 2027 when the Claimant would have served out statutory 35 years of service at the rate of 541,303.22 per month.

 

1^st and 2^nd Defendants jointly and severally to pay to the Claimant forthwith, the sum of N17,388,115.56 being the Claimant’s gratuity for being in the service of the 2^nd Defendant for 35 years between 1992 and 2027 but for wrongful dismissal of the Claimant from the service of 2^nd Defendant by the 1^st Defendant.

 

 

 

CASE OF THE CLAIMANT

 

 

That his employment is one with statutory flavor. That he steadily and painstakingly pursued his career as a public servant and rose through the ranks to the post of Principal Lecturer; and further to the post of Senior Principal Lecturer in 2008. That Saki Campus of The Polytechnic, Ibadan ceased to be, but transformed to an autonomous academic

 

institution in 2013 by virtue of the Oke-Ogun Polytechnic, Saki Law, 2023; and the 2^nd Defendant was accordingly established. That his service as a staff of the Polytechnic, Ibadan was transferred to TOPS, (the 2^nd Defendant) as enshrined in the law establishing the 2^nd Defendant with the Claimant’s full rights, privileges and benefits. That the Claimant’s employment, promotion and discipline with the 2^nd Defendant is further governed and regulated by the Claimant’s letter of employment and the Oke-Ogun Polytechnic Saki Law, 2013.

That at TOPS, (the 2^nd Defendant), by virtue of the letter dated 20/04/2016 titled “Re-Designation from the Senior Principal Lecturer to Chief Lecturer. That he was a Senior Academic Staff as Chief Lecturer at TOPS as at 12/07/2023 when the 1^st Defendant’s letter dated 06/07/2023 titled “Letter of Dismissal from the Service of the Oke-Ogun Polytechnic, Saki” purportedly dismissed him from the service of 2^nd Defendant was delivered to him. That he was appointed as Acting Rector of TOPS and subsequently as pioneer and substantive Rectors of TOPS (2^nd Defendant). That the 1^st Defendant revoked his appointment as former substantive Rector of 2^nd Defendant and that he wrote a letter titled- “Governor Seyi Makinde and the word must hear this”. Where he called the attention of the Governor of Oyo State as to the improper running, management and happening at TOPS (2^ND Defendant). That the 2^nd Defendant issued him with a query based on his letter of 10/05/2023 written to Governor of Oyo State. And that he received the said query on 19/05/2023 on Friday. That he submitted his response to the query on 22/05/2023. That the Governing Council suspended him from the service of the 2^nd Defendant with immediate effect via a termination on the 19/05/2023 on the same date the query was delivered to him and that he was placed on half salary and prohibited from travelling out of the country pending the investigation safe by the express permission of the 1^st Defendant. That, since 19/05/2023 that 1^st Defendant purportedly suspended him; and 06/07/2023 that the he was irregularly and wrongfully dismissed from the service of the 2^nd Defendant by the 1^st Defendant, no Investigation Panel sat to investigate any allegation against the him nor was the be invited formally or informally nor by any means/medium whatsoever to appear before any Panel whosoever. That

 

he avers further neither the Governing Council nor any person/authority whosoever ever constituted any Investigation Panel nor Investigation Committee to investigate any allegation against him. That the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants did not comply with the provisions of section 29 of The Oke-Ogun Polytechnic Saki Law, 2013 in Dismissing him Claimant from the service of the 2^nd Defendant.

 

That as at April, 2023, he as a senior academic staff of 2^nd Defendant, was on CONPCAS 9/9 which is the uppermost cadre/level for academic staff of 2^nd Defendant and he had attained the said status/position since 2016. That as CONPCAS 9/9, he earned N541,303.22 in April, 2023 as his monthly salary. That as a staff of 2^nd Defendant, he is entitled to be paid gratuity after he must have served out 35 years in service of 2^nd Defendant and statutorily retire therefrom on 03/04/2027 when he would turn 65 years of age. That by regulation of 2^nd Defendant as contained in her staff handbook, 2022 being condition of service for staff of the Oke- Ogun Polytechnic, Saki (TOPS) at page 37, he is entitled to be paid as gratuity, the sum of N17,388,115.56 representing 300% of the his annual basic salary which is, N483,003.21 x 12 x 300% = N17,388,115.56. That between July, 2023 that he was purportedly dismissed from the service of 2^nd Defendant; and 03/04/2027 that the he would turn 65 years of age and 35 years in the service of 2^nd Defendant but for the said purported dismissal are 45 months (July, March, 2027). That his monthly salary cumulatively for 45 months aforesaid at the rate of N541,303.22 per month is N24,358,644.90.

 

That since 19/05/2023 that the Governing Council purportedly suspended him; and 06/07/2023 that the 1^st Defendant irregularly dismissed the him from the service of the 2^nd Defendant, the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants paid the him half salary for the months of May, 2023 and June, 2023 which was a sum of N270,165.05 respectively, being the half of N541,303.22. That the query, suspension and eventual dismissal of him from the service of 2^nd Defendant by the 1^st Defendant negates the principles of natural justice, equity and good conscience. That he did

 

nothing wrong to earn query, let alone suspension nor dismissal from the service of 2^nd Defendant.

 

That upon the purported query and suspension from the service of 2^nd Defendant by 1^st Defendant, he through his solicitor, D. S. Olabode sent a letter dated 22/05/2023 and titled “SAVE OUR CLIENT’S JOB” to the Governor of Oyo State to prevent the 1^st Defendant from illegally dismissing the Claimant from the service of 2^nd Defendant but to no avail. That upon his illegal dismissal from service of 2^nd Defendant by 1^st Defendant in gross violation of Section 29 of the Oke-Ogun Polytechnic, Saki Law, 2013, he through his solicitor, D. S. Olabode formally, made application/representation to the 3^rd Defendant as the Chief Law Officer of Oyo State for the review and reinstatement back to the service of 2^nd Defendant vide a letter dated 15/09/2023 but to no avail.

 

5. Testifying under cross examination by the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants’ counsel, CW1 stated inter alia that he was dismissed as an employee of a polytechnic Saki. That he was suspended on 19^th May, 2023 before dismissal. That he was issued query by the acting Registrar who double as Secretary to the Governing council dated 17^th May 2023 and was served the query on the 19^th May, 2023, a Friday. That he reply the query and channeled it through the chain the query came to him. That the Governing council has the power to issue him query if due process is follow. That he has never came across such as Oath Act and he knows government secret must not be disclosed. That he was appointed Acting Rector in 2014 and substantive Rector in 2015. That the procedure for appointment of Rector is contained in the law establishing the institution and it is before the Court. That the 2^nd Defendant was established by the law of Oyo State. That governing Council appointed him as a staff of the 2^nd Defendant and the Governing council was appointed by Governor of Oyo State. That his allegiance is with the Governing council his employer. That he is aware that a visitation panel was constituted to look into Management Crisis not financial impropriety in the school and that he attended the panel. That he obeyed all lawful constituted authority.

 

That he was queried, suspended and dismissed without trial all in 2023 because of a letter he wrote to the Governor of Oyo State through the right channel.

 

 

1^st and 2^nd DEFENDANTS’ CASE

 

7. On the 28^th member, 2024, the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants opened their defense, called one witness by name Jimoh Olatunji Adigun, a retired Registrar of the 2^nd Defendant, who testified as DW1. He adopted his statement on Oath dated 24^th July, 2024 as his evidence-in-chief and tendered in evidence 19 documents out of which 12 were objected to by the Claimant’s counsel and leave was granted him to address the Court on the grounds of his objection at address stage and the documents were simply marked accordingly and the others not objected were admitted in evidence and marked accordingly. The case of the 1^st and 2^nd Defendant briefly in the Amended Statement of Defense and the evidence led is that the Oyo State Government owns the 2^nd Defendant and provides it with subventions for its smooth running every month. That the Oyo State Governor established position is further confirmed by the fact that the Governing Council members were appointed by the Oyo State Government and the Governing council was inaugurated by the Governor of Oyo State as Chief Executive of the State on the 15^th January 2018.

 

That by convention and global practices, the Governor of every states are the visitors to all the institutions owned by their respective states. That just as the President is the Visitor to all the Federal Government owned educational institutions. That the Claimant was properly and lawfully dismissed from the institution on ground of gross misconduct. That due notices were issued to the Claimant before his dismissal some of which the Claimant treated with flagrant disregard and reckless abandon. That each time the Claimant is served with queries he restored to playing to the gallery and wrote to the ‘World with flagrant disregards to Public Service Rules, General Order and laid down principles for Senior Officers of his status. That each opportunity afforded the Claimant to make representations on the myriads of allegations against him were arrogantly rebuffed.

That by the letter of the 1^st Defendant to the Claimant reference no TOPS/PER/374/1/113 dated 19/05/2023, the Claimant was placed on suspension to allow for investigation and was duly notified of settling up a 5 man investigation panel. A panel that the Claimant refused to attend or dignified with attention to make representations and defend himself. That the letter 10/05/23 which the Claimant routed outside the council was a direct affront, official recklessness and insubordination coming under the heading of gross misconduct capable of putting the authorities into global opprobrium in same having been addressed also to the world unbecoming of a serving public officer like Claimant. That the Claimant sustainably through his acts and conducts disrespected the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants and acted in ways calculated to make the entire institution ungovernable for the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants. That the Claimant was presented with all opportunities to Defend himself of all the allegation of insubordination, nepotism, official corruption but refused to avail himself of the opportunities.

That at its regular meeting held on 3^rd and 4^th April 2019, the Defendant came up with an internal memo captioned “Decision Extract” dated 8/4/2023 where it decided on the modalities to adopt in dealing with

 

series of allegation made against the management led by the Claimant so as to afford the Claimant fair hearing and opportunity to make representation and defend himself. That after the five-man panel report, the owners of the school led by the Executive Governor of Oyo State who by convention is the visitor to the institution realizing the recalcitrance of the Claimant set up a visitation panel to holistically look into all the problems and situations of the Tops and make long tasting recommendations. That by sudden twist of events, the Claimant came out of his shell by appearing before the visitation panel and made representations upon which a white paper was issued indicting the Claimant on his appointment as Rector and directing a father investigation into all financial misconduct levied against the Claimant after the panel had afforded him the opportunity to make representations which he did.

 

That in order to allow for free investigation into all allegation against the Claimant by ICPC, the Claimant was put on suspension. That after the Claimant suspension, there were outcry from concerned stakeholder particularly the labour community pushing for the implementation of the governments white paper. That at the visitation panel the Claimant was afforded full fair hearing and he freely made representations contrary to the Claimant’s averment that he was not fairly heard. That in order to implement the white paper the appointment of the Rector was revoked via a letter dated 19/4/2023 with ref no: TOPS/PER/374/1/113. That in his reaction to the letter of 19/4/2023 the Claimant wrote a letter in contravention of public service rules and approved mode of communication to the Executive Governor of Oyo State without routing through the Governing Council insulting the Governor of Oyo State, derogating the officer of the chairman of the Governing Council and his occupant which amounted to an act of grave insubordination in the eyes of the Governing Council from a public servant and thereby laying dangerous precedents for subordinate staff.

 

That apart from addressing the said letter to the Executive Governor of Oyo State contrary to the official secret code characteristics of public

 

service, the Claimant also addressed the letter to the whole public. That the members of the council were summoned by the office of the Governor and briefed on the next line to take in order to save the institution of the impurity of one single man. That the letter to the Executive Governor was the last straw which informed the query issued to the Claimant by the council Ref no TOPS/PER/374/1/115 dated 17/5/2023 titled “insubordination and disrespect to constituted Authority” That in his characteristic manner the Claimant failed to respond to the query of 17/5/2032 which bother on gross misconduct thus necessitating the Defendant to resort to the brief they received from the Governor Office to dismiss the Claimant so as to free the jugular of the institution from the strangle hold of the Claimant in line with the law of the institution. That the Claimant was dismissed in line with the public service rules regarding the peculiar circumstances of his case as well as the enabling law on the removal of a member of the Council which the Claimant is from office after official recommendation had been made to the Governor of Oyo State.

 

8. While testifying under cross examination by the Claimant’s counsel, DW1 stated among other things that, he is aware that at a point Prof Sunday Adeshola Ajayi was appointed as chairman of the Governing Counsel of the 2^nd Defendant by Oyo State Government. That as at 6^th July 2023 when the Claimant was dismissed, he was a senior academics and senior lecturer at 2^nd Defendant. That he is aware that the law establishing the 2^nd Defendant contains procedures for discipline of staff among other thing. That between 18^th of May 2023 and 19^th May 2023 by 10: am, the 24 hours given to respond to the query has lapsed so the respond stated there is negative respond and that is why no date or reference number were not quoted and it was after the expiration of 24 hours that the letter of suspension was written (Exhibit A16). Also that Exhibit A15 did not answer the query and even up till 5^th July 2023 when he was dismissed, he did not answer the query. That the Claimant was queried because he wrote Exhibit A12. That investigating panel was

 

not set –up because the Claimant did not answer the query till 6^th July 2023. And that according to their custom, both the query and the respond must be sent to investigative panel for further investigation. That the Claimant was placed on half salary for the months of May and June 2023 by virtue of Exhibit A16 because he was on suspension. That staff of 2^nd Defendant are entitled to be paid gratuity unless if a staff is dismissed from service. That a dismissed staff is not entitled to salary. That under normal circumstances, the academic staff of the 2^nd Defendant are to remain in service until they attained the age of 65 years. That he retired from the service of the 2^nd Defendant on in February 2023 and was given a year contract service by the Governing counsel. That the query issued to the Claimant, the suspension and the dismissal were handed down to the Claimant by his status as lecturer and academic staff of 2^nd Defendant institution in 2023.

9. Also, DW1 stated under cross – examination by the 3^rd Defendant’s counsel that Exhibits A6 and A20 are the ones governing procedural steps to try and discipline an arising officer and that a part from that the 1^st and 2^nd Defendant equally have a custom that also governs disciplinary procedure. That any erring officer who do not give answer to the query issued on him, the counsel does not need to set up a disciplinary panel. That any arning officer who did not give answer to the query issued on him the council does not need to set up a disciplinary panel.
10. Under re – examination, DW1 stated that what he referred to any custom also means rules of general practice.

3^RD DEFENDANT’S CASE

11. The 3^rd Defendant opened its defense on 22^nd January, 2025 called one witness by BUSARI MUNIR ADEWALE a deputy Registrar, Registry department of the 2^nd Defendant. Who testified as DW2. He adopted his statement on oath dated 21^st day of January 2025 as his evidence – in chief and tendered in evidence one document which was

 

admitted and marked accordingly. The case put forward by the 3^rd Defendant by its pleadings and evidence led is that the 2^nd Defendant is an autonomous academic institution by being ceased to be a campus of the Polytechnic Ibadan from the date of commencement of the Oke Ogun Polytechnic Saki LAW, 2013.

That Governor of Oyo State and Ministry of Education, Oyo State have overriding and regulatory control over the 2^nd Defendant. That the 2^nd Defendant is an Oyo State Government owned Institution/School. That Governor gives subventions to the 2^nd Defendant and appoints the Chairman of the Governing Council of the 2^nd Defendant. That the dismissal of the Claimant was done in accordance with the law.

That the Claimant’s letter of appointment and condition therein do not make the Claimant’s employment that of statutory flavor. That it is not a must for a civil servant to spend 35 years in service. That a civil servant can also retire before attainment of 65 years of age. That the Claimant was dismissed for insubordination among others, against the Claimant’s employer.

That the Claimant was queried and was subsequently dismissed from service of the 2^nd Defendant on the acts of the Claimant not properly channeling the Claimant letter dated 10^th May, 2023 titled “Governor Seyi Makinde and the world must hear this” and challenging the authority of the Executive Governor of Oyo State and the Governing Council of the 2^nd Defendant. That these act of the Claimant amount to insubordination and considered with seriousness which attracts penalty of summary dismissal as insubordination ranks as one of the worst form of misconduct in any establishment. That Oyo state Government set up a visitation panel to look into and find lasting solution to the management crisis frustrating the smooth running of the 2^nd Defendant. That Claimant participated fully in the proceeding of visitation panel and one of the panel’s term of reference was to “consider the process of appointment of

 

the management team in 2014 in relation to the observance of due process”.

That the panel found that the appointment of substantive principal officers including the Claimant was fraught with irregularities and the appointment of the principal officers were revoked on the recommendation of the visitation panel and approval of the Government. That the Claimant letter dated 10/10/2023 was not properly routed. The letter did not pass through the Honourable Commission of Education; the head of the supervising ministry for the 2^nd Defendant. That the Governing Council of the 2^nd Defendant issued query on 17^th May, 2023 to the Claimant.

That the Claimant’s response dated 22^nd May 2023 to the query was submitted to the Acting Registrar of the 2^nd Defendant on 22^nd May, 2023. That the Claimant in the Claimant’s response failed and neglected to answer and addressed the questions contained in the query dated 17^th May, 2023. That the Internal Memorandum titled “Suspension Form Duties” was not premeditated. That service of suspension letter on the Claimant does not affect the rule of natural Justice and that the Claimant was legally dismissed pursuant to the query and the Claimant’s response to query. That by practice of the 2^nd Defendant, where an officer facing disciplinary action failed in the query or the officer failed to give direct answer to the query, the officer may be dismissed accordingly, without setting up a disciplinary committee/Panel or board of inquiry. That the Claimant was afforded fair hearing by issuance of query and the Claimant’s written response to the query afforded the Claimant the opportunity to be heard.

That the Claimant was dismissed on 06/07/2023 and the Claimant is no longer entitled to any gratuity or benefit whatsoever from the Defendants. That the Claimant was dismissed on 06/07/2023 and the Claimant has not been working for the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants and has not earned any salary. That the Claimant is also not entitled to any

 

payment of balance of half salary for the months of May, 2023 and June 2023.That the Claimant was dismissed because the Claimant challenged the authorities of the Defendant (among other grounds) contrary to civil service rules and not out of malice, hatred, calumny and intolerance. That the claims of the Claimant are baseless, frivolous and lack merit and same should be dismissed with a substantial cost.

12. DW2 stated during cross – examination by the Claimant’s counsel that as at May 2023 and 6^th July 2023 that the Claimant was queried, suspended and dismissed from the service of 2^nd Defendant, the Claimant was a chief lecturer and senior academic staff of the 2^nd Defendant. That Exhibits A6 and A20 are the instruments that governs the operations of 2^nd Defendant. That no committee was set up to investigate any wrong doing against the Claimant before he was dismissed. That Claimant was queried by the Governing Council because he wrote Exhibit A12. That the visitation panel set – up by Oyo State Government has nothing to do with the Claimant’s dismissal. That when the Claimant’s was dismissed on July 6, 2023, he was not a member of management team or principal officer of the 2^nd Defendant but he was just a chief lecturer and senior academic staff of the 2^nd Defendant. That the Governing Council that dismissed the Claimant is acting under the authority of the Governor of Oyo State who is the visitor to the institution and ably represented by the Governing Council.
13. In his further testimony under cross examination by the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants counsel, DW2 stated inter alia that the Claimant was queried and in the said query some questions were asked which the Claimant did not answer in his reply. That Exhibit A41 is not strange to him and is part of the rules, guidelines and laws that is being used in the institution.

 

 

FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESSES

 

 

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF 1^ST AND 2^ND DEFENDANT

16. In the said final written address, learned counsel to the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants, Chief Olusola Orobode, Esq. distilled three issues for determination, to wit:-
    1. Whether the Claimant successfully proved his case so as to be entitled to the reliefs sought in this case.
    2. Whether by the plurditry of evidence placed before this honourable Court, the Claimant was not given and afforded opportunities to make representations to answer to the alleged of misconduct made against him before his lawful dismissal.
    3. whether the Claimant dismissal was not done bonafide and in line with the provision of relevant laws and in accordance with laid down procedure in condition of service.
17. In arguing the issues, counsel submitted that the Claimant has woefully failed to discharge the onus on him. Counsel referred the Court to paragraphs 6 and 11 of the Claimant’s statement of fact and stated that there is no controversy that the employment of the Claimant has statutory favour.
18. Counsel referred the Court to Exhibit A12 which is the same as Exhibit A35 and stated that the 1^st and 2^nd Defendant as a result and in line with Article 10.10 of the staff Handbook Oke – Ogun Polytechnic

 

Saki 2022, Rule 030302 to 030306, the 2^nd Defendants caused a query to be served on the Claimant raising specific questions to be specifically answered by the Claimant within specified time and period. Same is admitted as Exhibit A36 dated 19^th April 2023 this is provided for in Rule 030307 in the Oyo State Public Service Rule 2013 and same was dully served on the Claimant.

 

 

 

 

22. It is the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants’ counsel contention that all parties are adi dem that the following laws are the applicable laws and this Court will have to construe and combine effect of the laws as it relates to the discipline of erring staff on misconduct and serious misconduct with regard to dismissal and the requisite procedure to adopt before a staff is dismissed. That they are:
    1. Oyo State Civil Service Commission Regulations, Laws of Oyo State 2000.
    2. Oyo State Public Service Rules, 2013.
    3. The Enabling Law of the Oke Ogun Polytechnic.
    4. The Oke Ogun Polytechnic Staff Hand book 2022

 

23. In another submission, counsel stated that the public service rules having been made pursuant to the provision of the 1999 constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria has the effect of the constitution. He referred to the Supreme Court decision in FCSC V. LAOYE (1989) 2 NWLR (PT. 106) 652 SC.
24. Again, counsel contended that it is trite that when an employee or former employee complains that his employer is in breach of the condition of service by wrongfully withholding the payment of his gratuity to which he claims he is entitled under the said conditions of service, he has onus:
    1. To place before the Court the Staff conditions of service or terms of the contract of employment.
    2. To prove in what manner the staff conditions of service or terms of contract of service were breached by the employer. He relied on the case of Federal Mortgage Finance Ltd V. Ekpo (2004) 2 NWLR (pt. 856) 100.
25. Contending further, counsel stated that the Claimant was afforded fair hearing and that each successive opportunity afforded the Claimant was rebuffed with ignominy.
26. Arguing moreso, counsel stated that the Claimant did not deny the authorship of the Exhibit A16. He also did not deny at trial that he was served query in respect of his act of insubordination to constituted Authority. However, the Claimant failed and neglected to place before this Honourable Court a corresponding Exculpatory representation which answered seriatim the questions outlined in the query served on him to defend himself and therefore refused out rightly to make written representations response to the query served on him.
27. In another argument, counsel referred the Court to Exhibits A15 and A16 and submitted that the refusal of the Claimant to submit exculpatory representation as clear the coast for the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants to take

 

appropriate decision they deem fit on the alleged misconduct hanging on the neck of the Claimant and urged the Court to so hold. Reference was made to Article 10.10 of Exhibit A20. Section 59(1) & (2) of Civil Service Commission Regulation Law of Oyo State, 2000 and the cases of AJAYI V. TEXACO NIG. LTD (1987) 3 NWLR (PT. 62)577 (SC); YUSUF V. O.N (1996) 7 NWLR (PT. 463) 746’; FBN V. AKANJI

(2017) LPELR – 43555.

V. UGBOAJA (1993) 6 NWLR (PT. 301) 539; OKOBI V. STANBIC

BANK PLC (2013) 30 NWLR (PT. 86) 241; UZONDU V. UBA PLC

(2011) 22 NLLR (PT. 63) 392.

V. NBN LTD (2024) 43 NLLR (PT. 137) 520.

30. Consequently, counsel submitted that the Claimant’s dismissal was in line with the provision of Oyo State Government Public Service Rules of January, 2013 which the Claimant has also agreed with.
31. In another submission, Counsel stated that where an employer in an employment with statutory flavor issued a query to his staff to make

 

exculpatory representation within specific time and such an employee refused, neglect and failed to respond to such query in a manner satisfactory to his employer as in the instant case, the employer shall have no further duty than to proceed to dismiss such a staff. He cited the cases of ANTE V. UNIVERSITY OG. CALABAT (2001) 3 NWLR (PT 700) 239 CA; YUSUF V. UBN LTD (1996) LPELR – 3537 (SC).

Article 10.10 (F) of Exhibit A20, Exhibit A41.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF 3^RD DEFENDANT

33. In the said written address, learned counsel to the 3^rd Defendant, Rasaq A Lasisi, Esq. formulated four issues for determination which are as follows:-
    1. whether the dismissal of the Claimant from the service of the 2^nd Defendant follows due processes, having regard to Exhibit A14 (Internal Memorandum dated 17^th May, 2023), Exhibit A15 (Internal Memorandum dated 22^nd May 2023), All (Letter of dismissal from the service of the Oke Ogun Polytechnic, Saki dated 6^th July 2023) and Exhibit A41 (Oyo State Public Service Rule).
    2. whether on the face of Exhibit A12 (titled: Governor Seyi Makinde and the World must hear this) which amounts to an insubordination to the Governing Council of the 2^nd Defendant, the Claimant can be dismissed summarily.
    3. whether the Claimant has discharged the burden of proving his case successfully and entitled to the reliefs sought.

 

34. Learned counsel argued issues one, two and three together and submitted that the dismissal of the Claimant follows due process of disciplinary action obtainable in the 2^nd Defendant. Counsel relied on Exhibits A11, A14, A15 A41 A6 and A20.
35. In another submission, counsel stated that it is an elementary principle of law of evidence that documentary evidence is the best form of evidence. Counsel referred the Court to Exhibit A 12 and contended that the content of the said exhibit proves the acts of insubordination and disrespectful act, of the Claimant to the authority of the Executive Governor of Oyo State, the Executive council of Oyo State and the governing Council of the Oke Ogun Polytechnic Saki.

 

 

123 at 167-168, paras H-C.

 

38. Moreso, counsel referred the Court to paragraphs 23 and 24 of DW2 statement on Oath, Exhibit A41 as well as testimony of DW1 and Dw2 under cross examination and contended that any erring officer facing a disciplinary action who failed to give direct answer to the query, the governing council may dismiss the officer accordingly without setting up a disciplinary committee and the Claimant was accordingly dismissed for having failed to give direct answer to the query.
39. On the acts of insubordination amount to misconduct which can earn a summary dismissal, counsel relied on the cases of A.C.B. PLC V. NBISIKE (1995) 8 NWLR (pt. 416) 725, page 745, para E-F; SULE V.

NIG. COTTON BOARD (1985) 2 NWLR (pt.5) 17.

40. On the issue of suspension of the Claimant from duty, counsel referred the Court to the case of AKINYANJU v. UNILLORING (2005) 7 NWLR (PT. 923) 87 at 120, para B.
41. On the contention of the Claimant that the tenure of the office of the 1^st Defendant and other members of the Governing Council of the 2^nd Defendant has expired on 06/07/2023 and therefore could not act to dismiss the Claimant, counsel submitted that the burden of proving the issue rests squarely on the Claimant and never shifts. It is trite that he who assert must prove. The burden of proof in a case lies on the party who will fall if no further evidence is produced. Reference was made to Section 131 (1) and 132 of Evidence Act, 2011. Consequently, counsel referred the Court to Exhibit A40 and submitted that the Claimant has failed to discharge the burden of proof in his case and urged the Court to so hold and dismiss this suit with a substantial cost.
42. On issue four, counsel submitted that it was established that the summary dismissal of the Claimant is lawful and supported by law and judicial authority. The Claimant is not entitled to reliefs sought in this suit and particularly, reliefs vi, vii, viii and the alternative reliefs sought by the Claimant. The Claimant is not entitled to any money he did not work for. An employee who has been dismissed, either lawfully or unlawfully cannot claim his wages for services he never rendered and

 

urged the Court to so hold. Reference was made to the cases of OBOT

V. C.B.N (1993) 8 NWLR (pt. 310) 140 at 167-163, para E-H; THE NIGERIAN MARKETING BOARD V. A.O. ADEWUNMI (1972) 11S.C 111 at 117; (19720 NSCC) 662 at 665.

SUMMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE CLAIMANT

44. In the said written address, learned counsel to the Claimant, D. S. Olabode distilled Eight (8) issues for determination to wit:
45. Whether the Claimant’s employment with the 2^nd Defendant institution is of Statement Flavour.
46. Whether the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants strictly adhere to the relevant provisions of The Oke Ogun Polytechnic Saki Law, 2014 and The Oke Ogun Polytechnic Saki staff Handbook 2022 (exhibit A6 and A20) in dismissing the Claimant from the service of the 2^nd Defendant on 06/07/2023.
47. Whether the Claimant’s letter of 10/05/2023 titled “Governor Seyi Makinde and the World Must Hear This” (Exhibit A12) by any stretch of imagination, challenged the authority of the Governor of Oyo State, the Executive Council of Oyo State, and the Governing Council of the 2^nd Defendant institution to warrant the Claimant been queried, suspended and dismissed from service of the 2^nd Defendant by the 1^st Defendant.
48. Whether the query (Exhibit A14) suspension (Exhibit A16) and letter of dismissal from the service of 2^nd Defendant (Exhibit A11) authored by Mr. J.O. Adigun JP FNIM and Barrister Lateef Sarafadeen Onijo as the Acting Registrar and Secretary to the

 

Governing council, and the Chairman, Governing Council respectively were not personally interested and affected by the Claimant’s letter of 10/05/2023 (Exhibit A12)

5. whether the dismissal of the Claimant from the service of the 2^nd Defendant on 06/07/2023 by the 1^st Defendant is null, void of no legal effect having been carried out after the expiration of 3 years tenure of office of the 2^nd Defendant’s Governing Council.
6. Whether the Claimant is entitled to the main reliefs sought in the general form of complaint.
7. Whether the Oyo State Government of Nigeria Public Service Rules Volume 1 (Exhibit A41) is applicable to the determination of the Claimant’s employment with the 2^nd Defendant by virtue of Exhibit A3, A4, A6 and A20.
8. Whether the documents tendered and provisionally admitted and marked as Exhibits A21, A22, A23, A24, A25, A26, A27, A28, A29, A30, A31 and A32 are admissible in law.
9. On issue one, counsel submitted that employment is said to be of statutory flavor if that employment is protected by statute by making provisions for the procedures for employment and termination of such employment such employment can be said to have been clothed with statutory flavor. He relied on the case of CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA  V.  AGWILO  (2007)  14  NWLR  (PT.  1054)  page  386

particularly at page 393.

46. Again, counsel referred the Court to Exhibits A3, A4 and A6 and submitted that it is trite law that employment with statutory flavor is one governed by statute, which set out procedures for the employment and the discipline (including dismissal) of an employee.
47. Arguing Further on issue one, counsel submitted that where a statute governs the condition of employment of an employee such as the Claimant in the instant case, the said employee is having a special legal

 

status other than the ordinary master and servant relationship with his employer. The employer is bound to comply with the conditions when it comes to termination of the employee’s appointment otherwise, the act of termination would be declared wrongful, irregular, unlawful, null and void. He cited the cases of FAKUADE V. O.A.U.T.H (1993) 5 NWLR (PT. 291) at page 47 and FEDERAL MEDICAL CENTRE, IDO- EKITI V. ALABI (2012) 2 NWLR (PT. 1285) Page 411, particularly

at page 438. Consequently, counsel urged the Court to hold that the Claimant’s employment with the 2^nd Defendant is one with statutory flavor and resolve issue one is the affirmative.

48. On issue two, counsel contended that the regulations that govern the Claimant employment with the 2^nd Defendant are the law that established the 2^nd Defendant institution, exhibit A6 and Exhibit A20. And, counsel referred the Court to paragraph 37 (a) both of the statement of material fact and the Claimant written statement on Oath and stated that as at 06/07/2023 that the Claimant was dismissed, he was a chief lecturer and senior academic staff of 2^nd Defendant.
49. Counsel referred the Court to Exhibit 14, Exhibit 16, paragraphs 25 to 37 of the statement of fact and the Claimant’s written statement on Oath as well as testimony of DW1 and DW2 under cross examination and stated that the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants did not follow the procedure laid down in Exhibit A6 and Exhibit A20 when the Claimant was dismissed and urged the Court to so hold. Reference was made to Exhibit A16 and A15 and the cases of CROSS RIVER UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY V. OBETAN (2011) LPELR 4007 CA; APAPA & ANOTHER V. INEC & 2 OTHERS (2012)8 NWLR (PT. 1303) 409 at 431; OBANYE V. UNION BANL OF NIGERIA (2018) LPELR-44702 (SC).
50. To this end, counsel urged the Court to hold that the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants did not strictly adhere to procedures laid down in Exhibit A6 and A20 in dismissing the Claimant and that issue two be resolved in the negative.

 

51. On issue three, counsel submitted that Exhibit A12 at it concluding paragraph only prayed the Governor of Oyo State to cause an investigation into the affairs and management of the 2^nd Defendant through government supervisory ministries or agencies. That exhibit “A12” does not by any stretch of imagination challenge the authority of the Governor of Oyo State, Executive Council of Oyo State nor the Governing Council of the 2^nd Defendant’s institution to warrant the Claimant been issued with query exhibit “A14” let alone been suspended from the service or dismissed from the service of the 2^nd Defendant summarily as the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants had done in the instant case by exhibits “A16” and “A11” and pray this Honourable Court to so hold. And resolve issue three in the negative.
52. On issue four, counsel referred the Court to paragraphs 51(1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10) and 52 of both the Statement of Facts Establishing Cause of Action and the depositions in the Claimant’s written statement on Oath, and contended that they were not challenged, controverted nor impeached by the Defendants. The legal effect of this is that the Defendants admitted same as the truth. And it needs no further proof and pray the Honourable Court to so hold. He relied on the case of GABRIEL JIM-JAJA V. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, RIVERS

STATE & 2 ORS (2013) 22 W.R.N volume 22 page 39 particularly at

page 55 lines 15-25.

53. The learned Claimant’s Counsel contended that since the Chairman, Governing Council of the 2^nd Defendant, Barrister Lateef Sarafadeen Onijo and the Acting Registrar and Secretary to the Governing Council (DW1) at the material time, were the COMPLAINANTS and JUDGES in their own case against the Claimant, the law, principles of natural justice, fair hearing, equity and good conscience had been trampled upon and violated with reckless abandon and pray the Court to so hold.
54. It is the contention of the Counsel that the conducts of the Defendants having violated the natural justice and fair hearing, submitted that the query (exhibit “A14”), suspension (exhibit “A16”) and  letter  of  dismissal  (exhibit  “A11”)  predicated  on  same  were

 

offensive to natural justice and fair hearing therefore are null, void and ab initio of no legal consequence and pray the Court to so hold and resolve issue 4 in the negative.

55. On issue five, counsel submitted that by averments in paragraph 38 and 39 of both the Statement of Material Facts Establishment Cause of Action and the Claimant’s Written Statement on Oath and as enacted by section 9(1) of exhibit “A6”, the tenure of office of the 1^st Defendant was 3 years. The said 3 years expired on 05/07/2023 since the effective date of the appointment of Professor Adesola Sunday Ajayi who was firstly appointed to that office by virtue of exhibit “A40” is 06/07/2020.
56. Arguing further, counsel submitted that by literal or golden rule of interpretation, the tenure of office of the 1^st Defendant came to an end on 05/07/2023 effective date of Professor Adesola Sunday Ajayi who was firstly appointed to that office being 06/07/2020 as contained in (exhibit “A40”) Consequently, the so called meeting and proceedings of the Governing Council on 06/07/2023 wherein the decision was taken to dismiss the Claimant from the service of the 2^nd Defendant by (exhibit “A11”) when their tenure of office had lapsed on 05/07/2023 and become spent by effluxion of time, lacked authority and legal competence, therefore null and void and pray the court to so hold. As such, counsel pray the Court to resolve issue 5 in affirmative.
57. On issue six, counsel submitted that the Claimant is eminently entitled to all the main reliefs before the Court. Counsel submitted further on the issue of the general damages and punitive and explanery damages being jointly claimed by the Claimant, that the Court has unfettered jurisdiction to grant both. Reliance was placed on the cases of UNIVERSITY OF AGOS V. AIGORO (2005) 2 NWLR (PT911) 1; UNION   BANK  OF  NIGERIA  PLC  V.  MR.  N.M  OKPARA

CHIMAEZE (2024) 4 SCM page 241. To that extent, counsel urged the Court to so hold and grant all the main reliefs of the Claimant as prayed.

58. On issue seven, counsel contented that the regulations referred to in exhibits “A3” and “A4” are the law that established the 2^nd Defendant

 

(exhibit “A6”) and the 2^nd Defendant’s Staff Handbook (exhibit A”20”) These two instruments, DW1 and Dw2 under cross examinations admitted that they contain procedures for regulation of the affairs of the 2^nd Defendant as well as disciplining of any erring staff.

Moreso, counsel referred the Court to Exhibit A6 and A20 and stated that they contain detailed procedures for employment and termination of employment of the 2^nd Defendant’s employee such as the Claimant and stated that Exhibit A41 is not applicable here and prayed the Court to so hold.

59. Therefore, counsel stated that it was the governing council of the 2^nd Defendant that dismissed the Claimant in the instant case on 06/07/2023 by exhibit “A11” and not THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION OF OYO STATE envisaged by the provisions of Chapter 3, Section 3, Rule 030307 of the Oyo State Government Public Service Rules (exhibit “A41”) and pray the Court to so hold and resolve issue 7 in the negative.
60. Finally, counsel prayed the Court to grant all the main reliefs/prayers of the Claimant as contained in the general form of complaint before the Court.

REPLY ON POINT OF LAW

COURT’S DECISION

62. I have carefully and meticulously perused the General Form of Complaint, the Statement of Material Facts establishing cause of action, the Amended Statement of Defense of 1^st and 2^nd Defendant, the amended 3^rd Defendant Statement of Defense, the Claimant’s Reply to both Amended Statement Defense of the Defendants and other Originating processes. I have evaluate the entire evidence adduced by the parties in this suit at the trial both oral and documentary and I listened attentively to the testimonies of witnesses called at the trial and

 

watched their demeanour closely. In additional, I also heard the Oral submissions of counsel at the point of adopting their final written addresses and I studied same. Having done all these, it is my considered opinion that the issues for determination distilled by counsel in their respective final written addresses can be narrowed or summed up into one, which is whether the Claimant has proved his case on the preponderance of evidence and balance of probability to be entitled to the reliefs sought before this Honourable Court.

63. Before I dwell into the issue for determination, let me first and foremost clear some preliminary issues.
64. It is on record that when the Claimant was leading evidence -in- chief, he sought to tender documents which two out of the documents were objected to by the 3^rd Defendant’s counsel and the Court granted leave to the counsel to incorporate his grounds of objection in the final written address and for the Claimant’s counsel to respond accordingly. The documents objected to are CTC of Statement of Defense in suit No NICN/IB/21/2020 and Ifedapo Micro Finance Bank Ltd. The argument on the objection is contained at paragraph 1.05 of the 3^rd Defendant’s final written addresses. The learned counsel to the 3^rd Defendant submitted that the documents were not serve on them, they are seeing them for the first time and is against the principle of fair learning and fair play. He therefore urged the Court to expunge them from the record of the Court.
65. However, I have gone through the Claimant’s final written address, nowhere the Claimant’s counsel responded to the objection of the 3^rd Defendant in respect to the admissibility of the documents mentioned above. Nevertheless, from the pleadings of the Claimant, those document were pleaded and relevant to the Claimant’s case. Therefore, it is trite law that relevancy is key to admissibility. As such, failure to serve the 3^rd Defendant with those documents will not affect the admissibility of same. To this extend, the objection is hereby overruled and the said documents are hereby properly admitted in evidence as already been marked.

 

66. Also, the 1^st and 2^nd Defendant’s counsel sought to tender in evidence through DW1 while testifying in chief 19 documents and the Claimant’s counsel objected to admissibility of 12 out of the 19 documents. The Court granted the counsel leave to incorporate the ground of his objection in the final written address and for the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants counsel to respond. The arguments on the objection are contained in paragraphs 4.46.2 to 4.46.7 of the Claimant’s final written address. Learned counsel to the Claimant submitted inter alia that it is settled law that what determines the admissibility of evidence is relevancy. He contended that the 12 documents are irrelevant. Consequently, he pray the Court to treat Exhibits A21 to A32 as inadmissible evidence and expunge same from the record. Reliance was placed on the case of Dr. IMORO KUBOR & ANOTHER V. HONOURABLE SERIAKE HENRY DICKSON & 2 OTHERS (2023) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1345) P. 534 at 578;
67. In response, 1^st and 2nd Defendants’ counsel arguments are contained in paragraphs 8.0.3 to 8.0.4 of their final written address wherein he submitted among other things that the documents were pleaded, relevant and same are admissible to get to the fairness and justness of the case. Reference was made to section 9(6) and 12(5) of the Evidence Act 2011 and the case of IFARAMOYE V. STAT (2017) LPELR 42031 (CA).
68. I have considered the grounds of the objection of the Claimant’s counsel to the admissibility of the 12 documents referred and the response of the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants’ counsel. I have perused the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants’ Amended Statement of Defense, it is clear that the documents were pleaded and relevant to the proper determination of this case. Therefore, as noted earlier, relevancy is key to admissibility. Having said this, it is my considered opinion that to do justice in this case, those documents should be considered and admitted. In this respect and without much ado, I overruled the objection of the Claimant’s counsel to the admissibility of those documents in the interest of justice and admit them properly in evidence as already been marked.

 

69. Having cleared the coast, I will now proceed to determine the issue for determination which is whether the Claimant has proved his case on the preponderance of evidence and balance of probability to be entered to the reliefs sought before this Honourable Court.
70. Let me begin by determining whether the Claimant’s employment is that clothed with statutory flavor. Although the Claimant and 1^st and 2^nd Defendants are in agreement that the Claimant’s employment is one with statutory flavor. The 3^rd Defendant hold contrary view. To that extend therefore, I refer to the case of OVIVIE V. DELTE STEEL CO. LTD (2023) 14 NWLR (pt. 1904) 203 at 230-231, paras F-A, where ABBA

AJI J.S.C delivery leading judgment to said thus:-

“…In fact, where the condition for appointment or determination of the contract is governed by the precondition of an enabling statute so that a valid determination of appointment is predicated on satisfying such statutory provision this is a contract with statutory flavor…..”

71. Therefore, Consequently, when an employee claims that his employment is protected by the statute, the burden is on him to bring same to the fore. Such an employee is expected to draw the attention of the Court to the particular statute which offers protection to his employment. In the instant case, the Claimant referred the Court to Oke- Ogun Polytechnic Saki, Law, 2013 (Exhibit A6) as the statute which regulates his employment relationships with the 2^nd Defendant. Therefore, I hold very strongly that the Claimant’s employment with the 2^nd Defendant is one with statutory flavor.
72. Having known that the Claimant’s employment is one with statutory flavor, it is not in dispute that the Claimant was appointed by the 2^nd Defendant as a lecturer and academic staff in the General studies department, school of Business and communication studies. Appointment letters of the Claimant were tendered and admitted as

 

Exhibits A3 and A4. These facts appears not to be in dispute. However, in reliefs one, two and three of the statement of material fact, the Claimant herein sought for declaration that the purported query, suspension and the eventual dismissal of the Claimant from the service of 2^nd Defendant by the 1^st Defendant vide the 1^st Defendant’s letter of 06/07/2023 titled “Letter of Dismissal from the service of the Oke-Ogun Polytechnic, Saki is wrongful, irregular, illegal and violative of section 29 of the Oke-Ogun Polytechnic, saki law 2013 wherefore ineffectual, null, void and ab initio of no legal consequences. In other words, the Claimant is simply saying that his dismissal is null, void and of no legal consequences.

 

“Whoever desires any Court to give Judgment as to any legal right or liability defendant on the existence of facts which he asserts shall prove that those facts exist.”

See also the case of DEMATIC (NIG) LTD V. UTUK & ANOR (2022) LPELR – 56878 where the Supreme Court per ADAMU JAURO, JSC at pages 35 – 36, paras B – D held thus:

“The law is settled that he who asserts a fact must prove the existence of that fact, otherwise he would not be entitled to the Judgment of the Court. The burden of proof lies on the person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side…”

 

See also the following cases: OKEKE V. OKEKE (2019) 17 NWLR (pt. 1701) 288; MUSTAPHA V. ZARMA & ORS (2018) LPELR – 46326 (CA); NSEFIK V. MUNA (2007) 10 NWLR (pt. 10) 502.

ABBA AJI, JSC, Delivering the leading Judgment held thus:-

“…It is the law that when an employee complains that his employment has been wrongfully terminated, he has the onus, first, to place before the Court the terms of the contract of employment and, second, to prove in what manner the said terms were breached by the employer. It is not in principle for the employer who is a Defendant to an action brought by the employee to prove any of these…”

See also the cases of ADEKUNLE V. UBA PLC (2016) LPELR – 41124 (CA); WAEC & ORS V. IKANG (2013) LPELR – 20422 (CA); BOLOU V. FEDERAL COLLEGE OF EDUCATION, OBUDU & ANOR (2019) LPELR – 47465 (CA); AMODU V. AMODU (1990) 5 NWLR (PT. 150) 356 at 370.

 

190 as follows:-

“Whether one is suing for wrongful dismissal from an employment with statutory flavor or under common law principle of master and servant, the fact of the employment and the terms and conditions of same must not only be pleaded, but must be proved by evidence before a determination of the wrongful nature of his termination/dismissal can be considered by the Court”.

 

77. Let me pause here and note that reliefs one, two, three and four sought by the Claimant are declaratory. To that extend, the law is settled that declaratory reliefs are not granted as a matter of course nor are they granted on the weakness of the case of the Defendant. Such reliefs must be proved by credible and admissible evidence before the Claimant can be entitled to the grant of the declarations sought. In this respect, I refer

 

to the case of EMENIKE V. P.D.P. & 3 ORS (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.

1315) 556 AT 590 PARAS A – B where it was held thus:-

“ The burden of proof on the plaintiff in establishing the declaratory relief to the satisfaction of the Court is quite heavor in the sense that such declaratory reliefs are not grated even on admission by the Defendant where the plaintiff fails to establish his own entitlement to the declaration by his own evidence’’

See also the case of SULE V. HABU (2012) ALL FWLR (PT. 912) 664.

A14, A15, A16, A17, A18, A19, A20, and A40 respectively.

From the evidence of the Claimant before the Court, the Claimant stated that the 1^st and 2^nd Defendant did not comply with the provisions of Section 29 of the Oke Ogun Polytechnic Saaki Law, 2023 in dismissing him from the service of 2^nd Defendant. For clarity and ease of reference, let me reproduce hereunder the depositions in paragraphs 35, 36 and 37 of the Claimant’s statement on oath dated 28^th day of September, 2023.

Paragraph 35 reads thus:-

“that since 19/05/2023 that 1^st Defendant purportedly suspended me’ and 06/07/2023 that I was irregularly and wrongfully dismissed from the service of the 2^nd Defendant by

 

the 1^st Defendant, no Investigation Panel sat to investigate any allegation against me nor was I invited formally or informally nor by any means/medium whatsoever to appear before any Panel whosoever.”

Paragraph 36 reads thus:-

“that neither the governing council nor any person/authority whosoever ever constituted any Investigation Panel nor Investigation Committee to investigate any allegation against me.”

Paragraph 37 reads thus:-

“Particulars of the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants Non Compliance with the provisions of section 29 of the Oke-Ogun Polytechnic Saki Law, 2013 in Dismissing me from the service of 2^nd Defendant are:

1. That I am a senior academic staff of the 2^nd Defendant.
2. That the Governing Council did not direct the Rector of the 2^nd Defendant to set up a committee to investigate any allegation against me.
3. That since the Rector did not set up any investigation committee to investigate me of any allegation; there were up members appointed from the Board of studies of the 2^nd Defendant.

 

4. That no investigation committee or panel was set up by anybody or authority whatsoever to investigate me of any allegation or wrongdoing.
5. That no report of any liability of any matter or wrongdoing against me was made to the Governing council of TOPS to warrant my dismissal from service by the 1^st Defendant.
6. That no triable matter nor any matter nor any matter whatsoever was established against me by any investigation committee or panel whatsoever.
7. That the governing council did not direct the Rector of the 2^nd Defendant to arraign me neither was I arranged before the senior staff disciplinary committee of the 2^nd Defendant nor before any committee whatsoever before the 1^st Defendant irregularly dismissed me.
8. That neither the Senior Staff Disciplinary committee nor any committee whatsoever was set up in the first place by anybody whosoever to investigate me nor was l heard in respect of any matter by anybody or authority before the 1^st Defendant purportedly dismissed me vide the letter of 06/07/2023.

 

9. That no report of any kind be it favourable or otherwise to me, was made to the Governing Council of TOPS by the senior staff disciplinary committee nor by any committee whatsoever to warrant my dismissal by the 1^st Defendant.
10. That the Chairman of the Governing Council of TOPS, Barrister Lateef Sarafadeen A. (onijo) and the Acting Registrar/Secretary to the Governing Council of TOPS, (the 2^nd Defendant) were the complainants, the prosecutors and the judges in their own case against me.
11. That the 1^st Defendant had breached my constitutional right to fair hearing thereby denied me of fair hearing before the decision to dismiss me was taken by the 1^st Defendant.”
12. On the other hand, the Defendants in defense,1st and 2^nd Defendants called one witness by name Mr. Jimoh Olatunji Adigun, who testified as DW1, adopted his statement on Oath dated the 24^th day of July, 2024 as his evidence –in-chief and tendered 19 documents which were admitted in evidence and marked as Exhibit A21, A22, A23, A24, A25, A26, A27,        A28,A29,A30,A31,A32,A33,A34,A35,A36,A37,A38andA39

respectively.

From the evidence of the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants before the Court, it was stated that the dismissal of the Claimant was proper and renewal. Let me take the plains to reproduce hereunder the deposition in paragraphs 15, 18 and 67 of the 1^st and 2^nd Defendant’s written statement on Oath.

Paragraph 15 reads thus:-

 

“That the Claimant was properly and lawfully dismissed from the institution on ground of gross misconduct.”

Paragraph 18 reads thus:

“That the dismissal of the Claimant was done to save the institution from collapse and recklessness of the Claimant.”

Paragraph 67 reads thus:-

“That the Claimant was dismissed in line with the public service rules regarding the peculiar circumstances of his case as well as the enabling law on the removal of a member of the council which the Claimant is from office after official recommendation had been made to the Governor of Oyo State.”

From the evidence of 3^rd Defendant before the Court, it was stated that the Claimant was legally dismissed. Again, let me refer to some depositions on the 3^rd Defendant’s witness statement on Oath particularly paragraphs 22, 23, 24 and 30 which for clarity and ease of reference, I shall reproduce same hereunder.

Paragraphs 22 reads thus:-

 

“In reaction to paragraphs 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 and 36 of the Claimant’s statement of fact, avers that service of suspension letter on the Claimant does not affect the rule of natural justice and that the Claimant was legally dismissed pursuant to the query and the Claimant’s response to query.”

Paragraphs 23 reads thus:-

“That I know that it is the practice of the 2^nd Defendant that where an officer facing disciplinary action failed to furnish answer to the query served on him within the time stated in the query or the officer failed to give direct answer to the query, the Governing Council of the 2^nd Defendant may dismiss the officer accordingly, without setting up a disciplinary committee/Panel or board of inquiry.”

Paragraphs 24 reads thus:-

“That this practice referred to in paragraph 23 above emanated from the provision of chapter 3, section 3 Rules 030307 (iii) of Oyo State Government of Nigeria Public Service Rules Volume 1, 2013. The Public Service Rules is applicable to all Oyo State Government parastatals including the 2^nd Defendant. I shall rely on the provisions of the Oyo State Government of Nigeria Public Service Rules Volume 1, 2013 in this suit.”

 

Paragraphs 30 reads thus:-

“Paragraphs 52 of the Claimant’s Statement of fact is false and I state that the Claimant was dismissed because the Claimant challenged the authorities of the Defendants (among other grounds) contrary to the Civil Service Rules and not out of malice, hatred, calumny and intolerance.”

It provides thus:-

“29(1) If it appears to the Governing Council that there are reasons for believing that the Rector, a Deputy – Rector, the Registrar or any other person employed as a member of the academic, administrative or technical staff of the Polytechnic should be removed from his office or employment on the ground of misconduct or inability to perform the functions of his office or employment, the Governing Council shall:-

query.

 

(C) Where the matter relates to any other member of the academic, Administrative or technical staff, direct the Rector to set up a committee to investigate the matter and report to the Governing Council but so however that where the matter relates to a member of the academic staff part of the members of the investigation committee shall be appointed from among the members of the board of studies.

500. (i). where there is established a triable matter against such member of staff, the Governing Council shall direct the Rector to arraign such a member of staff before the Senior Staff Disciplinary Committee.
501. The Senior Staff disciplinary committee shall make reasonable arrangements for the person in question accompanied by a representative if he so desires, to be afforded an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by it with respect to the matter.

 

(2.) It shall be the duty of Chairman of the Governing Council upon signing the instrument of removal to cause a copy of the instrument to be served as soon as possible on the person to whom it relates.

 

 

That the person in question should be suspended from his office or employment pending proceedings under this section, the Governing Council or, as the case may be the Rector, may by notice prohibit him from exercising, the

 

functions of his office or employment pending the determination of the matter.

 

 

2. be entitled to no other emolument during a period of suspension.
3. be entitled to the whole of his salary withheld from him when the final decision of the disciplinary proceedings against him is made which results otherwise than in his dismissal.
4. Nothing in the foregoing provisions of this section shall apply to employments of such descriptions as may be designated for the purposes of this subsection by regulations made by the governing council from time to time.”

“Other conditions for terminating appointment as well as other general conditions of service are also contained in the regulations, otherwise known as the Senior Staff Handbook,

 

a copy of which will be made available to you on assumption of duty”.

This shows that the employment of the Claimant with the 2^nd Defendant is also regulated in addition to Exhibit A6 by Exhibit A20 which is also admitted as Exhibit A39. That is, the Oke – Ogun Polytechnic Saki Staff Handbook 2022.

Clause 10.08 of Exhibit A20/A39 reads thus:

“10’08 Removal of management Academic and Administrations staff:

If it appears to the Governing council that there are reasons for believing that the Rector, the Deputy Rector, the Registrar or any other person employed as a member of the academic or administrative staff of the Polytechnic shall be removed on the ground of misconduct or cannot perform the functions of his office. The Governing Council shall:

 

2. where the matter relates to the Rector, the Deputy Rector the Registrar or a Principal Officer, set up a Committee from among the members of the Government Council and the A &

 

P (A) /(NA) to investigate the matter and to report on it to the Governing Council.

3. where the matter relates to any other member of the academic or administrative staff direct the Rector to set up a committee to investigate the matter and report to the Governing Council but where the matter relates to a member of academic staff part of the members of the committee shall be appointed from among the members of A & P (NA).
4. Make reasonable arrangements for the person in question to be accompanied by witness(es) if he so desires and be afforded an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by the investigating committee with respect to the matter: and if the Governing Council after considering the report of the investigating committee, is satisfied that the person in question would be removed, he shall be removed in question would be removed, he shall be removed by an instrument in writing signed by the Registrar on the directives of the Council.
5. It shall be the duty of the Registrar upon signing the instrument of removal to cause a copy of the instrument to be served as soon as possible on the person to whom it relates.

 

 

 

9. in the case of the Deputy Rector, the Registrar or any other person employed as a member of the academic or administrative staff of the Polytechnic, to the Rector.
10. The officer concerned in (f) above shall be entitled to (1/2) half of his salary and emoluments for the duration of the suspension or interdiction.
11. members of all other categories of the staff of the Polytechnic other than those mentioned in the foregoing provisions of this section shall, for the purpose of discipline, be subject to the authority of the Rector. However, any member of such staff (except members who are daily paid) removed from office or employment by the Rector shall have a right of appeal to the Council against removal.
12. In the exercise of their powers under section 10.04 and

10.08 (e) of this Chapter, the Council and Rector shall have power to appoint a disciplinary panel of such members of the staff of the Polytechnic as they may in their discretion determine for the purpose of advising them on any particular matter relating to disciple.

 

84. To this extend, it is therefore the law that where terms of employment are contained in more than one documents, the documents must be read together. That being said, a community reading of the wordings of section 29 of Exhibit A6 as well as clause 10.08 of Exhibit A20/A39 will show clearly and admit no ambiguity that the procedure for removal of academics, administrative and technical staff of the 2^nd Defendant begins with giving notice to the person in question i.e. query, setting up of a disciplinary committee to investigate the matter and report to the Governing Council and after considering the report of the disciplinary committee, if the Governing council is satisfied that the person be removed, the governing counsel may remove the person in writing and same be served on the person concern. Simply put, the procedure is there must be a query setting up of disciplinary committee, report of the committee and decision of the Governing council.
85. It is in evidence before the Court that the Claimant was issued with a query i. e. Exhibit A14 and the Claimant replied to the query i.e. Exhibit A15. It is also in evidence that the Claimant was suspended from duties

i.e. Exhibit A16 and the Claimant was dismissed from service of 2^nd Defendant i.e. Exhibit A11.

Paragraph 33 reads thus:-

“That the said 1^st Defendant’s Internal Memorandum of 19/05/2023 also purportedly stated that the Governing

 

Council had constituted a 5 man investigation panel to further look into the allegation in order to give me, fair hearing.”

Paragraph 34 reads thus:-

“That the Governing Council of TOPS (the 2^nd Defendant) in her memorandum, also stated that the investigation Panel would formally invite me to appear before the said Panel to afford me fair hearing.”

Paragraph 35 reads thus:-

“That since 19/05/2023 that 1^st Defendant purportedly suspended me; and 06/07/2023 that I was irregularly and wrongfully dismissed from the service of the 2^nd Defendant by the 1^st Defendant, no investigation Panel sat to investigate any allegation against me nor was I invited formally or informally nor by any means/medium whatsoever to appear before any panel whosoever.”

 

Paragraph 36 reads thus:-

“That neither the Governing Council nor any person/authority whosoever ever constituted any investigation panel nor investigation committee to investigate any allegation against me.”

87. In addition, DW1 testified under cross examination inter alia thus:-

 

“Q- Between 19/5/2023 that the Claimant was suspended and 6^thJuly 2023, that he was dismissed from service, no investigation panel was set – up to try the allegation leveled against the Claimant and Claimant was not invited to appear before any panel between the two periods.”

A- The investigation panel was not set – up because the Claimant did not answer the query till 6^th July 2023. And accordingly to our custom both the query and the respond must be sent to investigative panel for further interrogation.”

“Q- Do you know that before the Claimant was dismissed on 6^th July 2023, by the Governing council of the 2^nd Defendant no committee was set up to investigate any wrong doing against the Claimant. Yes or No.

A- Yes, there was a committee set up by the Governing council.

Q- When was that committee set up?

A- I want to withdraw my earlier answer as to the fact that there was a committee set up by the Governing council between May and July 2024.

 

Q- what you were saying is that no committee was set up before the dismissal of the Claimant. Yes or No.

A- Yes there was no committee set up.

Q- Do you know that even as a senior academic staff of the 2^nd Defendant, Claimant was not arranged before senior staff disciplinary committee of the 2^nd Defendant for any wrong doing before he was dismissed on 6^th July 2023 Yes or No.

A- Yes, he was not arraigned.”

Paragraphs 23 reads thus:-

“That I know that it is the practice of the 2^nd Defendant that where an officer facing disciplinary action failed to furnish answer to the query served on him within the time stated in the query or the officer failed to give direct answer to the query, the Governing Council of the 2^nd Defendant may dismiss the officer accordingly, without setting up a disciplinary committee/Panel or board of inquiry.”

Paragraphs 24 reads thus:-

 

“That this practice referred to in paragraph 23 above emanated from the provision of chapter 3, section 3 Rules 030307 (iii) of Oyo State Government of Nigeria Public Service Rules Volume 1, 2013. The Public Service Rules is applicable to all Oyo State Government parastatals including the 2^nd Defendant. I shall rely on the provisions of the Oyo State Government of Nigeria Public Service Rules Volume 1, 2013 in this suit.”

90. In addition, both the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants as well as 3^rd Defendants’ counsel submitted repeatedly in their final written addresses and the reply on point of law that the Claimant’s reply to the query i.e. Exhibit A15 did not answer the question put in the said query i.e. Exhibit A14. That, having not answer the questions put in Exhibit A14, the 1^st and 2^nd Defendant need not set –up any committee. I must say that, I find it difficult to be at home with this submissions of the Defendants’ counsel because Exhibit A6 and Exhibit A20/A39 which governs or regulate the employment relationship between the Claimant and 2^nd Defendant did not contemplates and/or contain that provision been canvassed by the Defendant. Counsel in their final written addresses. Exhibit A41 which the 3^rd Defendant tendered does not regulate or governs the employment relationship between the Claimant and 2^nd Defendant. The Claimant was not employed by the civil service commission of Oyo State but Governing Counsel the Oke-Ogun, Polytechnic, Saki. I so hold.
91. Also, the testimony of the DW2 that the 2^nd Defendant has a practice that where an officer facing disciplinary action failed to answer a query, the 2^nd Defendant will go ahead to dismiss him without set-up a disciplinary  committee  amount  to  oral  evidence  contradicting  the

 

content of a written document. This is premised on the fact that nowhere this practice is captured in either Exhibit A6 or Exhibit A20/A39 which are the documents governing or regulating the employment relationship with the Claimant and 2^nd Defendant. In this respect, I refer to the case of A.F.N.V NWADIALU (2016) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1543) 1 at 48-49, paras

H-F where Court of Appeal held thus:-

“Verbal or penol evidence cannot be allowed to prevail or overcome clear documentary evidence spelling out the duties and due obligations of the parties in their contractual relationship….”

See also the case of EMMANUEL V. ALIYU (2024) 1 NWLR (pt. 1920) 469.

“In addition, please note that the Governing council has constituted a five-main investigation panel to further look into the allegation in order to give you fair hearing. The investigation panel would formally invite you to appear before her.”

93. Consequently, from the totality of evidence before the Court, it is apparent that the 1^st and 2^nd Defendant did not comply strictly with the procedure as contained in Exhibit A6 and A20/A39 in dismissing the Claimant from the services of the 2^nd Defendant. To this extent, the law is settled that the only way to validly terminate a contract of service with

 

statutory flavor is to adhere strictly to or comply religiously with the procedure laid down in the statute (in the instance case, Exhibit A6 and A20/A39) and that where contract of service enjoy statutory protection, it can only be terminated in the manner prescribed by the governing statutory provision, a breach of which renders the act ultra vises and word. See the cases of BAMGBOYE V. UNIVERSITY of ILORIN (1999) 10 NWLR (pt. 622) 290; ADENIYI V. GOVERNING COUNCIL, YABA COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY (1993) LPELR-128 (SC); OLATUNBOSUN V. NISER 91988) NWLR (PT 80) 25, KWARA STATE POLY V. SALUI (2012) 41 WRN 26 NBTE V. ANYANWU (2005) ALL FWLR (PT. 256) 1266; KWARA STATE

POLYTECHNIC, ILORIN V. SHITTU (2013) 17 WRN 87; (2012) LPELR-9843 9CA), OLANIYAN V. UNIVERSITY OF LAGOS (2002) FWLR (PT.56) 778; OLORUNTOBAOJU V. ABDUL-RAHEEM (2009)13 NWLR (PT. 1157) 83 (SC).

“The right to a fair hearing being a fundamental constitutional right guaranteed by the constitution, the breach of it in a trial, investigation or inquiry nullifies the trial or investigation or inquiry and any action taken on them is also a nullity.”

95. Before I conclude, let me point out that a careful perusal of Exhibit A16 particularly at paragraph 2 will show that Exhibit A16 was written as a result of Exhibit A15. But surprisingly, from the evidence before the Court, Exhibit A15 was officially received on 22/05/2023 while Exhibit A16 was written on 19^th May, 2023. Therefore, Exhibit A16 in my

 

opinion was written in a hurry even when Exhibit A15 was not written. This shows that the 1^st and 2^nd Defendant were in a hurry to place the Claimant on suspension without following the due process. I will say no more on this.

at 438.

“It is trite that the master has unfettered right and liberty to terminate or dismiss his servant’s employment at any time and for any reason or for no reason at all provided the terms of the contract of service between them are complied with. The motive which led to an employer to lawfully terminate his servant’s employment is not normally a relevant factor and the Court will have no business with such motive but will only give effect to the contract of service between the parties. See Taiwo v. Kingsway Stores Ltd. (1950) NLR 122, Nwangwu v. Nzekwu (1957) SCNLR61; and Fakuade v. O.A.U.T.H. (1993) 5 NWLR (pt. 291) 47 at 58. It is trite law, that a willing servant cannot be imposed on an unwilling master.”

97. To this end, having held earlier that the Claimant’s employment is that clothed with statutory flavor and having also held that the 1^st and 2^nd

 

Defendants did not comply with the procedures as contained in Exhibits A6 and A20/A39 in dismissing the Claimant from the services of 2^nd Defendant, I refer to the case of YEMISI V. F.I.R.S (2012) LPELR- 7664, Per KUDIRAT MONTONMORI OLATOKUNBO KEKERE-

EKUN, JCA at page 32-32, para C-D where it was held thus:-

“The law is settled that the remedy for wrongful termination of employment with statutory flavor is reinstatement…”

See also the case of OLUFEAGBA V. ABDUR-RAHEEM (2010) ALL FWLR (512) 1033 at 1074 D-E.

98. The Claimant has prayed the Court for an order directing the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants jointly and severally to pay him the sum of N10,000,000.00 & N100,000,000.00 (Ten Million Naira and Hundred Million Naira) as general and punitive as well as exemplary damages. It is trite law that these classal of damages are awarded based on the discretion of the Court and that a party does not need to prove it. However, I hold the view that this is not appropriate case for the Court to award the general and punitive as well as punitive damages.
99. The claims prayer for payment of his half salary for the months of May and June, 2023 with see the light of the day having also earlier held that the procedure laid down in Exhibit A6 and A20/29 were not followed strictly.
100. In the final analysis and in light of the foregoing, it is my considered opinion that the Claimant has proved his case as required by law to be entitled to the reliefs sought. On that note, I hereby without further ado resolve the issue for determination in favour of the Claimant and against the Defendants and I hold very strongly that the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought having proved his case on the preprodence of evidence and balance of probability.

 

101. In conclusion and for the avoidance of doubt, I hereby entered Judgment for the Claimant against the Defendants and declared as follows:-
     1. That the purported query, suspension and the eventual dismissal of the Claimant from the service of the 2^nd Defendant by the 1^st Defendant vide the 1^st Defendant’s letter of 06/07/2023 titled “Letter of Dismissal from the service of the Oke-Ogun Polytechnic, Saki” is wrongful, irregular, illegal and violative of section 29 of the Oke-Ogun Polytechnic, Saki, Law 2013 wherefore ineffectual, null, void and ab initio of no legal consequences.
     2. That the query served on the Claimant, his eventual suspension and dismissal from the service of the 2^nd Defendant by the 1^st Defendant is null, void and ab initio of no legal consequences as same constitutes an infringement of section 29 of the Oke-Ogun Polytechnic, Saki Law, 2013.
     3. That query, suspension and purported dismissal of the Claimant by 1^st Defendant from the service of 2^nd Defendant violated principles of natural justice, equity and good conscience wherefore null, void and of no legal effect whatsoever.
     4. I set aside the query, suspension and the dismissal of the Claimant from the service of the 2^nd Defendant by the 1^st Defendant forthwith.
     5. I order immediate reinstatement of the Claimant to the service of the 2^nd Defendant and be placed on the status and position of chief lecturer which the Claimant was but for the illegal and irregular dismissal of the Claimant from the service of the 2^nd Defendant on 06/07/2023 by the 1^st Defendant.
     6. I order and direct 1^st and 2^nd Defendants jointly and severally to pay the sum of N541,303.22 being the half salary of the Claimant

 

irregularly withheld by 1^st and 2^nd Defendants for the months of May and June, 2023.

7. Prayer for N10 Million as general damages is hereby referred and dismissed.
8. Prayer for N100 million as punitive and exemplary damages is hereby refused and dismissed.

102. All the terms of this judgment shall be complied with 30 days from today.
103. Judgment is entered according.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hon. Justice Y. M. Hassan Presiding Judge