IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA
IN THE YOLA JUDICIAL DIVISION
HOLDEN AT YOLA
BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP, HON.JUSTICE N.C.S OGBUANYA
SUIT NO: NICN/YL/01/2017
DATE: OCT. 03, 2018
BETWEEN:
ITODO JOHN ITODO – CLAIMANT
AND
1. THE GOVERNING COUNCIL, ADAMAWA STATE UNIVERSITY,
MUBI
2. THE VICE-CHANCELLOR, ADAMAWA STATE UNIVERSITY,
MUBI
3. ADAMAWA STATE UNIVERSITY, MUBI ]- DEFENDANTS
REPRESENTATION:
B.R Eston, Esq., with I.A Dauda, Esq., with A.U Sangere, Esq.,
– for the Claimant;
I.S Barde, Esq., Snr. State Counsel II, ADSMOJ-for the Defendants
JUDGMENT
The Claimant, a Senior Lecturer with the Adamawa State University Mubi (ADSU) and Vice-Chairman, Academics Staff Union of Universities (ASUU), ADSU Chapter, filed this Suit via General Form of Complaints and frontloaded processes issued and dated 11th January 2017, to challenge his dismissal from the services of the University on an allegation of examination malpractices and plagiarism, contending that his dismissal was victimization following the union activities at the University, while he was the vice-chairman, ASUU-ADSU.
The Claimant’s endorsed Reliefs are as follows:
“a. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court directing the Defendants for re-instatement and to pay the Claimant all his outstanding salaries and allowances
b. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court directing the Defendants to pay the sum of One Billion Naira (N1,000,000,000.00) for the defamation of character and for causing the Claimant and his family psychological trauma
c. Cost of this Suit”.
The Defendants reacted with a Joint Statement of Defence and other front-loaded defence processes dated and filed on 8th March 2017. Attempts at settlement of the matter was however initiated, as the court was informed at the proceedings of 6th and 12th December 2017, when learned counsel for the Claimant while trying to move his Motion on Notice dated 14th November 2017 seeking to withdraw the suit, realized the consequence of Or.61 R.2 NICN (CP) Rules 2017, to the effect that withdrawal of suit at the point the parties had joined issues by exchange of pleadings would amount to ‘Dismissal’ and not ‘Strike Out”. Not intending to grapple with such consequence, the learned counsel withdrew the Motion, which was struck out.
At the proceedings of 24th January 2018, learned counsel for the Claimant informed the court of a Terms of Settlement said to be executed in settlement of the matter, and applied to adopt same as Consent Judgment on this matter. On going through the said copy, it turned out that it was a document expressing interest in settlement and titled ‘Memorandum of Settlement’ and not prepared in normal court process format but in a letter headed paper of one of the parties, also, the endorsement execution fall short of the requirements of execution of Terms of Settlement under the category of ‘Corporate body or Institution, as stipulated in Or.42 R.5(b) NICN (CP) Rules 2017, requiring affixed stamp of the organization and disclosure of authorized signatory. The matter was adjourned to enable the parties to regularize the said Terms of Settlement, especially as the learned Defendants’ counsel insisted that the document ought to be properly presented and filed before it can be so adopted.
The proceedings of 14th February 2018 was again adjourned yet the error was still not corrected, as counsel for the Claimant complained of frustrations he encountered trying to get the document properly signed. On that note, and in the interest of justice and judicial due process, at the proceedings 13th March 2018, the matter was directed to be set down for trial to enable parties testify on the particular evidence of the settlement, pursuant to Or.40 R.2 (1) NICN (CP) Rules 2018. Trial opened at the proceedings of 13th April 2018, and the Claimant testified for himself as CW. At the resumed proceedings of 14th June 2018, CW concluded his testimony and tendered 6 documents admitted in evidence and marked as ‘exh. CJ1-CJ6’. He testified how he was reinstated following intervention of the Academics Staff Union of Universities (ASUU) and the final approval of the Governing Council of the University after considering his letters of Appeal. He stated that the terms of his re-instatement was contained in exh.CJ6, and that he has resumed duties and have been receiving salaries, only that his outstanding arrears of salaries and allowances while he was out of duty have not been paid. Under cross-examination, he re-confirmed that he has been receiving payments since his re-instatement. When asked: “Based on exh.CJ6, the Defendant (University) agreed to be paying you from when you returned back to work?” CW answered “yes”.
On the part of the Defendants, One Sunday Kefas Kwala , the Liaison Officer of the 4th Defendant University in Yola, testified as DW. He explained how the Claimant was later re-instated in his work after the dismissal. He tendered 4 documents admitted in evidence and marked ‘exh.DJ1-DJ4’. When cross-examined, he confirmed that since the re-instatement, the Claimant has been working and the terms of his re-instatement were expressed in writing as in exhibit in exh.DJ4.
Upon conclusion of the trial, both Counsel expressed their willingness to dispense with filling of Final Written Address, and urged the court to incorporate the offered terms of settlement in the Judgment to be delivered. The matter was therefore reserved for Judgment.
COURT’S DECISION
In the course of the proceedings, I observed carefully the events of the proceedings and read relevant processes, and as well, listened to the parties’ witnesses testify on the later development in the matter resulting in the trial being narrowed to adduce evidence on the particular fact of the agreed settlement by the parties.
From the testimonies at the trial, in my humble view, the lone issue arising is: whether the court can enter judgment based on the parties’ consensual testimonies about their agreed terms for resolution of their dispute? To resolve this issue, I hold the view that there is no doubt that the agreed terms of resolution testified to by the parties’ Witnesses at the trial admitted as Exhibit ‘CJ6/DJ4’, amounts to admission on the part of both parties. In Popoola v. Babatunde [2012] 7 NWLR (Pt. 1299) C.A 302 @ P 331, para. B, it was held that what is admitted need no further proof. See also: Adebiyi v. Umar [2012] 9 NWLR (Pt. 1305) C.A. 279@ P. 296, para. G-H, where the court held that “by virtue of section 75 of the Evidence Act, no fact need be proved in any civil proceedings which the parties thereto or their agents agree to admit at the hearing or which by any rule or pleading in force at the time they are deemed to have admitted by their pleadings”.
Or.40 R.2 (1) NICN (CP) Rules 2017, is to the effect that: “The court may, at or before the trial of an action, order or direct that evidence of any particular fact be given at the trial in such manner as may be specified by the order or direction”. In the circumstance of the case, by directing the narrowing of the trial towards establishing the particular fact of existence and terms of the parties’ agreed terms to resolve their dispute and the witnesses for both parties having given evidence in admission of the agreed terms, I am satisfied that sufficient evidence has been laid by the parties’ witnesses (CW and DW) towards establishing the particular fact of the existence and terms of the agreement by both parties to resolve their dispute in this matter.
With the evidence of the admitted facts of the agreed settlement, it is my considered view that all averments in the processes filed and exchanged between the parties which are at variance with this admission, should and are hereby discountenanced. I so hold. Exhibits tendered by CW and DW are similar. Of most relevant is exh.CJ6/DJ4 dated 10th November 2017, which is the Claimant’s letter of Reinstatement issued by the 4th Defendant. For clarity, it is reproduced hereunder:
“ADAMAWA STATEUNIVERSITY, MUBI
(OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR)
Website: www.adsu.edu.ng
Acting Registrar: Acting Vice Chancellor:
Rabi Ismail Mamza (Mrs) Prof Kalestapwa George Farauta, Phd
BA.Ed, MPA, Member ANUPA Email: kaletapwa@yahoo.com;
Email:rabilsmail@gmail.com vc@adsu.edu.ng
Tel: +2348067961468 Tel: +2348036051129
Ref: ADSU/R/SP.243 Date: 10th November 2017
Dr. Itodo John Itodo,
Department of Business Administration,
Adamawa State University,
Mubi.
Dear Dr. Itodo,
LETTER OF REINSTATEMENT
I write with reference to the above subject matter.
The University Management at its 140th Meeting held on Tuesday, 7th November, 2017 considered and approved your reinstatement into the services of the University as Senior Lecturer with effect from 7th November 2017.
You should note that all other conditions attached to your previous appointment remain unchanged.
Thank you.
(sgd) Mrs. Rabi Ismail Mamza
Ag.Registrar”.
From the tenor of exh.CJ6/DJ4, it is clear, and I find, that the Claimant upon reinstatement took up new appointment though with the same condition as in his previous appointment as Senior Lecturer. In the circumstance, I hold that the parties’ evidence of their said agreed terms of settlement as evidenced by exh.CJ6/DJ4 succeeds, and Judgment is entered accordingly. I make no order as to cost.
—————————————-
Hon. Justice N.C.S Ogbuanya
Presiding Judge
03/10/2018.
