IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE YENAGOA JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT YENAGOA

 

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE P. I. HAMMAN ---PRESIDING JUDGE

DATE: THURSDAY 23^RD JULY, 2026       SUIT NO: NICN/YEN/04/2025

BETWEEN:

NANCY ADA MADUEKE     -----------------------------------         CLAIMANT

 

AND

 

1.     FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OTUOKE

2.     PROFESSOR TEDDY ADDIAS                                  DEFENDANTS

 

JUDGMENT

 

1.1.         The Claimant commenced this suit by way of a Complaint and Statement of Facts dated 3^rd of March 2025 and filed on the 7^th of March, 2025. She claims the following reliefs against the Defendants:

 

1.     A Declaration that following the confirmation of the Claimant’s employment as a Lecturer II, the Claimant’s employment has a statutory flavour and cannot be tempered with except in accordance with the Federal University Otuoke (Establishment) Act 2015.

 

2.     A Declaration that under the Federal University Otuoke Act, the Defendants have no powers to dismiss the Claimant from service of the 1^st Defendant

 

3.     A Declaration that the Claimant’s letter of resignation dated 4/4/2024 terminated her employment with the 1^st Defendant upon the receipt of the said letter by the Defendants on 8/4/2024.

 

4.     An Order of this Honourable Court setting aside the letter of dismissal dated 19/9/2024 issued to the Claimant by the Defendants.

 

5.     An Order mandating the Defendants to pay the Claimant the sum of N1, 355, 040.52 (One Million, Three Hundred and Fifty Five Thousand, Forty Naira, Fifty Two Kobo) being her outstanding Monthly salary from October 2023 when her salary was stopped until April 2024 when the Claimant resigned at the rate of N224, 173.42 (Two Hundred and Twenty Four Thousand, One Hundred and Seventy Three Naira, Forty Two Kobo) per month.

 

6.     N24, 000, 000.00 (Twenty Four Million Naira) only as general damages for unlawfully tampering with the Claimant’s Contract of Employment.

 

7.     Five Million Naira (N5, 000, 000.00) only being the cost of prosecuting this suit.

 

1.2.         The Defendants filed their Memorandum of Conditional Appearance and Statement of Defence together with a Counter-Claim on the 11^th of April, 2025 which were however deemed as properly filed and served on the 12^th of May, 2025. The Claimant filed a Reply to the Statement of Defence/Defence to Counter-Claim on the 16^th of June, 2025.

 

1.3.         Trial in the suit commenced on the 4^th of December, 2025, when the Claimant testified for herself as CW virtually via Zoom from Germany. She identified and adopted her witness statement on oath made on 7^th of March, 2025. The following documents were tendered by the claimant and admitted by the Court:

1.     The Offer of Appointment as Graduate Assistant dated 27^th November, 2014------ exhibit CW1.

2.     The Confirmation of Appointment dated 5^th September, 2018--------- exhibit CW2.

3.     The University of Liverpool Degree of Master of Science Certificate dated 9^th July, 2018 ------- exhibit CW3.

4.     The letter of Upgrade of Appointment as Assistant Lecturer dated 6^th August, 2018 -------- exhibit CW4.

5.     The letter of promotion 2020/2021 appraisal exercise dated 14^th October, 2021 ------ exhibit CW5.

6.     The Master of Science Certificate of the University of Benin dated 23^rd November, 2019 --------------- exhibit CW6.

7.     The Admission Notice for Doctoral Program at Georg-August-Universitat Gottingen dated 2^nd April, 2022 ---------- exhibit CW7.

8.     The Notification of commencement of Ph.D studies dated 3^rd May, 2023 ------ exhibit CW8.

9.     The Internal Memo titled, “Absent from Head Count” dated 20^th December, 2022 ------ exhibit CW9.

10.                         The email dated 7^th November, 2023 addressed to the Bursar Federal University Otuoke ---- exhibit CW10.

11.                         The Claimant’s letter to the Registrar, Federal University Otuoke dated 23^rd December, 2022 ------- exhibit CW11.

12.                         The letter titled, “Refusal to Respond to Query” dated 5^th October, 2023 ---------- exhibit CW12.

13.                         The Internal Memo titled, “Query: Absenteeism” dated 11^th December, 2023--- exhibit CW13.

14.                         The Claimant’s letter to the Ag. Registrar, Federal University Otuoke dated 13^th October, 2023 -------- exhibit CW14.

15.                         The Claimant’s letter to the Ag. Registrar, Federal University Otuoke dated 19^th January, 2024 ---------- exhibit CW15.

16.                         The Claimant’s letter to the Registrar, Federal University Otuoke dated 4^th December, 2023 ---------- exhibit CW16.

17.                         The email dated 5^th March, 2024 ------- exhibit CW17.

18.                        The Claimant’s letter to the Vice Chancellor through the Dean, Faculty of Science and the HOD Department of Chemistry dated 2^nd April, 2024    ---------- exhibit CW18.

19.                         The Decision of the 22^nd Meeting of the Governing Council: Dismissal from Service ----------- exhibit CW19.

20.                         The Claimant’s letter of resignation addressed to the Vice Chancellor, Federal University Otuoke through the Dean Faculty of Science and the HOD Department of Chemistry ----- exhibit CW20.

The witness (CW) was cross-examined by the Defendants’ Counsel Mary E. Amachree-Allison and discharged on the 4^th of December, 2025 without any re-examination. The Claimant closed her case on the same 4^th December, 2025.

 

1.4.         The Defendants opened their defence on the 19^th of January, 2026, by calling their sole witness Mrs. Amangi-Edomo Andabi (the Registrar of the 1^st Defendant) who testified as DW. The witness identified and adopted her witness statement on oath which was filed on the 11^th of April, 2025. The following documents were tendered by the Defendants through DW and admitted by the Court:

1.     The Federal University Otuoke Rules and Regulations Governing Conditions of Service of Senior Staff------- exhibit DW1.

2.     The Report of the Staff Disciplinary Committee Containing cases of Academic Staff submitted in April, 2024 ------ exhibit DW2.

3.     The June 2022 payslip ------ exhibit DW3.

4.     The July 2022 payslip ------ exhibit DW4.

5.     The August 2022 payslip ------ exhibit DW5.

6.     The September 2022 payslip ------ exhibit DW6.

7.     The November 2022 payslip ------ exhibit DW7.

8.     The December, 2022 payslip ------ exhibit DW8.

9.     The January 2023 payslip ----------- Exhibit DW9.

10.                         The March 2023 payslip   --------- exhibit DW10.

11.                         The April, 2023 payslip   ---------- exhibit DW11.

12.                         The May, 2023 payslip    ---- exhibit DW12.

13.                         The June 2023 payslip ----------- exhibit DW13.

14.                         The July, 2023 payslip   ---------- exhibit DW14.

15.                         The August 2023 payslip  -------- exhibit DW15.

16.                         The September 2023 payslip ------ exhibit DW16.

17.                         The Internal Memo from DR, Establishments to the Ag. Registrar dated 11^th January, 2024   ---------- exhibit DW17.

18.                         The letter from Georg-August Universitat Gottingen to the Claimant dated 4^th February, 2022    -------- exhibit DW18.

19.                         Acceptance Letter for Ms. Nancy A. Madueke for PhD Studies dated 3^rd June, 2022    ---------- exhibit DW19.

20.                         CTC of VISA in the name of Madueke Nancy ------ exhibit DW20.

21.                         The Draft Admission notice for the doctoral program “Catalysis for Sustainable Synthesis (CaSuS) for the Winter Semester 2022 dated 2^nd April, 2022           ---------- exhibit DW21.

22.                         The document of award in the name of Nancy Madueke ------ exhibit DW22.

23.                         The Certificate of Periods of University Education dated 3^rd July, 2023 --------- exhibit DW23.

24.                         The Claimant’s letter dated 13^th April, 2023   -------- exhibit DW24.

25.                         The Claimant’s Application for Study Leave with Pay for a PhD program in Germany dated 9^th May, 2022     ------- exhibit DW25.

26.                         The Claimant’s letter dated 25^th May, 2023    ------- exhibit DW26.

27.                         The Notification of commencement of PhD studies written by the Claimant dated 3^rd May, 2023   --------- exhibit DW27.

28.                         The Decision of 22^nd Meeting of the Governing Council: Dismissal from service dated 19^th September, 2024   ------- exhibit DW28.

29.                         The document in German Language from Georg-August Universitat dated 7^th March, 2023    ------- exhibit DW29.

30.                         The Internal Memo from the Registrar to the Claimant which is a Query dated 20^th December, 2022    ---------- exhibit DW30.

31.                         The Internal Memo from the Ag. Registrar to the Claimant which is the approval for study leave with pay to undergo Master Degree programme at the University of Liverpool dated 30^th August, 2016 ------- exhibit DW31.

32.                         The Solicitor’s Bill of Charges of Fawei & Partners-at-Law dated 10^th March, 2025   ------------ exhibit DW32.

33.                         The Solicitor’s Receipt of Payment of Fawei & Partners-At-Law dated 14^th March, 2025     ------ exhibit DW33.

The witness (DW) was cross-examined by the Learned Counsel to the Claimant C. E. Onyebukwa before she was discharged without any re-examination. The Defendants closed their case on the 20^th day of January, 2026

 

1.5.         With the close of evidence in the suit, the parties were directed to file their final written addresses. While the Defendants’ final written address was filed on the 25^th of February, 2026 but deemed as properly filed and served on the 10^th of March, 2026, the Claimant’s final written address was filed on the 13^th of April, 2026 but deemed as properly filed and served on the 20^th of April, 2026. The Defendants filed a Reply on Points of Law on the 20^th of April, 2026. These court processes were adopted by Counsel to the parties on the 6^th of May, 2026, with C. E. Onyebukwa for the Claimant, while Mary E. Amachree-Allison appeared for the Defendants.

THE CASE OF THE CLAIMANT:

2.1.         The claimant who was employed as a Graduate Assistant by the 1^st Defendant in November 2014 w.e.f. December, 2014 was upgraded to Assistant Lecturer and later promoted to Lecturer Il. Her appointment was confirmed in writing by the 1^st Defendant in a letter dated 5^th September, 2018, and she later obtained her Master's Degree in Advanced Chemical Sciences from the University of Liverpool in 2018 through a TETFUND sponsored Scholarship. She pleads her current Salary based on the adjustment of salaries of academic staff to be salary scale CONUASS 3/4 (NI74, 173.42 x 12). In addition to the Salary Scale, the Federal Government also approved a N50,0000.00 (Fifty Thousand Naira) per Month as Poverty Cushion to bring the total Monthly Salary to N224,173.42 (Two Hundred and Twenty-Four Thousand, One Hundred and Seventy-Three Thousand, Forty-Two Kobo effective from October, 2023.

 

2.2.         According to the Claimant, she also obtained a Master's Degree in Industrial Chemistry from the University of Benin in 2019 before she sometime in 2022 gained admission to study for her Doctorate Degree in Germany through a scholarship by the German Academic Exchange Fund (DAAD). The letter was received on 20^th April 2022 during the long Industrial Action that lasted between February and October, 2022, and when she contacted her Dean of Faculty of Science she was advised to apply for Study Leave. She then wrote to the 2^nd Defendant as the Vice Chancellor of the 1^st Defendant in May 2022 to notify him of the said admission and applied for Study Leave with pay through her Head of Department and Dean of her Faculty. When the letter was minuted to the Registrar, the Registrar advised the Claimant that the issuance of the letter approving her Study Leave could not be processed immediately as the University was locked down because of Industrial Action.

 

2.3.         That when the Industrial Action was prolonged, she travelled to Germany to resume studies as she was at the verge of losing her admission and Scholarship as the language Course to equip her with the necessary language and communication skills to be able to study in German as demanded by the scholarship was to run from 30^th May, 2022 to 30^th September, 2022. She arrived Germany on 29^th May, 2022 to commence the language course on 30^th May, 2022, while she commenced the Doctoral Research Study on 1^st October, 2022. That when the letter for study leave was not issued after the resolution of the Industrial Action, she again wrote to the Defendants in April 2023 reminding the Defendants of her earlier application for Study Leave and stating the approval of her request and the Registrar's reason for non-issuance of the said letter; and also reminded them that she had commenced her PhD studies at the University of Gottingen, Germany. When the Defendants did not reply to any of the letters, in May 2023 she again wrote to the Defendants notifying them of her commencement of her Doctoral studies in Germany.

 

2.4.   According to the Claimant, sometime in December 2022, the Registrar of the 1st Defendant wrote an Internal Memorandum to the Claimant seeking her explanation within 72 hours for being absent during a Head Count conducted by the 1^st Defendant on 8^th and 9^th of December 2022 which she received on 22^nd December, 2022. She responded to the Memo in writing explaining to the said Registrar that she was not at the said Head Count because she was in Germany studying for her Doctorate Degree. That the 1^st Defendant allegedly issued a query to her for absence from duty which she did not receive, and the Registrar later wrote a letter to the Claimant dated 3^rd October, 2023 titled "Refusal to Respond to Query" giving the Claimant 72 hours to explain why she refused to respond to the query issued to her on 5^th June, 2023 which she received on 13^th October, 2023 after the expiration of the 72 hours given to her to respond. She responded to the letter explaining that she did not receive the query and also explained her absence from the University. When the Defendants withheld her salary in October, she wrote the Defendants seeking the reason for the non-payment of her October Salary, and also wrote to the Registrar on the 23^rd of November, 2023.

 

2.5.    That despite the letters she wrote to the 2^nd Defendant in December, 2023 and the Registrar of the 1^st Defendant and the Chairman of the Disciplinary Committee explaining her absence from the University, the Defendants ignored the letters and rather issued another query to her on the 4^th of December, 2023 for being absent from duty and failure to appear before the Committee. She responded to the said query in a letter dated 19^th January 2024 and restated her case, and also forwarded all earlier correspondences on the issue to the Registrar. She was invited to appear before the Staff Disciplinary Committee on the 4^th of March, 2024 for 'embarking on studies for a PhD Programme without approval from the University' which she received via email on 6^th March, 2024 and immediately replied same telling the Defendants the impossibility of travelling to Nigeria to appear before the Disciplinary Committee physically. She then requested to appear before the Committee virtually which was granted. The Claimant appeared before the Disciplinary Committee virtually and restated her case. The Committee told her that they will get back to her but never did.

 

2.6.    According to the Claimant, she decided to resign on the 4^th of April, 2024 and sent a resignation letter to the Defendants which was received by the 1^st Defendant on the 8^th of April, 2024 but the defendants did not react to the letter. She was then shocked when her attention was drawn to a purported letter of dismissal dated 19^th of September, 2024, and she has not been officially notified of her dismissal from service despite the fact that the Defendants are aware that the Claimant is outside the Country and has an email address where she can be easily reached. That the Defendants who approved the request of the Claimant to proceed on study leave in May 2022 before she travelled out of the Country are by their conduct estopped from contending to the contrary. The Claimant is not guilty of absence from duty because she cannot be in Germany and in Federal University Otuoke at the same time, and appeared before the Staff Disciplinary Committee online with the consent of the Committee.

 

2.7.    That her employment is statutory and regulated by the Federal University of Otuoke (Establishment) Act of 2015, and the Defendants did not comply with the provisions of the said Act before the Claimant was dismissed from service. The Claimant was not given Notice of the Allegations against her by the University Council, and was also not given opportunity to appear before the University Council to make representation on any allegation against her in person as required by the Act. That her dismissal is ultra vires the Defendants as the 2015 Act provided only for termination of appointment and not dismissal. The Defendants do not have the power to dismiss the Claimant. That having resigned her appointment on 2^nd April 2024, she is no longer a staff of the 1st Defendant, hence the Defendants have no power to dismiss her from an employment that has since been determined.

DEFENDANTS’ CASE:

3.1.               According to the Defendants, upon the confirmation of the claimant's appointment, her employment became regulated by the terms and conditions in the appointment letter, the Rules and Regulations Governing Conditions of Service of Senior Staff as well as the Federal University Otuoke (Establishment) Act, 2015. That in order to benefit from the TETFUND sponsored scholarship for her Master's degree in Advanced Chemical Science at the University of Liverpool, she applied for study leave, processed same, completed her bond form with the 1st defendant and was issued with a study leave approval letter by the 1st defendant before she proceeded to the United Kingdom for her studies. The Rules and Regulations Governing Conditions of Service of Senior Staff of the 1st defendant provides the procedure to apply and obtain an approval for study leave with pay. Where a staff is to apply for study leave with pay, just like the claimant, the mode of application, procedure, duties of the staff and the University are all contained in Chapter 5, (pages 71 to 75) of the University handbook. The Federal Government did not and has never approved to the notice of the 1^st defendant or even paid the sum of N50,000 only or any other sum as poverty cushion to the claimant or any of its academic staff effective from October 2023 or any other date.

 

3.2.               The Defendants plead further that, the 2nd defendant's minute on claimant's letter never suggested in any way that her application for study leave was approved but only requested the claimant to furnish her Visa and language study document. It could not have in any way impressed the Registrar to inform the claimant that a letter approving her study leave could not be processed immediately because the university was locked due to industrial action. After submitting the application for study leave with pay sometime in May, 2022, she travelled out of the country to Germany on 29^th May 2022 without completing the due process of applying for study leave neither did she get any approval to proceed. The industrial action in the 1^st defendant was called off sometime in November 2022 and all members of staff resumed duties immediately, and in order to ascertain the staff strength of the 1^st defendant that had resumed duties after the industrial action, the 1^st defendant conducted a head count on the 8th and 9^th of December 2022, wherein some members of staff including the claimant were absent. The 1st defendant thereafter caused a query to be served on all such persons including the claimant. That while the Defendants did not get the claimant’s letter of 13^th April, 2023, when they however received her letter of 3^rd May, 2023 the 2^nd defendant not being aware that the claimant had travelled to Germany without a study leave approval, directed the dean of Faculty of Science (the claimant's faculty) in his minute to invite the claimant to meet with the 2^nd defendant in his office on the 12^th of May 2023. That even though there was an application for study leave with pay from the claimant, the said leave was not approved as the claimant had not finished the processes before embarking on the journey.

 

3.3.               The Defendants plead further that, the continued absence of the claimant despite the initial query of being absent during the head counts conducted on the 8^th and 9^th days of December 2022, prompted the Registrar of the 1^st defendant to issue another query dated 5^th June 2023 to the claimant through her head of department (under flying seal). Her failure or refusal to respond to the said query prompted the query dated 3^rd October 2023. Her monthly salaries were stopped after the Defendants had erroneously paid the claimant monthly salaries of N165, 055. 50 (One Hundred and Sixty-five Thousand, fifty-five-naira, fifty kobo) only from June 2022 when she abandoned her duties to September 2023 when her salary was stopped totaling 16 months amounting to the total sum of N2,640,888.5 (Two Million, Six Hundred and Fifty Thousand, Eight Hundred- and Eighty-eight- naira, five kobo).

 

3.4.               That considering the circumstances and the claimant's plea for virtual hearing, she was allowed to appear before the 1^st defendant's Staff Disciplinary Committee virtually to respond and make representation on the allegations of absence from duty, embarking on study leave without approval and refusal to appear before staff disciplinary committee. After the virtual proceeding with the 1^st defendant's Staff Disciplinary Committee, but before any decision by the 1^st defendant's Governing Council on the claimant's disciplinary proceedings, the claimant sent in a letter of resignation dated 4^th April, 2024 but the defendants having regard to the conditions of service as applicable to the claimant refused to accept the said letter of resignation as same can only be done after the conclusion and a decision reached on the Claimant's disciplinary proceedings. The Staff Disciplinary Committee recommended to the Governing Council that the claimant be dismissed from its service having breached its rules and conditions of service, and the Governing Council in its duly convened meeting among other items considered the recommendations of the Staff Disciplinary Committee and the Appointment and Promotions Committee, and approved the dismissal of the claimant from the service of the 1st defendant. The letter of dismissal was then served under flying seal (u.f.s.) through the Head of department of Chemistry which the claimant has also acknowledged as the channel of service of all correspondences exchanged between her and the 1st defendant.

 

3.5.               According to the Defendants, the Federal University Otuoke (Establishment) Act 2015 empowers the Governing Council to act through committees set up by it, and the Staff Disciplinary Committee is a Committee of the Governing Council set up to carry out disciplinary actions on its behalf and to report its findings and recommendations to it. The claimant's appearance before the 1^st defendant's Staff Disciplinary Committee constitutes an appearance before the Governing Council of the 1^st defendant.

 

COUNTERCLAIM:

3.6.   The defendants/counter-claimants aver on the Counter-Claim that the Claimant/Defendant to Counter-Claim was on adjusted salary scale of Academic staff CONUASS 3/4 with a salary of N165, 055. 50 (One Hundred and Sixty-five Thousand, fifty-five-naira, fifty kobo) only. That she was absent from work from June 2022 to September, 2023, and was erroneously paid all salaries that accrued for the months when she was absent from work, before her salary was stopped in October, 2023 totaling the sum of N2,640,888.5. The Counter-Claimants also retained the services of a legal practitioner to enter appearance and defend the claimant's suit against them, and were given a bill of professional charges to the tune of N5,000,000.00 (Five Million Naira) only. The Counter-Claimants therefore counterclaim as follows:

i.                   A DECLARATION that the claimant/defendant to counter-claim for the period she was away from her duty post without leave for same duly sought and obtained, was not entitled to be paid monthly salaries.

ii.                 AN ORDER of this Honourable Court directing the claimant/defendant to counter-claim to refund to the counter- claimant the sum of N2,640,888.5 (Two Million, Six Hundred and Fifty Thousand(sic), Eight Hundred- and Eighty-eight-naira, five kobo) only being monies paid to her erroneously for services not rendered from June 2022 to September 2023.

iii.              AN ORDER of this Honourable Court directing the defendant to counter-claim to pay to the counter-claimant the sum of N20,000,000 (Twenty Million Naira) only as general damages.

iv.               AN ORDER of this Honourable Court directing the defendant to counter-claim to pay to the counter-claimants, the sum of N5,000,000 (Five Million Naira) only as cost of prosecuting this action.

v.                  AN ORDER of 20% (Twenty percent) post-judgment interest in favour of the counter-claimant until the judgment sum is fully liquidated.

 

3.7.         It is pertinent to note that the Claimant/Defendant to Counter-Claim filed a Reply to the Statement of Defence and Defence to Counter-Claim on the 16^th of June, 2025. That while she completed a Bond Form with the 1st Defendant before proceeding on study leave to Liverpool for her Masters Degree as the standard procedure required for an applicant to access the TETFUND sponsored Scholarship which was administered by the 1st Defendant, no such condition is attached to the DAAD Scholarship awarded to the Claimant by the German Government as the 1st Defendant had no role to play in the Scholarship scheme, and there was no need to sign bond with the Defendants as they are not the sponsors of the scholarship neither is the Federal Government the sponsor. That her letter of employment did not make reference to any Regulation, and her employment is governed by the University of Otuoke (Establishment) Act, of 2015. That the Defendants listed her as staff on study leave in their Nominal Roll and also paid her monthly salary from May 2022 when she left for Germany until October 2023. The Defendants were duly informed of the Claimant's admission and the 2^nd Defendant demanded for the Visa Page of the Claimant's passport and Proof of Language Course which was duly provided. What was left for the Defendants to do was a mere issuance of a formal letter conveying the approval of the Study Leave with pay. The Defendants did not also refuse the application for study leave neither have they demanded that the Claimant shall abandon her programme and resume work with the 1^st Defendant. They are therefore estopped from denying the approval having led the Claimant by their conduct to believe that her study leave had been approved. That she did not stop carrying out her obligation to the 1^st Defendant because she was on study leave, it is not also correct that the Defendants erroneously paid the Claimant her monthly salary for 16 months. She denies the Counter Claim and avers that the Defendants are not entitled to any of the reliefs sought therein because she was duly paid her salary, not having been removed from her employment in accordance with the Federal University Otuoke (Establishment) Act of 2015. That the receipt of payment of professional fees was made up for the purpose of the Counter-Claim.

DEFENDANTS’ SUBMISSIONS:

4.1.         The defendants distilled this single Issue for the determination of the Court: Whether the Claimant has failed to prove a case of unlawful dismissal?

 

4.2.         It is however apposite to note that the Learned Counsel to the Defendants made preliminary arguments on the admissibility of the documents tendered by the Claimant. It was submitted that all the Claimants’ documents are photocopies, and by virtue of Sections 85-90 of the Evidence Act 2011, documentary evidence is proved primarily by production of the original document, and secondary evidence in the form of photocopies or scans is admissible only where strict statutory conditions are satisfied, and a proper foundation is laid. That a party seeking to rely on secondary evidence must first establish the existence, custody, and unavailability of the original and bring the document within the recognized exceptions, relying on the cases of Bamali V. Togun (2023) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1905) p. 428, paras B-C 9 (CA) and Aromolaran V. Agoro (2014) LPELR - 20437 (SC). That the bare assertion of CW1 that the originals of the documents are “in Nigeria” falls far short of the legal requirement, as she failed to disclose who has custody of the originals, what efforts were made to procure them, or why certified true copies were not obtained where applicable. The law is settled that failure to lay this foundation renders secondary evidence inadmissible or, at best, devoid of probative value. That many of the Claimant's exhibits emanate from the 1^st Defendant, a public institution, and are therefore public documents within the meaning of Sections 102 and 104 of the Evidence Act 2011, provable only by certified true copies. That uncertified photocopies of public documents are inadmissible in evidence, relying on the cases of Tabik Investment Ltd V. GTB Plc (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt1276) 240 (SC) and Araka V. Egbue (2003) 17 NWLR (Pt. 848) 1 (SC).

 

4.3.         It was further argued that, some of the Claimant's documents are emails and computer- generated records (notably Exhibits CWIO and CW17), yet no certificate in compliance with Section 84 of the Evidence Act was produced. That electronic evidence tendered without the mandatory certification is inadmissible, relying on the cases of Dickson V. Sylva (2017) 8 NWLR (Pt.1567) 167 (SC) and Kubor V. Dickson (2013) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1345) 534 (SC). The Court was urged not to place probative value on the documents, and to expunge them from the records.

 

4.4.         With respect to the lone Issue, the Learned Counsel to the Defendants submitted that, since reliefs 1, 2 and 3 which are the principal reliefs are declaratory in nature, they have to be proved as required by law and not even on admission by the defendants. That a claimant who seeks a declaratory relief must succeed on the strength of his/her own case, such claimant cannot rely on the admission or weakness of the Defendant's case. See the cases of Adamu V. Nigerian Air Force and Anor (2022) LPELR- 56587(SC), Muhammad V. Suleiman (2024) LPELR-61695(CA), Coinage Global Services Ltd V. FCMB Plc (2024) LPELR - 62664 (CA), Zaccala V. Edosa and Anor (2017) LPELR-48034 (SC) and Dumez (Nig.) Ltd V. Nwakhoba (2008) 18 NWLR (Pt.ll 19) 361 (SC); (2008) LPELR-965(SC).

 

4.5.         With respect to the claimant’s alleged unapproved and unauthorized absence from duty, it was posited that the Claimant as CW1 unequivocally admitted under cross- examination that study leave in the University is regulated by established procedures and that during her earlier Master's program she duly complied with those procedures and obtained formal approvals. However, with respect to her Germany PhD program, she candidly conceded that the "official approval letter" was never issued before she travelled, yet she proceeded to leave the country on the basis that her travel was "imminent." That whatever informal endorsements, internal recommendations or what she described as "good depositions" she claims to have received could not, in law, substitute for the operative formal approval conveying institutional authorization to be absent from duty because in statutory employment, the rights and obligations of parties are governed strictly by the enabling statute and conditions of service, and that unauthorized absence from duty constitutes misconduct warranting disciplinary sanction. See the cases of Ziideeh V. Rivers State Civil Service Commission (2007) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1022) 554 (SC), (2007) LPELR-3544(SC) and Fakuade V. O.A.U.T.H. (1993) 5 NWLR (Pt.291) 47 (SC); (1993) LPELR-1233(SC).

 

4.6.         On the standard of proof applicable to disciplinary proceeding, it was submitted that, allegations of misconduct in administrative or employment matters are proved on the balance of probabilities and not beyond reasonable doubt, and that an employer needs only establish a prima facie case of misconduct to justify disciplinary action, relying on the cases of Bamgboye V. University of Ilorin (1999) 10 NWLR (Pt.622) 290 (SC); (1999) LPELR-737(SC) and Imonikhe V. Unity Bank Plc (2011) 12 NWLR (Pt.1262) 624 (SC); (2011) LPELR-1503(SC). That both the unchallenged evidence of DW1 and the Claimant’s own admission of travelling without approval and remaining absent from duty, clearly satisfies this threshold. That the disciplinary process was properly invoked, fair hearing was duly accorded and the Governing Council lawfully exercised its statutory powers.

 

4.7.         With respect to relief 2 relating to the power of the Governing Council to remove or dismiss the claimant, it was argued that section 17(1) of the Federal University Otuoke (Establishment) Act 2015 expressly vests disciplinary authority in the Governing Council, including the power to remove academic, administrative and professional staff for misconduct or inability to perform assigned duties. That in employments with statutory flavour, the rights, duties and disciplinary powers of the parties are governed strictly by the enabling statute, and that where such statute confers power of removal on a specified authority, that authority is competent to exercise same subject only to compliance with prescribed procedure. See the cases of Olaniyan V. University of Lagos (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt.9) 599 (SC); (1985) LPELR-2565(SC), Fakuade V. O.A.U.T.H. (1993) 5 NWLR (Pt.291) 47 (SC) and Shitta-Bey V. Federal Public Service Commission (1981) 1 SC 40.

 

4.8.         That since the Claimant admitted under cross-examination that she travelled out of Nigeria in May, 2022 without receiving any official approval letter for study leave and remained absent from duty for an extended period, and the Defendants tendered the relevant queries, disciplinary documents and the eventual Governing Council decision dismissing the Claimant (Exhibits DW28/CW19), the absence from duty without approval constitutes gross misconduct justifying disciplinary action. See Ziideeh V. Rivers State Civil Service Commission (supra) and FCSC V. Laoye (1989) 2 NWLR (Pt.106) 652 (SC); (1989) LPELR-1273(SC).

 

4.9.         On reliefs 3 and 4 concerning the effect of the Claimant’s resignation and her subsequent dismissal from service, it was submitted that the claimant’s proposition that her resignation dated 4th April 2024 automatically terminated her employment upon receipt on 8th April 2024, and thereby seeks to invalidate the subsequent dismissal of 19th September 2024 is untenable because while as a general principle in ordinary master-servant relationships a resignation ordinarily takes effect upon receipt by the employer or its authorized agent and does not require formal acceptance, the principle is however not absolute and must be applied within the peculiar context of statutory employment and subsisting disciplinary proceedings. See Yesufu V. Governor of Edo State (2001) 13 NWLR (Pt.731) 517 (SC) and WAEC V. Oshionebo (2006) 12 NWLR (Pt.994) 258 (SC). That in statutory employment, where the enabling statute prescribes a specific disciplinary and removal regime, an employee cannot, by unilateral resignation defeat or truncate the employer's statutory powers to discipline or remove her for misconduct already committed and already under investigation. That a resignation does not retrospectively cleanse prior misconduct nor extinguish disciplinary processes already activated. See Olaniyan V. University of Lagos (supra), Fakuade v. O.A.U.T.H. (supra), FCSC v. Laoye (supra) and NEPA V. Ango (2001) 15 NWLR (Pt.737) 627 (SC); (2001) LPELR-1976(SC).

 

4.10.     That since disciplinary machinery had been set in motion against the Claimant, resignation cannot operate as a shield to escape accountability. A resignation tendered during suspension or disciplinary process may be ineffectual where it is clearly aimed at pre-empting outcome of proceedings, and such resignation may be rejected or ignored in order to preserve institutional discipline. That the Governing Council's decision in Exhibits CW19/DW28 remains a formal and binding act of the University's highest statutory organ, and it is settled law that an administrative or statutory decision of a competent authority remains valid and effective until set aside by a court of law. See Military Governor of Lagos State V. Ojukwu (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt.18) 621 (SC); (1986) LPELR- 3186(SC) and Governor of Ekiti State V. Fakiyesi (2009) LPELR-835(SC).

 

4.11.    It was further submitted that there is inconsistency in the Claimant’s reliefs because while in relief 3 she asks the Court to declare that her resignation terminated the employment on 8^th April, 2024 and in relief 4 to set aside the dismissal dated 19^th September, 2024, she is yet asking for award of salary arrears up to April 2024 together with N24,000,000.00 general damages for alleged unlawful tampering with her employment. That a party cannot approbate and reprobate, nor pursue inconsistent remedies in the same breath. See the cases of Ajide V. Kelani (1985) 3 NWLR (Pt. 12) 248 (SC) and A.G. Rivers State V. A.G. Akwa Ibom State (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt.1248) 31 (SC).

 

4.12.     On the monetary claims of salary arrears, general damages and cost, it was posited that the claimant is not entitled to relief 5 for salary arrears from October 2023 to April 2024 because she expressly admitted under cross-examination that she was paid salaries up to September 2023 notwithstanding the fact that she had been away from duty since May 2022. That salary is consideration for work done or, in appropriate cases, for duly authorized leave, and where neither exists, no enforceable entitlement to remuneration arises. See Adekunle V. Wema Bank Plc (2011) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1246) 588 (SC) and Shitta-Bey V. Federal Public Service Commission (1981) 1 SC 40. The burden rests squarely on the Claimant to prove entitlement to the specific sum claimed as monetary reliefs must be strictly proved. See N.B.N. Ltd V. Net (Nig.) Ltd (2004) 13 NWLR (Pt.889) 76 (SC) and A.G. Federation v. Abubakar (2007) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1041) 1 (SC).

 

4.13.    On relief 6 for general damages of N24,000,000.00, it was argued that general damages do not lie to punish an employer for exercising statutory disciplinary powers, particularly where misconduct and absenteeism have been established and the Claimant herself failed to comply with formal leave procedures. That damages in employment matters must flow from a proven wrongful act and must be grounded on established loss. The Claimant neither proved wrongful dismissal nor demonstrated any specific loss attributable to the Defendants’ actions. See Onala V. IGP (2007) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1066) 406 (SC) and Mobil Producing Nig. Unlimited V. Udo (2008) 36 WRN 53 (SC). That the Claimant is also not entitled to relief 7 for N5,000,000.00 cost of litigation because costs are awarded at the discretion of the Court and are intended to indemnify a successful party for expenses reasonably incurred in litigation, relying on the case of Nwanji V. Coastal Services (Nig.) Ltd (2004) 11 NWLR (Pt.885) 552 (SC). The Defendants tendered their Solicitors' Bill of Charges and Receipt (Exhibits DW32 and DW33) evidencing costs incurred in defending this suit. The Court was urged to refuse relief 7.

 

4.14.     With respect to the Defendants’ Counter-Claim, it was submitted that a counterclaim is in the nature of a separate and independent action, though tried together with the main claim, and must be determined on its own merits upon the evidence adduced in support thereof. See Jeric (Nig.) Ltd V. Union Bank Plc (2000) 15 NWLR (Pt.691) 447 (SC); (2000) LPELR-1607 (SC). That the Counterclaim is founded on the equitable doctrine of unjust enrichment and the settled principle of restitution, seeking recovery of salaries paid in error to the Claimant/Defendant to Counterclaim during a prolonged period when she was admittedly absent from duty without any approved study leave. That since the Defendants/Counterclaimants have proved the Counter-Claim vide the uncontroverted evidence of DWI (Registrar of the 1st Defendant) and Exhibits DW3-DW16 (pay slips), the Court should grant same. See Union Bank of Nigeria Plc V. Ajabule (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 152 (SC); (2011) LPELR-8239 (SC), Chevron (Nig.) Ltd V. Imo State Government (2016) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1541) 493 (SC), A.G. Federation V. Abubakar (2007) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1041) 1 (SC), University of Ilorin V. Rasheedat Adesina (2019) LPELR-47887(CA), Dumez (Nig.) Ltd V. Nwakhoba (2008) 18 NWLR (Pt.1119) 361 (SC) and N.B.N. Ltd V. Net (Nig.) Ltd (2004) 13 NWLR (Pt.889) 76 (SC).

 

4.15.    The Court was urged to resolve the sole Issue in favour of the Defendants, dismiss the suit with costs and grant the Counter Claim.

CLAIMANT’S SUBMISSIONS:

5.1.         The Claimant’s Counsel identified three (3) Issues for the determination of the Court:

 

1.     Whether the Claimant’s resignation letter dated 4/4/2024 did not effectively determine her contract of employment with the 1^st Defendant as to relieve the Defendants of any power to dismiss the Claimant, the contract of employment having been terminated?

 

2.     Whether the Defendants complied with the provision of the Federal University, Otuoke (Establishment) Act 2015 in purporting to remove the Claimant from service.

 

3.     Whether the Claimant is entitled to her Reliefs and the dismissal of the Counter Claim.

 

5.2.         The Claimant’s Counsel started by responding to the Defendants’ objections to the documents tendered by the Claimant in the suit. That it is not correct that the Claimant did not lay foundation for tendering secondary evidence of the documents pleaded. The Claimant did not say that all her original documents are in Nigeria as claimed by the Defendants, and the originals of all the letters the Claimant wrote to the Defendants are with the Defendants who were also given Notice to produce the originals of the said letters. The Claimant is therefore entitled to rely on the secondary copies available to her by virtue of Sections 89(a) and 91 of the Evidence Act. That the claimant was granted leave to testify virtually from her base in Germany, and she testified that she cannot tender the originals of her certificates and letters sent to her by the Defendant which are not in contention because the original copies are in Nigeria. She recently put to bed and would not be able to conveniently travel to Nigeria. The Court was therefore urged to depart from the strict compliance with the Evidence Act in the interest of justice pursuant to Section 12 (2)(b) of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria Act 2006.

 

5.3.         That the Defendants who contend that many of the Claimant's Exhibits emanated from the Defendants and are therefore public documents within the meaning of Sections 102 and 104 of the Evidence Act have not pointed out the particular documents they are objecting to. To object to "many documents" does not amount to an objection in law as it leaves both the Claimant and the Court to speculate on which particular document the objection is attacking. That since the documents are letters written to the Claimant by the Defendants and the copies sought to be tendered by her are not copies in the custody of the Defendants, they are admissible in evidence, and were properly admitted by the Court. That the Claimant also complied with Section 84 of the Evidence Act. The Court was urged to discountenance the objection. See the cases of Dale Power Systems Plc V. Witt & Busch Ltd & Anor (2007) LPELR - 4011 (CA) and Gombe State Co-op Saving & Loan Ltd V. G.T.B & Ors (2021) LPELR 0 54597 (CA).

 

5.4.         With respect to Issue one (1), it was submitted that, employment is a contract between the employer and employee regulated by the terms of employment and supplemented in the case of employment with statutory flavour by the statute regulating the said employment. See Olaniyan V. University of Lagos (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt 9) 599. That since the Claimant was employed in 2014, 10 years before the Defendants purported to produce the Regulations Exhibit DWI, the Defendants cannot unilaterally modify the terms of employment 10 years after employment. That the Claimant's employment is governed only by her letter of employment Exhibit CWOOI and the Federal University Otuoke (Establishment) Act of 2015, and there is no provision in the said Act or the letter of employment that stated that the Claimant cannot resign her employment during "disciplinary proceedings". That Exhibit DWI is a worthless document because the Defendants cannot unilaterally amend the terms of contract of service between them and the employees of the University, and because it cannot have a retrospective effect. Even where parties have negotiated and arrived at collective agreements, such collective agreements have been held not to be enforceable in law. See Afribank Nig. Plc v. Osisimya (2000) I NWLR (Pt 652) 598 at 618.

 

5.5.         That the Claimant was within her right to resign from her employment at the time that she did in April 2024. The conditions of service Exhibit DW1 made in 2023 was not in existence in 2014 when the Claimant was employed and could not have been in contemplation of the parties or incorporated by reference as alluded to by the DWI under cross examination by the Claimant's Counsel. For a document to be incorporated by reference it must be in existence at the time the main contract was entered into. See Mbat V. Minister FCT & Ors.

 

5.6.         That even if it is assumed that Exhibit DWI governed the contract of the parties, it will also make no difference to the resignation of the Claimant because by Section 17 of the Federal University Otuoke (Establishment) Act of 2015, disciplinary proceedings to remove an employee is initiated by the University Council by giving a Notice of infraction to the affected Staff. The staff will be given the opportunity to appear in person before the University Governing Council. That since at the time the Claimant resigned her appointment, she had not received any notification from the University Council, disciplinary proceedings had not commenced against her, hence, the prohibition in Exhibit DW1 that a member of staff cannot resign when disciplinary proceedings is in progress is not applicable in this case. That the legal effect of the resignation letter tendered by the Claimant on 4^th April, 2024 is that the contract of employment between the Claimant and the 1^st Defendant has been terminated, relying on the case of Okorie & Anor v. INEC & Ors (2024) LPELR - 62967 (CA). That the Claimant having resigned on 4^th April, 2024, the contract was terminated and ceased to exist, and the Defendants had no power to dismiss or purport to dismiss the Claimant on 19^th of September, 2024, relying on the case of Unity Bank v. Chosi (2021) LPELR - 55720 (CA), where the Court of Appeal held that an employee who has earlier retired cannot be subsequently dismissed as there was no longer any contract between the parties. The Court was urged to resolve Issue one (1) in favour of the Claimant.

 

5.7.         With respect to Issue two (2), the Learned Counsel to the Claimant submitted that, the dismissal of the Claimant is unlawful, unconstitutional, null and void for failure to comply with the provisions of the Federal University Otuoke (Establishment) Act 2015 and Section 36 (1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as Amended). Learned Counsel reproduced the provision of Section 17 of the Federal University Otuoke (Establishment) Act 2015 which sets out the steps the 1st Defendant must take before it can remove an academic staff from its employment, and posited that by whatever means the Council gets its information on any infraction against its staff (whether through disciplinary committee or query), it must take the three steps specified by the Act before it can terminate the employment of a staff. The Council must give notice of the reason of infraction to the effected staff, give the affected staff opportunity to appear before the Council in person before it can then take a decision on whether to remove the staff or not. That since the Defendants failed to cross-examine the Claimant on her testimony that she was not given any Notice by Council and was not also invited by Council to appear in person to defend herself, the failure by a party to cross examine a Witness on a vital point is taken to have conceded the point, relying on the case of Gambo v. Isah & Anor (2018) LPELR — 45984 (CA). That DWI also admitted that the date the University Council met to consider the case of the Claimant, the Claimant was not invited, and there is no evidence from the Defendants showing that the Council wrote to the Claimant notifying her of the allegations against her and requesting her to appear in person before the Council to defend herself. That the contention of the Defendants that the Staff Disciplinary Committee is ‘a Committee of the University Governing Council’ is also not correct because the composition of the University Governing Council is an issue of law as by section 6(1) of the Act the Council is made up of the Pro-Chancellor, Vice Chancellor, Deputy Vice Chancellor, one representative of the Federal Ministry of Education, 4 persons appointed by the congregation and one person appointed by the convocation. The only Committee of the Governing Council known to law is the Finance and General Purpose Committee under Section 7 (2) of the Federal University Otuoke (Establishment) Act 2015. There is therefore no provision in the Act that recognizes the Staff Disciplinary Committee as a Committee or organ of the University Council or permits the Council to abdicate its statutory duty and assign same to the Staff Disciplinary Committee.

 

5.8.         That provisions of the law regarding discipline of staff whose employment enjoy statutory flavour must be followed strictly, and that any deviation will lead to the decision taken being set aside, relying on the cases of Fasasi Adebayo v. OAUTHCMB (2000) 9 NWLR (pt 673) 585; Suit No: NICN/YEN/66/2015 Ekpan Thomas & 4 ors v. Federal Road Safety Corps delivered on 19/11/2019, Comptroller- General of Customs & Ors v. Comptroller Abdullahi Gusau (2017) 18 NWLR (PI 1598) 353 at 388 and University of Calabar Teaching Hospital & Anor v. Bassey (2008) LPELR — 8553 (CA).

 

5.9.         That in an action for unlawful termination of employment with statutory flavour, the onus is on the employer to justify the termination; and the only onus on the Claimant is to show that he is an employee and that the employment was cut short, relying on the cases of Primary Health Management Board v. Ejitagha (2000) Il N WLR (Pt 677) 154 at 160 and Eze v. Unijos (2021) 2 NWLR (Pt 1760) 208 at 223. The Court was urged to resolve Issue two (2) in favour of the Claimant, and hold that the Defendants failed to comply with the provision of Section 17 of the Act and set aside the dismissal of the Claimant.

 

5.10.     On Issue three (3), it was argued that having established her case, the claimant is entitled to the reliefs she is seeking in this suit. The Court was therefore urged to grant the reliefs in the suit.

 

5.11.    With respect to the Counter-Claim, it was argued that the Defendants by their conduct made the Claimant to believe that she is on study leave with pay. The Claimant pleaded that she applied for study leave with pay upon securing scholarship to pursue her doctorate degree in Germany, and the application was favourably recommended by her Head of Department and Dean. The Claimant was awaiting the letter conveying the approval which could not be done because of ASUU strike. The Defendants did not refuse the application for study leave with pay and placed the Claimant on study leave with pay in their official records, and she was also paid her salary. The Defendants did not request the Claimant to return to Nigeria at any point to resume teaching. They have by their conduct made the Claimant to believe that her application for study leave with pay was not refused, they cannot be allowed to resile from that position. See Section 169 of the Evidence Act. That the University Council in the letter of dismissal stated clearly that her name will be removed from the University payroll with effect from September 19, 2024 when the purported dismissal was to take effect. This means that the Claimant is entitled to her salary until September 2024. The Counter Claim for refund of salary already paid is therefore an afterthought and not cognizable in law. The Defendants by their letter of 19^th September, 2024 condoned and approved the payment of the Claimant's salary while in Germany. See Skye Bank Plc v. Adegun (2024) 15 NWLR (Pt 1960) 1 at 38.

 

5.12.    That the Defendants cannot therefore be allowed by the combined doctrines of estoppel, waiver and condonation to seek a recovery of the salary already paid to the Claimant as sought in the Counter Claim. The Court was urged to dismiss the Counter-Claim

DEFENDANTS’ REPLY ON POINTS OF LAW:

6.1.         It is pertinent to note that the Defendants filed a Reply on Points of Law on the 20^th of April, 2026.

 

6.2.         On the claimant’s arguments that the documents she tendered in the suit were properly admitted, it was replied that by the provisions of Sections 85 to 89 of the Evidence Act, 2011, (as amended), documents must be proved by primary evidence, except where proper foundation is laid. That secondary evidence is inadmissible where no credible explanation is given for the absence of the original. See the cases of Daggash v. Bulama (2004) 14 NWLR (Pt. 892) 144, Buhari v. Obasanjo (2005) 13 NWLR (Pt. 941) 1 and Ogunleye v. A. (2011) LPELR-4695(CA). That the Claimant did not state where the originals are; show they are lost/destroyed; establish custody with the Defendants; or give any Notice to Produce (where applicable). Consequently, Exhibits CW10 - CW17 are inadmissible and ought to be expunged. See Kubor v. Dickson (2013) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1345) 534.

 

6.3.         On the claimant’s contention that her resignation terminated the disciplinary proceedings and also that Exhibit DWI (the Revised Edition of the Rules and Regulations Governing the Conditions of Service of Senior Staff of the University) does not regulate her contract of employment, it was replied that by the provision of Part Ill particularly Sections 11 and 12 as well as Section 17(1) of the Federal University Otuoke (Establishment) Act, 2015, the University Council and Senate are vested with statutory powers to make statutes, regulations and rules for the proper governance and administration of the University. That the Conditions of Service embodied in Exhibit DW1 have statutory flavour and are binding on the Claimant. The Claimant's argument that Exhibit DWI amounts to a unilateral variation of her contract after 10 years is misconceived. Exhibit DWI is clearly described as a Revised Edition, which in law and practice denotes an updated and corrected version of an existing regulatory framework, not the creation of a new contract. See Ajiga & Anor v. Olanrewaju & Ors (2015) LPELR-40919(CA) and Obhafuoso & Anor v INEC & ors (2015) LPELR-40888(CA).

 

6.4.         On the Claimant’s contention at paragraph 5.13 of her final written address that the only committee of the governing council known to law is the finance committee according to section 7(2) of the Act, it was replied that the Claimant failed to avert her mind to the fact that the Vice-chancellor is a member and head of the staff disciplinary committee of the University. It was the Governing Council's decision dismissing the Claimant after the receipt of the report from the Staff Disciplinary Committee headed by the Vice-chancellor.

 

6.5.         That the Claimant’s resignation does not extinguish disciplinary jurisdiction over misconduct committed during employment, relying on the cases of FBN PLC v. Ndako (2008) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1105) 48, Longe v. FBN Plc (2010) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1189) 1, WAEC v. Oshionebo (2006) LPELR-7739(CA), and G.S.S. Gusau v. Abubakar (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1276) 509, where the Court reiterated that an employee cannot escape the consequences of misconduct by resignation. That since the Claimant absented herself without approval, a query was issued to her and disciplinary proceedings had commenced prior to her resignation, the defendants met all the conditions for dismissal as provided in Section 17(1) of the Act as well as chapter 3 Article (f) (vii & viii a) of Exhibit DWI. The resignation was therefore an afterthought aimed at evading disciplinary sanction, and is legally ineffectual in extinguishing liability.

 

6.6.         On the unapproved study leave as a misconduct, it was replied that the Claimant's reliance on ASUU strike or academic delay is irrelevant to contractual obligations. Employment is strictly governed by contract, not speculation or expectation, and the court cannot rewrite contracts. See the cases of Unilorin v. Ishaku (2013) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1337) 53 and Orakul Resources Ltd v. NCC (2022) LPELR- 56602(SC). That the claimant’s travel without approval constitutes gross misconduct, insubordination, abandonment of duty, and disobedience of lawful instruction which justified the dismissal. See the case of Imonikhe V. Unity Bank Plc (2011) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1262) 624.

6.7.         On the claimant’s allegation of denial of fair hearing, it was replied that the test is whether the employee was given an opportunity to be heard, and there is evidence that she received a query dated 5th June 2023 and 3rd October, 2023. It was the response of the claimant to the query that prompted her appearance before the Disciplinary Committee virtually. Having participated fully, the Claimant cannot complain of breach. Moreover, domestic tribunals are not bound by strict rules of court procedure. See the cases of Yusuf v. UBN Ltd (1996) 6 NWLR (Pt. 457) 632; Arinze v. FBN Plc (2004) 12 NWLR (Pt. 888) 663 and Baba v. NCATC (1991) 5 NWLR (Pt. 192) 388.

 

6.8.         That the burden of proof lies on the Claimant who must succeed on the strength of her case. See Section 131 of the Evidence Act 2011 and Okoye v. Nwakwo (2014) LPELR-23172(SC). That the Claimant has failed to prove that there was an approval for study leave she embarked on; wrongful dismissal; or breach of any contractual or statutory right. The Court was finally urged to dismiss the suit in its entirety, and grant the defendants' counterclaim.

COURT’S DECISION:

7.1.         Having pored over the pleadings, the evidence adduced by the parties, and the written addresses in the suit, this Court shall determine the suit on the basis of these two (2) Issues:

 

1.     Whether the Claimant has proved her case to be entitled to the reliefs in the suit.

 

2.     Whether the Defendants have proved their Counter-Claim to be entitled to the reliefs in the Counter-Claim.

7.2.         It is pertinent to first resolve the points of law raised by the Defendants’ Counsel on the objection to the documents tendered by the Claimant and admitted by the Court.

 

7.3.         The contention of the Defendants’ Learned Counsel is that the Claimant’s exhibits are inadmissible and should be discountenanced and expunged from the records of the Court on the ground that they are secondary evidence, and she failed to lay foundation for their admissibility. The documents are secondary evidence of public documents but are not certified as required by law. That exhibits CW10 and CW17 are computer generated documents but the Claimant failed to certify them as required by section 84 of the Evidence Act.

 

7.4.         I have carefully considered the documents being objected to by the Defendants’ Counsel and seen that the documents (exhibits CW1 – CW20) all relate to the claimant’s employment with the defendants, particularly her appointment/confirmation letters, upgrade/promotion, the certificates she acquired in the course of her employment with the defendants, as well as documents relating to the issues for which the parties are before the Court such as queries, responses to queries and letters of resignation and dismissal from service.

 

7.5.         While it is true as rightly submitted by the Learned Counsel to the Defendants that being secondary evidence, foundation ought to be laid for their admissibility as stipulated in sections 89 – 90 of the Evidence Act, it is however pertinent to make the point that the claimant gave evidence in this suit virtually via Zoom from her base in Gottingen, Germany on the 4^th of December, 2025. She informed the Court that the documents she sought to tender were photocopies, and that the originals are in Nigeria.

 

7.6.         There is no doubt that these documents are relevant for the determination of the issues in contention in the suit. What guides admissibility generally is relevancy, hence the trite law that once a document is relevant and pleaded, same should be admitted. Whatever issues a party has concerning the state or form of the document can only go to the issue of the weight to be ascribed to the document, and not to reject same totally. See Mr. James Ochigbo V. Chief Vincent Ameh (2023) LPELR-59616(CA), where the Court of Appeal held that, “…in law, relevancy is the hallmark of admissibility of evidence, and therefore, even where a document or the facts are duly pleaded but if the fact pleaded or the document itself is irrelevant, it would still not be admitted in evidence.”

 

7.7.         It may be apposite to make the point that, considering the special nature of this Honourable Court, the law allows for some flexibilities in the procedures and proceedings of the Court. One of such flexibilities which has been affirmed by the appellate Court is the leverage to in deserving cases depart from the strict application of the law (Evidence Act) in the interest of justice as provided in section 12(2)(b) of the National Industrial Court Act, 2006 and Order 5 Rule 6 of the Rules of this Honourable Court 2017. Having held that the exhibits tendered by the Claimant are relevant to the facts in issue in this suit, and were duly pleaded, I hold the considered view that this is an appropriate circumstance to depart from the requirements of the Evidence Act with respect to the admissibility of secondary public documents. I therefore hold that the said exhibits were properly admitted, and shall be countenanced in this judgment. See the cases of Mr. Victor Adegboyu V. United Bank for Africa (2022) LPELR-58778(CA) and Mr. Sanni Mufutau Olasunkami V. Union Bank of Nigeria Plc (2022) LPELR-59296(CA) at pages 36 – 37, paragraphs D – C, where the Court of Appeal held as follows:

 

“Also, the lower Court found out that the Respondent did not comply with Section 84 of the Evidence Act in the admissibility of Exhibits D5 and D6. It was as a result of the failure of both Parties to comply with the provisions of the Evidence Act that necessitated the lower Court to invoke the provisions of Section 12 (2B) of the National Industrial Court Act in admitting both Exhibits.

Section 12(2B) of the National Industrial Court Act 2006 provides as follows:

“Subject to this Act and any Rules made thereunder, the Court shall be bound by the Evidence Act but may depart from it in the interest of Justice.”

The lower Court is empowered to depart from the Evidence Act in the interest of Justice. This is so where both Parties in the suit did not comply with the provisions of the Evidence Act in tendering their documents. Lower Court rightly exercised its discretion in departing from the Evidence Act in the interest of Justice. The Courts are enjoined not to exercise their discretion in a way that it will amount to giving an unfair advantage to the other side.”

 

7.8.         In the circumstance, the Defendants’ objection to the Claimant’s exhibits is hereby overruled.

7.9.         With respect to Issue one (1), the law is axiomatic that the onus or burden of proof is on the Claimant who asserts to establish the claims before the Court by adducing such concrete and compelling evidence as to entitle her to the reliefs sought. Being a civil suit, the law expects her to prove the case on the balance of probability or preponderance of evidence as required by sections 131, 132, 133 and 134 of the Evidence Act. See the cases of Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and Anor v Independent National Electoral Commission and Ors (2022) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1863) 653 at 692. Paras B-D and Francis Igiriogu Esq. V. Sharon Properties Ltd and Ors. (2025) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1984) 615, where the Supreme Court held at page 648, paras. C-E that, “It is settled law that a plaintiff in a civil suit bears the burden to lead credible evidence to establish his claim. That burden is entrenched by sections 131 and 132 of the Evidence Act. That is the ultimate burden which rests on a plaintiff or claimant as he is the party that will fail if no evidence at all were given on either side. That burden shall be discharged on the balance of probability or preponderance of evidence.”

 

7.10.    And since the claimant’s reliefs 1, 2 and 3 are declaratory in nature, the Claimant is legally enjoined to rely on the strength of her case and not to depend on any weakness in the defence. The claims cannot be granted for the mere asking, or even on an admission or default of defence. See the cases of Mr. Sunday Efere Egwu and Anor v Reuben Anumene (2025) 12 NWLR (Pt. 2000) 329 at pages 375 – 376, paras H – B and Francis Igiriogu Esq. V. Sharon Properties Ltd and Ors. (supra) at pages 639 – 640, paras. H – C, where the Apex Court held thus: “Furthermore, the appellant sought declaratory reliefs as per paragraph 25(e) of this statement of claim. The settled position of the law is that a party who claims declaratory reliefs must satisfy the court that he is entitled to these reliefs. He must succeed on the strength of his case and not on the weakness of the defence (if any), unless the case of the defence supports his case. It is equally trite that declaratory reliefs will not be granted in default of defence or on mere admission. See: Emenike v. P.D.P. (2012) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1315) 556; Adama v. Kogi State House of Assembly (2019) LPELR-47424(SC) @ 14-15 A-B, (2019) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1699) 501. In Adamu v. Nigerian Airforce & Anor. (2022) LPELR-56587(SC) 2 13-14 E-A, (2022) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1822) 159, His Lordship Peter-Odili, JSC stated inter alia: “It needs to be brought to the force that declaratory reliefs are not granted based on lack of credible evidence by the defence but on convincing, satisfactory and credible evidence by the claimant.”

 

7.11.    The Claimant is challenging her dismissal from the Defendants, and also asking for the affirmation of her resignation from the Defendants. The law expects her to plead and establish the following to be entitled to the claims before the Court.

i.                   That she is an employee of the Defendants.

ii.                 She must place before the Court the terms and conditions of the employment.

iii.              She must state who can appoint and who can remove her.

iv.              In what circumstances her employment can be determined, and

v.                 In what manner the said terms of the employment were breached or

violated by the Defendants.

See the cases of Dr. O. M. Agadas V. The Federal Ministry of Health and Anor (2022) LPELR-56955(CA), Raphael Ogumka V. Corporate Affairs Commission (2010) LPELR-4891(CA), Mr. Eniwomake Richard Ovivie and Ors v. Delta Steel Company Ltd (2023) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1904) 203 and Chief Tamunoemi Idoniboye-Obu V. Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (2003) 2 NWLR (Pt. 805) 589, at page 630 paras. A - B, where the Apex Court held thus, “A servant who complains that his employment has been brought to an end must found his claim on the contract of service and show in what manner the wrong was done. He must plead and prove the contract of service which is the bedrock of his case. It is not the duty of the employer as defendant to prove that the termination was not wrongful. See Amodu v. Amode (1990) 5 NWLR (Pt. 150) 356 at 370; Katto v. Central Bank of Nigeria (1999) 6 NWLR (Pt. 607) 390; Okomu Oil Palm Co. Ltd. v. Iserhienrhien (supra) at 673-674. In the same vein, the court is not entitled to look outside the contract of service as to the terms and conditions. These must be gathered therefrom and/or from other sources which can be incorporated by reference to the contract as the case may be. It is the best and only way of deciding the rights of the parties under the contract: see Adegbite v. College of Medicine of University of Lagos (1973) 5 SC 149 at 162; International Drilling Company Ltd. v. Ajijala (1976) 2 SC 115 at 127.”

 

7.12.    Having carefully considered the pleadings and the evidence adduced by the parties, there is no doubt that the Claimant was employed by the Defendants. In any case, the Defendants are not disputing the appointment of the Claimant as an academic staff of the Department of Chemistry, Faculty of Science of the Federal University Otuoke, Bayelsa State. Exhibits CW01, CW02, CW04 and CW05 are documents evidencing her appointment, upgrade and promotion to the post of Lecturer II on CONUASS 03/2 with effect from 1^st October, 2021. I therefore hold that the issue of her employment by the Defendants is not in contest in this suit.

 

7.13.    It is also in evidence and not contested by the Defendants that in the course of her employment, she acquired a Master of Science (Industiral Chemistry) Degree from the University of Benin on the 23^rd of November, 2019 as can be gleaned from exhibit CW06 and also a Master of Science in Advanced Chemical Sciences from the University of Liverpool on the 9^th of July, 2018 which was conferred on the 20^th day of July, 2018 as can be gleaned from exhibit CW03. There is no dispute with respect to the studies at the University of Liverpool as the parties are in agreement that it was a TETFUND sponsored scholarship, and she obtained all the necessary approvals for the programme as is evidenced by exhibit DW31.

 

7.14.    What spurred the issues that led to the institution of the suit is her admission for Doctoral programme in Catalysis for Sustainable Synthesis (CaSuS) at the University of Gottingen, Germany in 2022. The fulcrum of her case is that she applied for study leave through her HOD and the Dean to the Vice Chancellor, and since the commencement of the language programme was imminent and the approval letter could not be issued because of the prolonged industrial action in Nigerian Universities in 2022, she had to leave for Germany. The Contention of the Defendants is however that, the Claimant did not conclude the requisite processes and no approval was obtained by her before she proceeded to Germany for the PhD programme. That since she absented herself from official duties without lawful authorization, the Defendants were right in taking disciplinary actions against her leading to her dismissal from service.

 

7.15.    What is also not in doubt in the suit is the fact that the employment of the Claimant is one clothed with statutory flavour. The employment is regulated by the Federal University Otuoke (Establishment) Act 2015, and also the Rules and Regulations Governing Conditions of Service for Senior Staff of the University (exhibit DW1). The Claimant’s Counsel has submitted strenuously that since exhibit DW1 was made in 2023 and the claimant was employed in 2014, the document is not applicable and does not regulate the claimant’s employment. I do not agree with Learned Counsel on this point because exhibit DW1 is not a new Rules/Regulations but a revised version of the Rules and Regulations Governing Conditions of Service of the senior staff of the 1^st defendant. The argument is preposterous and without merit because if it is taken, then there will be as many Rules and Regulations applicable in the 1^st Defendant as there are employees considering the fact that the employees were not employed the same date. Being a revised version, I hold that exhibit DW1 also regulates the terms and conditions of the Claimant’s employment, and same does not constitute a unilateral modification of the contract between the parties.

 

7.16.    I have seen that the provisions relating to leave generally are provided in Chapter five (5) of exhibit DW1, and with respect to the Claimant’s leave which is study leave with pay, the provisions of paragraphs 5.8 are germane or relevant. It is in evidence that the PhD programme for which the Claimant is in Germany is through a scholarship from the German Academic Exchange Fund (DAAD) as evidenced by exhibit DW22. When the claimant received the admission letter exhibit CW07 dated 2^nd April, 2022 (which is the same as exhibit DW21), she applied to the defendants for study leave with pay vide exhibit DW25 dated 9^th of May, 2022. The application was strongly supported and recommended by both her Head of Department and the Dean, and when she was directed to furnish further documents, she submitted exhibits DW18, DW19 which is the acceptance by the University, DW20 which is a copy of the Visa and exhibit DW29. Rather than taking a decision on her application, the Defendants declared her absent from duty without official leave and issued exhibit DW30 asking her to explain her absence, and also why disciplinary action should not be taken against the Claimant. Exhibits CW09, CW12 and CW13 are also query letters issued to the Claimant for being absent from duty without permission which she responded to via exhibits DW25, DW27, CW08, CW11, CW14, CW15, CW16, DW26 and DW24. The defendants were not satisfied with her responses and then suspended her salary and referred the case to the Senior Staff Disciplinary Committee (SDC) vide exhibit DW17.

 

7.17.    While I agree with the Defendants that no formal approval was granted to the Claimant before she departed for Germany to pursue the PhD programme, the Court must however not lose sight of the recommendations/minutes on the Claimant’s application, particularly exhibit DW27 where it was recommended that a retrospective approval should be given since she had commenced the programme in Germany, and that the delay in granting the approval was due to the ASUU strike of 2022, and she had to travel for the German language class. It is of common knowledge in this Country that there was a prolonged ASUU strike in 2022 which this Hon. Court described in its Ruling that ended the strike action as ‘Valentine Strike’ considering that it commenced on 14^th of February, 2024 and lasted until the decision of this Court in Suit No. NICN/ABJ/270/2022 between Federal Republic of Nigerian and Anor V. Academic Staff Union of Nigeria (ASUU) delivered on the 21^st of September, 2022, which was subsequently affirmed by the Court of Appeal on the 7^th of October, 2022. The Defendants clearly indicated to the claimant that the letter of approval could not be issued due to the ASUU strike, and since the language class was imminent she left for Germany. Having shown her by conduct that what was delaying the release of the letter was the ASUU strike, I agree with the Claimant’s Counsel that section 169 of the Evidence Act bars the Defendants from resiling from their dispositions towards her application. The Defendants were clearly aware of the Claimant’s travel to Germany for the PhD programme as can be gleaned from the documents produced by the Defendants. The said section 169 of the Evidence Act which relates to estoppel provides that, “When a person has, either by virtue of an existing court judgment, deed or agreement, or by his declaration, act or omission, intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon such belief, neither he nor his representative in interest shall be allowed, in any proceeding between himself and such person or such person’s representative in interest, to deny the truth of that thing.” See Jacob Oyerogba and Anor V. Egbewole Olaopa (1998) 13 NWLR (Pt. 583) 509 and Ondo State University and Anor V. Dr. Ezekiel Adekunle Folayan (1994) 7 NWLR (Pt. 354) 1 at 25, paras. C – E.

 

7.18.    The point the Court is trying to put forward is that, having applied for the study leave, the Defendants should have taken a position on the application first before commencing any disciplinary proceedings against the Claimant where necessary. There is nothing before the Court to indicate that the application was declined or refused by the Defendants. Rather than initiating disciplinary proceedings against the claimant, the application for study leave could have been declined and the claimant directed to resume her duties first, and where she fails to return to the University then disciplinary proceedings can be rightly initiated against her. The Claimant informed the Court during her cross-examination that her application for study leave to Germany underwent the necessary steps because she wrote to the Vice Chancellor through the Dean and Head of Department, and she got good dispositions from three principal officers but the Registrar said the approval could not be issued due to the strike, and that it could be issued after the strike, so she left for Germany. That she got anticipatory approval and her travel was imminent otherwise she could lose the scholarship. Even DW affirmed during her cross-examination that when the Claimant travelled to Germany in 2022 she was not the Registrar of the University, and was also not privy to the discussions between the Claimant and the Registrar, the Dean and Head of Department. That she was aware that the Claimant applied for study leave and that the application was supported by the Claimant’s Dean and Head of Department who recommended that the study leave be approved retrospectively. She also affirmed that the Defendants have no document to show that the application for study leave in exhibit DW27 was refused by the School Management, and also affirmed that it was listed in the staff nominal roll that the Claimant was on study leave and also paid her monthly salaries, but that it was done in error.

 

7.19.    Even though there is avalanche of evidence on record to show that the Claimant was queried and she appeared before the Staff Disciplinary Committee (SDC) thereby affording her adequate opportunities to make her representations before her dismissal from service, the findings at paragraphs 7.17 and 7.18 of this judgment will make the disciplinary proceedings irrelevant. The disciplinary proceedings would only have been necessary if the claimant’s application for study leave had been refused and she refused to return to the University to resume her duties, and not in this case where the application was not formally declined and she was made to believe that she could travel and the necessary approval would be given after the cessation of the industrial hostilities between the Federal Government and ASUU. I therefore hold that the arguments whether or not the Defendants complied with the provisions of section 17 of the Federal University Otuoke (Establishment) Act 2015 and afforded the Claimant fair hearing as in exhibit DW2 before dismissing her from service vide exhibits CW19 and DW28 are immaterial.

 

7.20.    It may be apposite to distinguish the instant suit from the case of Dr. Igoro Joseph V. The Vice Chancellor, Federal University of Otuoke Bayelsa State and Others (Suit No. NICN/YEN/21/2024) delivered on the 2^nd day of July, 2026. Unlike the instant suit where there are avalanche of evidence that the Claimant’s application for study leave in Germany was received and acted upon by the Defendants and she left for Germany on the strength of the good dispositions of her HOD and Dean that approval could not be given due to the ASUU strike, in the case of Dr. Igoro Joseph the Court dismissed the suit because there was no evidence that his application for medical trip overseas was submitted to the University through the Head of Department. Even though both the Claimant in the instant suit and Dr. Igoro Joseph underwent disciplinary proceedings at the same time as can be gleaned from exhibit DW2, the facts and circumstances of the cases are however different.

 

7.21.    I shall now consider the effect of the resignation letter tendered by the claimant on the 2^nd of April, 2024 which was received by the Defendants on the 8^th of April, 2024 as can be gleaned from exhibits CW18 and CW20.

 

7.22.    Having held in this judgment that the disciplinary proceeding against the claimant was unnecessary in view of the circumstances of the case, it then follows that the arguments of the Defendants’ Counsel that the Claimant could not resign during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings is now of no moment. The Defendants who received the application for leave and assured the claimant of the approval letter after the ASUU strike; was aware of her trip to Germany for the PhD programme; indicated in the nominal roll as admitted by DW that the Claimant was on study leave and also continued to pay her salaries had no reasonable justification for the disciplinary proceedings. Since she was still in the service of the Defendants, she had the right to resign from the employment as she did.

 

7.23.    The issue of whether public servants have the right to resign voluntarily pursuant to section 306 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) has been repeatedly upheld by the National Industrial Court of Nigeria in a plethora of cases. See the cases of Dr. Michael Ikuesan Vs. The Chief of Naval Staff and Anor (Unreported) Suit No: NICN/ABJ/18/2025 delivered on the 8^th day of May, 2025, Tsaro Igbara Tuamene Godswill V. The Chief of Air Staff and Anor (unreported) Suit No: NICN/ABJ/364/2024 delivered on 4^th March, 2025 per Hon. Justice B. B. Kanyip, PhD., OFR, the HP,NICN, Nnaemezie Dim V. The Chief of Army Staff and Anor (unreported) Suit No: NICN/ABJ/223/2024 delivered on 27^th May, 2025 per Hon. Justice E. D. Subilim, Akerele Adedoyin Jeremiah V. The Chief of Air Staff and Anor (unreported) Suit No: NICN/ABJ/25/2025 delivered on 2^nd September, 2025 per Hon. Justice E. D. Subilim, Dr. Abubakar Gidado Halilu V. The Chief of Naval Staff and Anor (unreported) Suit No: NICN/ABJ/112/2024 delivered on 13^th November, 2025 per Hon. Justice B. B. Kanyip, PhD., OFR, the HP,NICN and Flt Lt. Ebikefi Believe Ugouwoni V. The Chief of the Air Staff and Anor (NICN/YEN/08/2025) delivered on the 19^th of January, 2026.

 

7.24.    Since the resignation letter exhibits CW18 and CW20 was received on the 8^th of April, 2024, I hold on this point that the Claimant’s resignation took effect from the date the resignation letter was received by the Defendants which is the 8^th of April, 2024. Having resigned and no longer an employee of the Defendants, whatever action(s) the Defendants took against her after the resignation is/are of no moment. It therefore follows that the Claimant was entitled to her salaries up to the effective date of the resignation which is the 8^th day of April, 2024. The Claimant’s employment has statutory flavour, hence her salaries cannot be arbitrarily suspended without legal basis or justification. See Bayero University Kano V. Hamisu Muhammad (2022) LPELR-56733(CA), Benue State University V. Dr. Andrew Abiodun Mogaji (2022) LPELR-56729(CA) and Mr. Eddy H. B. Oko-Jaja V. Federal Civil Service Commission and Others (2022) LPELR-57627(CA).

 

7.25.    In the final result, Issue one (1) is hereby resolved in favour of the Claimant, and the suit succeeds in part. The Court hereby grants reliefs 1, 3, 4 and 5 as claimed. Relief 2 cannot be granted because this Court has held in the case of Dr. Igoro Joseph V. The Vice Chancellor, Federal University Otuoke, Bayelsa State and Others (supra) that the Defendants have powers to set up the Staff Disciplinary Committee (SDC) to investigate disciplinary issues and make recommendations to the Governing Council. The Defendants therefore have the powers to dismiss any erring employee for misconduct. For relief 6 in the sum of Twenty Four Million Naira as general damages for unlawfully tampering with the Claimant’s contract of employment, I have not seen any basis for the award of general damages in the suit. In the first place, the success of the suit is predicated on the claimant’s resignation on the 8^th of April, 2024 and not the dismissal on the 19^th of September, 2024. Second, the Court has granted relief 5 for the payment of her salaries up to the date of her resignation. Having resigned voluntarily, she is not entitled to general damages. Relief 6 is therefore refused. For relief 7, while I agree that the claimant is entitled to cost of litigation, I am however of the considered view that cost of One Million Naira (N1,000,000.00) will be adequate in the circumstance of the suit. The Court therefore awards cost of One Million Naira (N1,000,000.00) in favour of the Claimant.

 

7.26.    For the avoidance of any doubt, the Court hereby declares and orders as follows:

 

1.     It is declared that following the confirmation of the Claimant’s employment as a Lecturer II, the Claimant’s employment has a statutory flavour and cannot be tampered with except in accordance with the Federal University Otuoke (Establishment) Act 2015.

2.     It is declared that the Claimant’s letter of resignation dated 4^th of April, 2024 terminated her employment with the 1^st Defendant upon the receipt of the said letter by the Defendants on 8^th of April, 2024.

3.     An Order is hereby made setting aside the letter of dismissal dated 19^th September, 2024 issued to the Claimant by the Defendants.

4.     An Order is hereby made mandating the Defendants to pay the Claimant the sum of N1, 355, 040.52 (One Million, Three Hundred and Fifty Five Thousand, Forty Naira, Fifty Two Kobo) being her outstanding Monthly salary from October 2023 when her salary was stopped until April 2024 when the Claimant resigned at the rate of N224, 173.42 (Two Hundred and Twenty Four Thousand, One Hundred and Seventy Three Naira, Forty Two Kobo) per month.

5.     One Million Naira (N1, 000, 000.00) only is awarded in favour of the Claimant as the cost of prosecuting this suit.

6.     The terms of this judgment shall be complied with within 30 days from today, failing which it shall attract interest at 10% per annum until it is fully liquidated.

 

7.27.    With respect to Issue two (2) relating to the Defendants’ Counter-Claim, it may be pertinent to restate the legal position that a Counter-Claim which is also a cross-action is governed by the same rules of pleadings as applicable to Statement of Facts. Such counter-claim is an independent and separate suit which is merely added to the main case for the purpose of convenience and expeditious trial. The onus is therefore on the Counter-Claimants who allege to prove their case by adducing sufficient, cogent and verifiable evidence to the satisfaction of the Court. See Michael Sunday Oroja & Ors. V. Ebenezer Ilo Adeniyi & Ors (2017) LPELR-41985(SC) and Ornguga Adieku & Ors. V. Torhile Tarchir (2021) LPELR-53300(CA).

 

7.28.    I must state in the circumstance of this case that, in law where both the claimant’s suit and the counter-claim are fought based on the same facts and questions, the success of one automatically defeats the other and vice versa. It is therefore my considered view that since the facts and questions in both the claimant’s suit and the Counter-Claim are intertwined or interwoven, and the claimant’s suit having succeeded in part, the Counter-Claim must fail. There is no need for the court to consider the issues and questions in the Counter-Claim separately from that of the claimant’s case. See Peter Dzawua V. Aondoyila Andza and Others (2019) LPELR-47619(CA) and Excel Standards Limited V. Z-Tannery Ltd (2022) LPELR-57408(CA).

 

7.29.    In any case, the Counter-Claim is predicated on exhibit DW3 – DW16 which are Payslips evidencing the payment of monthly salaries to the claimant from the month of June, 2022 to September, 2023 which the defendants are seeking to recover from her. Having held that the Claimant remained an employee of the Defendants till she resigned on the 8^th of April, 2024, it follows that she earned the salaries and was entitled to them. Exhibits DW32 and DW33 were also tendered by the Defendants ostensibly as proofs of the costs of prosecuting the suit. Having found merit in the Claimant’s suit, the Counter-Claim fails, and same is hereby dismissed. Judgment is entered accordingly.

 

 

Hon. Justice P. I. Hamman

Presiding Judge

 

REPRESENTATION:

 

C. E. Onyebukwa for the Claimant.

Mary E. Amachree-Allison for the Defendants.