LawCare Nigeria

Nigeria Legal Information & Law Reports

National Industrial Court

Dr. Abayomi Ayansola-VS- Veritas University, Abuja & 2 ORS

admin 0

IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT AKURE

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HONOURABLE JUSTICE K.D DAMULAK

DATED THIS 17TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2020                                                                                                                                           SUIT NO: NICN/ABJ/339/2018

BETWEEN

  1. ABAYOMI AYANSOLA                        CLAIMANT

AND

  1. VERITAS UNIVERSITY , ABUJA

(The Catholic University of Nigeria)

  1. THE VICE CHANCELLOR,

VERITAS UNIVERSITY, ABUJA

(The Catholic University of Nigeria)                        DEFENDANTS

  1. THE REGISTRAR,

VERITAS UNIVERSITY, ABUJA

(The Catholic University of Nigeria)

REPRESENTATION:

Gbenga P. Ologundoye  for the claimant.

Godwin Sunday Ogboji with him Vivian Ovie-Whisky for the defendants.

                                                           

                                                JUDGMENT

  1. INTRODUCTION

By a General form of Complaint filed on the 3rd December 2018, the Claimant claims against the defendants the following reliefs:

  1.             A Declaration that the wilful and deliberate refusal and neglect of the 3rd defendant to invite the comments from the claimants in respect of the disciplinary allegations against the claimant before setting up the disciplinary committee is in gross violation and breach of the Claimant’s Fundamental Right and fair hearing guaranteed by Section 36  of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria,1999 as amended as well as modus operandi of disciplining the claimant in accordance with the 1st defendant’s staff handbook 2011.
  2.             A Declaration that the wilful and deliberate refusal and neglect of the defendant to expressly state the nature of the allegation against the claimant in the letter of invitation dated 27th day of November 2018 in order to allow the claimant ample opportunity and time to prepare his defence or make legal representation is in gross violation of the claimant’s fundamental right to fair hearing guaranteed by section 36 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended.
  3.             A Declaration that the wilful refusal and neglect of the Ad-hoc disciplinary committee set up by the defendant to allow the claimant see the evidence against her at the disciplinary panel and/or cross-examine any witness or witnesses whatsoever throughout the proceedings of the disciplinary panel and/or cross examine any witness or witnesses whatsoever throughout the proceedings of the disciplinary panel is in violent breach of the claimant’s fundamental right to fair hearing guaranteed by section 36 of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended.
  4.             An Order of the Honourable Court setting aside and declaring null and void and of no effect the issuance of the letter of invitation dated 27th day November 2018 to the claimant to appear before the defendant’s Ad-hoc disciplinary panel on Wednesday, 28th day of November 2018 at the 2nd defendant’s board room.
  5.             An Order of Perpetual Injunction restraining the defendant or any of its agents or privies from taking any disciplinary action whatsoever against the claimant in respect of the allegation and proceedings of the Ad-hoc disciplinary committee conducted on the 28th day of November 2018.
  6.             General and Exemplary damages in the sum of N20,000,000.00 (Twenty Million Naira) for the pain and trauma suffered by the claimant as a result of the defendant’s act and for the gross violation of the fundamental  right of the claimant as guaranteed by the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended.
  7.             10% (ten percent) interest on the judgment sum from the date of judgment to the date of final liquidation of the entire judgment date.(sic)

In a motion filed on 2/10/2019, the claimant sought to amend his claim by adding prayer (h) as follows;

  1.             A Declaration of this Honourable Court that the Ad-hoc Disciplinary Committee set up by the defendants consisting Professor Gabriel (who has been having persistent and repeated hostility of strong personal animosity towards the claimant before the sitting of the panel ), is not set up in such a way and manner that would guarantee the Fundamental Right to fair hearing of the claimant guaranteed by Section 36 of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended.

This application was refused on 22/10/2019.

By a motion dated and filed on 11/3/2019, the defendants filed a statement of defence accompanied by all the processes required by the Rules of this Court.

  1. FACTS OF THE CASE.

By a letter dated 23/4/2018 the claimant was employed on full time as lecturer 1 for one year. By another letter dated 12/6/2018, the claimant was employed by the defendant on full time as a senior lecturer for one year with effect from 17/4/2018. On 27/11/2018, he was invited to appear before an adhoc committee on disciplinary matters before which he appeared. The claimant was not informed of the nature of accusation against him. This is the cause of action in this case.

  1. CASE OF THE CLAIMANT.

The claimant testified as CW1 on 6/5/2019. He adopted his statements on oath made on 3rd December 2018 and 25th March 2019 respectively as his evidence in the case. It is the case of the claimant which is in tandem with his pleadings that he holds a Doctorate degree in English and is a full time Senior Lecturer in the 1st defendant’s department of English and Literary Studies. That by an internal memorandum dated 17th July 2018, his Head of department directed him to conduct internal supervision on research project for two post graduate students; Abiodun and Offiong Patience. That Abiodun’s research topic was on hate speech. He was directed to supervise Abiodun as the most qualified lecturer in the department of English and literary studies. Shortly after he received the internal memo, he received a phone call from the Dean of College of Humanity calling him derogatory names like “idiot”, “stupid” with a firm and fierce instruction not to supervise “his student” for which he complied with the instruction and hence the dean of his faculty supervised the student (Abiodun).

 

That he made a comprehensive critique, analysis and assessment of Abiodun’s post-graduate dissertation. The dean, against universal academic norms, presided over the panel before whom Abiodun appeared to defend his dissertation even when the dean was his project supervisor.

Abiodun was not comfortable with all the recommendation and critique and therefore began to exhibit and issue different shades of threat with the intention of using her influence with the Dean of Faculty of Humanities to deal with him.  Abiodun reported this incidence to the Dean of Faculty of Humanities who in turn lambasted him again on the phone, that he could no longer bear the derogatory statements of the Dean and he had to just respond back to him, but he later sent a message to apologise for his behaviour but the Dean did not respond to his apology.

That on the 28th November 2018, he received a letter of invitation at about 10am from the 1st defendant directing him to appear before the Ad-hoc committee on some disciplinary matter levelled against him on the same day at about 2pm. He was never informed in the invitation letter of the nature of the allegation or had any inclination whatsoever of the nature of allegation against him before appearing before the Ad-hoc committee on disciplinary matter to enable him adequately prepare his defence or make legal representation before the panel.

In order to avoid the wrath, sanction and suspension of work from the 1st defendant institution for failure to appear before the disciplinary panel, in line with 1st defendant Staff Handbook 2011, he appeared before the disciplinary panel comprised of 1. Reverend Father Innocent Jooji, Director, Centre for peace and conflict resolution, 2. Professor Gabriel Egbe, Dean, College of Humanities, 3. Mr. Lawrence Olarubofin, Senior Assistant Registrar (Human Resources), 4.Dean ,College of Political Science and 5.About 3 others. That there is no single document incriminating him before the panel and the Ad-hoc committee did not name his accuser nor invited any person whatsoever to state her case of sexual harassment or any known offence. That he was confronted for the first time with the allegation of sexual harassment at the Disciplinary panel by an accuser whose identity was undisclosed.

That the Ad-hoc committee on disciplinary matter was not properly constituted in a way that would guarantee fair-hearing.

That his reputation has been tarnished by this allegation and he has suffered traumatic and psychological shock and his right to fair-hearing has been grossly breached.

The Claimant tendered some documents which were admitted and marked as Exhibits AA1-AA4.

Under cross-examination, the claimant stated that his employment with the 1st defendant is for one year in the first instance, that it is his belief that he was invited before the Ad-hoc Disciplinary Committee because of the issue he had with his supervisee; Abiodun and his Dean Professor Egbe. That he was confronted with the issue of a petition on Sexual harassment against him by one Isu Emmanuella and at the time he appeared before the Ad-hoc Committee, he was not confronted with the issue relating to Abiodun and Professor Egbe. That the sitting of the committee is not open to public. That by Paragraph 4.1.2 of his Staff Handbook, he does not agree that he has been invited by the appropriate committee that can take disciplinary action against him.

 

  1. CASE OF THE DEFENDANTS

The defendants also testified through one Francis Ochei, Acting Registrar and Legal officer in the 1st defendant on 25/6/2019 as DW1, he also adopted his sworn deposition dated 12th March 2019 as his evidence in the case.

His testimony is as follows;

The claimant was only first employed as Lecturer 1 and later as a full time Senior Lecturer both on temporary basis just for a period of one year certain, hence his employment will expire by defluxion of time on the anniversary of his appointment. That the facts stated by the claimant in paragraphs 2 to 16 had nothing to do with the invitation of the claimant by the ad-hoc disciplinary committee. That his invitation was predicated upon the receipt of a complaint against him by one of the students, Isu Emmanuella and to determine whether the complaint was deserving of being forwarded to the University’s properly constituted Senior Staff Disciplinary Committee which is responsible for disciplinary matters, claimant was invited to an Ad-hoc committee for his reaction to the complaint against him to enable the committee determine the veracity of the complaint of the student, that is why he was obliged with the student’s letter at the meeting, not before. That he only appeared before the Ad-hoc committee which does not have the powers of the Senior staff disciplinary committee as it is different and distinct. That the setting up of an ad-hoc committee to verify a complaint is customary with the defendants.  That the committee was only set up to verify the veracity or otherwise of the complaint against the claimant as it was not for any detailed investigation and there is no rule or regulation as to the composition of the Ad-hoc committee as its composition is at the discretion of the 2nd defendant.

That the letter of invitation extended to the claimant to appear before Ad-hoc Disciplinary Committee did not disclose on the face of it any offence said to have been committed by him and the invitation was not published to the whole institution but only personally on the claimant, so any purported bruised reputation and integrity of the claimant is self-induced.  That no fundamental right of the claimant was breached and that the claimant’s suit does not disclose any cause of action. That the suit of the claimant is hypothetical, academic, and speculative since the appropriate disciplinary body that will be constituted to take decision against the claimant is not in existence as same was not constituted by the 2nd defendant.

 

DW1 tendered documents in evidence under Section 89 of the Evidence Act, which were all admitted and marked Exhibits FO1 and FO2.  Claimant’s counsel also tendered Exhibit FO3 through DW1.

 DW1 under cross-examination stated that the 1st defendant receives acknowledgment of every correspondence it sends out, that it is correct that every complaint against a staff of the 1st defendant is set up by the Ad-hoc Committee to investigate the complaint. He stated that he does not know if the 1st defendant has received a complaint against the claimant prior to his case. He stated further that he is aware of the staff Handbook of the 1st defendant that regulates how senior staff are disciplined. That an Ad-hoc Committee was set up to determine whether there was enough case against the claimant to form the complaint to Senior Staff Disciplinary Committee (SSDC), that the SSDC has terms of reference, the Vice Chancellor set up the Ad-hoc Committee in this case. That the procedure for SSDC is as in Paragraph 4(2)(i) of Exhibit AA4. He continued that no written comment was received from the claimant by the Registrar, that none was received by the Ad-hoc Committee and the SSDC because they had not gotten to the stage of receiving comments from the claimant. He stated that it is only SSDC that has the power to investigate a senior staff. That the complaint against the claimant was never referred to the SSDC.

 

 

  1. FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESS OF THE DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL.

 

Parties caused their final written addresses to be filed in accordance with the Rules of this Court; the defendant filed on the 18th September 2019, and formulated two issues for the determination of the Court, to wit:

 

  1. Whether from the state of pleadings and the evidence before the Court, the Claimant has established any justifiable cause of action against the defendants
  2. Whether in view of the preponderance of evidence in this case, the claimant is entitled to any of the reliefs claimed by him.

On issue one, it is the submission of counsel that from the state of pleadings and evidence before the Court, the claimant has not established a cause of action against the defendant. ODUGBENRO V GOVERNOR OF OYO STATE [2017] ALL FWLR (PT.911) AT P.506.  Counsel submitted further that the claimant rushed to this Court purportedly claiming that he appeared before the 1st defendant Senior Staff Disciplinary Committee despite the fact that the invitation extended to him is by the Ad-Hoc Committee. Counsel noted further that his right to fair hearing was not breached, that it is the uncontradicted defence of the defendant that they were in receipt of a petition from one Isu Emmanuella; a student and the invitation was only to determine whether the allegation was weighty enough to hold a meeting of the Senior Staff Disciplinary Committee. Counsel submitted that the claimant was well aware of the allegation levied against him upon his appearance before the Ad-Hoc Committee for which he admitted in paragraph 4 of his statement on oath. Counsel submitted that the Ad-hoc Committee does not and cannot have disciplinary powers because the committee that can legally take any action against the claimant is clearly provided by law; the Staff Handbook 2011 of the 1st defendant which fortunately was tendered in evidence by the claimant. It is the submission of counsel that the claimant cannot validly claim that any disciplinary measure was meted upon him having not appeared before any disciplinary committee. That the members of the Senior Staff Disciplinary Committee that is empowered to discipline the claimant are clearly provided for in Section 4 of the Handbook 2011. LAWRENCE V. PDP [2018] ALL FWLR (PT.930) AT P.391, PARA A, P.395. Counsel stated further that since from all the facts before the Court, the claimant has not shown anywhere that the Senior Staff Disciplinary Committee ever invited him for any meeting nor can he show that he met members of the Senior Staff Disciplinary Committee. He has woefully failed to establish a cause of action against the defendants in this suit. His cause of action is speculative by paragraph 27 of his witness statement on oath.

 

On issue two, citing the authorities of MAIHAJA V. GAIDAM [2017] ALL FWLR (PT.917) AT P,1681 AND  DAUDU V. ACCESS BANK PLC [2016] ALL FWLR (PT.831) AT P.1521, counsel submitted that the claimant predicated his claim against the defendant on his purported false assertion that he was invited by the Senior Staff Disciplinary Committee and was not afforded fair-hearing, but however he has failed to adduce any evidence to that regard, counsel stated further that the address of counsel cannot substitute for evidence , and the claimant cannot at the stage substitute evidence with  address that persons met at the Ad-hoc Committee were members of the Senior Staff Disciplinary Committee, counsel relied on the cases of N.I.T.E.L V. OKEKE [2017] ALL FWLR (PT.899) AT P.218,  UNITED CEMENT CO (NIG.) LTD V. ISIDOR [2016] ALL FWLR (PT.844)P.2154. It is the further submission of counsel that the claimant did not adduce any evidence before this Court as to the act of the defendants that traumatized him and gave him pains having admitted that he was personally served the letter of invitation to appear before the Ad-hoc Committee, for which the meeting was held behind closed doors and the pubic was not aware. He then concluded and submitted that from the preponderance of evidence before the Court, the claimant woefully failed to establish any wrongdoing by the defendant that resulted in the purported breach of his fundamental right.

 

  1. FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESS OF CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL.

The Claimant’s counsel also on the other hand filed his final written address on the 2nd October 2019 and canvassed a sole issue for the determination of the Court viz:

 

Whether from the state of facts and the evidence presented before the Court, the claimant has established his case to be entitled to the reliefs sought before the Court.

 

In arguing the sole issue, counsel raised three different questions:

  1. Was the Ad-hoc Committee panel set up by the defendants on the disciplinary matter against the claimant constituted in such a way and manner that would guarantee its independence or the right to fair hearing of the claimant?
  2. Did the defendants grant the claimant fair hearing before and at the appearance of the claimant before the Ad-hoc Committee panel on disciplinary matter against the claimant
  3. Did the defendant adhere to the mandatory provisions of Section 4 of their Staff Handbook 2011 that deals with the disciplinary procedure of discipline of the claimant?

On question one, Counsel submitted that the claimant had established the existence of a personal and official relationship and animosity between him and the 1st defendant’s Dean of College of Humanities as disclosed in Exhibit AA2, hence there is likelihood of bias in any decision that may be reached by the panel against him particularly when the said dean was a member of the panel to decide disciplinary matter against him. MBAJI V. AMOBI [2011] LPELR-3989. He argued that the panel is not properly constituted in such a manner that would guarantee the fair-hearing of the claimant, and that the sole witness of the defendant even admitted under cross-examination that he was aware of the dispute between the claimant and the dean of College of Humanities.

On the second question, counsel argued that the claimant was not in any way and manner granted fair hearing before appearing before the disciplinary panel, that he was served with the letter the same day he was supposed to appear before the panel, reliance was placed on the paragraphs 18-24 of the Claimant’s witness statement on oath and Exhibit AA3. That no incriminating evidence was shown to him to enable him make a defence for himself and equally the identity of his accuser was not made available to him. Counsel concluded on the point relying on Section 46(1) of the 1999 Constitution as amended and stated that from the pleadings, the claimant has clearly shown that his fundamental right was breached by the defendant. Counsel further submitted that the Staff Handbook 2011 (Exhibit AA4)  clearly regulates the mode and procedure of discipline of any senior staff of the University. That the defendants wilfully refused , failed and neglected their very rules specifying the modus operandi of disciplining its staff and embarked on a voyage of unfair procedure outside the mandatory rules and procedure. That the defendant even admitted in their Paragraphs 5 and 6 of their witness statement on oath their non-compliance to the mandatory rule. Counsel submitted that the effect of the failure of the defendants to take the first step and procedure as shown in Exhibit AA4 renders the procedure and the letter of invitation null and void. ONYEDEBELU V. MWANERI [2008] LPELR-4794, PAGES 15-16, IDAKWO V. EJIGA [2002] FWLR (PART 119) 1499 AT 1507. Counsel also observed that there is no gainsaying that his right to fair-hearing was breached thus he is entitled to damages against the defendant. That the claimant was deliberately prejudiced and persecuted for filing this matter against the defendant and completely prevented from teaching as disclosed in Exhibit AFO3, hence he suffered harassment and intimidation from the defendants. Counsel relied on the decision in GOVERNOR OF LAGOS STATE V. OJUKWU [1998] 1 NWLR (PT18) PAGE 621 and argued that the conduct of the defendant warrant being awarded with heavy general and exemplary damages.  He concluded that the evidence of sexual allegation is not before this Court hence not credible, that judgment should be entered against the defendant in the interest of justice.

 

  1. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION.

Having carefully considered the processes filed by both parties in this suit, the documents tendered in evidence and the written submissions of counsel on both sides, it is my humble view that the sole issue formulated by the claimant will adequately dispose of this suit. The issue is therefore adopted as follows;

Whether from the state of facts and the evidence presented before the Court, the claimant has established his case to be entitled to the reliefs sought before the Court.

 

  1. COURT’S DECISION

By Exhibits FO1 and FO2, the appointment of the claimant with the defendants is for one year which shall take effect from 17th April 2018 or the day he assumes duty whichever is later. See Paragraph 2 of Exhibit FO2 .

Evidently, a master-servant relationship exists between the claimant and the 1st defendant.  The settled position of law is that parties to an agreement are bound by the terms and condition of their agreement and cannot under any guise renege from their agreement. see OBANYE V. UNION BANK OF NIGERIA PLC [2011] LPELR-44702 SC.

 

It is the evidence of the claimant that he was invited to appear before the Ad-hoc Committee on Disciplinary matters on the 28th November 2018 at 2pm vide a letter dated 27th November 2018 (Exhibit AA3). Exhibit AA3 states no reason for the invitation other than “to state your case on some disciplinary matters level against you”. The claimant states that he was confronted for the first time with the allegation of sexual harassment at the ad-hoc committee by an accuser whose identity was undisclosed. Under cross examination, he testified that he was confronted with the issue of a petition on Sexual harassment against him by one Isu Emmanuella and at the time he appeared before the Ad-hoc Committee, he was not confronted with the issue relating to Abiodun and Professor Egbe.

However, the claimant took all his time telling the long story that he initially had an issue with one of his Post-graduate students, Abiodun and the Dean of College of Humanities, Professor Gabriel Egbe, as though that was the disclosed reason for which he was invited before the Ad-hoc Committee. He also contends that he was not given fair hearing because the Dean of College of Humanities was a member of the panel member in view of his hostility towards the claimant in the case involving one of the claimant’s supervisee, Abiodun.

 

The defendant stated that the reason the claimant was invited before the Ad-hoc Committee was that there was a complaint against him by a student for which to enable the committee ascertain the veracity or otherwise of the complaint, that he was confronted with the allegation of sexual harassment complaint from one Emmuanuella Isu. That he was only invited before the Ad-hoc Committee and not before the Senior Staff Disciplinary Committee to seek his reaction to the complaint. That no written comment was received from the claimant by the Registrar and none was received by the Ad-hoc Committee and the SSDC because they had not gotten to the stage of receiving comments from the claimant. He stated that it is only SSDC that has the power to investigate a senior staff. That the complaint against the claimant was never referred to the SSDC.

From the regulation guiding the claimant’s employment with the defendant, the Staff Handbook (Exhibit AA4),  it is clear from Paragraph 4 of Exhibit AA4, page 57 that it is the Senior Staff Disciplinary Committee that is vested with the power to discipline Senior Staff of the 1st defendant which includes the claimant.

I find that the term “Ad-hoc Committee on Disciplinary matters” as used in Exhibit AA3 is strange to the disciplinary procedure of Senior Staff in Section 4 of Exhibit AA4. The condition of service provides for Senior Staff disciplinary committee, not ad-hoc disciplinary committee.

In any event, it is still a disciplinary committee, the fact that it is described as ad-hoc only implies that it is not a permanent disciplinary committee but will stand dissolved upon completion of its assignment.

The contention that the an Ad-hoc Committee was only set up to determine whether there was enough case against the claimant to form the complaint to Senior Staff Disciplinary Committee (SSDC) does not hold water in the absence of any terms of reference for the adhoc committee. More so, paragraph 4.1 of Exhibit AA4 provides for membership of the Senior Staff Disciplinary Committee to include; 1. The vice-chancellor, 2. The Deputy Vice-chancellor, 3. The Registrars, 4. The Deans of Colleges, 5.  Two Council Representative and 6. Two Senate Representatives.

The ad-hoc disciplinary committee herein comprised of 1. A Director,  2. Two Deans,  3. A Senior Assistant Registrar,  4. About 3 others. The membership of the ad-hoc disciplinary committee for sure has the appearance of the Senior Staff Disciplinary Committee and in the absence of a provision for ad-hoc disciplinary committee in the Rules, the claimant reasonably believed it to be the Senior Staff Disciplinary Committee and this must remain so in the absence of any terms of reference for this unknown committee put up in the defence. The claimant accordingly has a reasonable cause of action.

 

The claimant has complained of non compliance with the provisions of Paragraph 4 of the condition of service, the defendant did not deny this but justifies it thus; no written comment was received from the claimant by the Registrar,  none was received by the Ad-hoc Committee and the SSDC because they had not gotten to the stage of receiving comments from the claimant.

The defendant has a written procedure for discipline and it cannot use the same Senior Staff Disciplinary Committee members to initiate an unknown preliminary investigation when the case may likely end up before them. I find that there is non compliance with the provisions of paragraph 4 of the condition of service.

The claimant has asked for General and Exemplary damages in the sum of N20,000,00.00 (Twenty Million Naira) for the pain and trauma suffered by the claimant as a result of the defendant’s act and for the gross violation of the fundamental  right of the claimant.

The fact that the defendant adopted a wrong procedure does not warrant this claim. The fact that there was a complaint of sexual harassment against the claimant, which was made known to the claimant at the sitting of the ad-hoc committee is a fact that entitles the defendants to commence disciplinary procedure against the claimant and the claimant cannot get damages just because the defendant adopted a wrong procedure which he has succeeded in stopping.

Learned claimant counsel submitted that the claimant was “deliberately prejudiced and persecuted for filing this matter against the defendant and completely prevented from teaching as disclosed in Exhibit AFO3, hence he suffered harassment and intimidation from the defendants”.

To start with, I have looked at both the statement of facts and the reply, the averment that the claimant was completely prevented from teaching is not contained anywhere. This issue only arose under cross examination when the claimant counsel asked DW1, defendants acting Registrar, if he was aware that since this case, no course was allocated for the claimant to teach, and the DW1 said , “I cannot say whether any course was given to the claimant to teach since this case but I know that he was given scripts to mark”.  Counsel then showed the witness the course allocation schedule for 2nd semester 2019 which the witness identified and counsel applied to tender same in evidence. This was objected on the ground that it was not pleaded but the court admitted it as Exhibit AFO3 for the reason that its purpose was simply to contradict what was said in cross examination i.e to show that the DW1 knew that the claimant was not allocated any course to teach after the institution of this case but lied by denying same.

This document cannot be used as evidence of anything other than to show that the DW1 knew what he said he did not know. Claimant counsel did not rely on this document for that purpose. As for the fact that the claimant was not allocated any course to teach from 2nd semester of 2019, this is not in the pleadings. The implication is that even if the DW1 had said he knew that fact, it would have been evidence elicited in cross examination on unpleaded facts which goes to no issue. Exhibit AFO3 cannot be used as evidence of an unpleaded persecution to ground the award of damages. The claim for damages accordingly fails.

 

  1. COURT ORDER

For the avoidance of doubt, the case of the claimant succeeds in part and it is declared and ordered as follows;

  1. It is hereby declared that the constitution of an ad-hoc disciplinary committee to investigate the complaint against the claimant is contrary to the procedure spelt out in the defendants’ condition of service and therefore wrongful and same is hereby set aside.
  2. It is hereby declared that the issuance of the letter of invitation dated 27th day November 2018 to the claimant to appear before the defendant’s Ad-hoc disciplinary committee on Wednesday, 28th day of November 2018 at the 2nd defendant’s board room is null and void and of no effect and same is hereby set aside.
  3. An Order of Perpetual Injunction is hereby issued restraining the defendant or any of its agents or privies from taking any disciplinary action whatsoever against the claimant in respect of the proceedings of the Ad-hoc disciplinary committee conducted on the 28th day of November 2018.

 

 

 

This is the judgment of the court and it is entered accordingly.

I make no order as to cost.

 

……………………………………

Hon. Justice K.D. Damulak

Judge

 

 

IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT AKURE

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HONOURABLE JUSTICE K.D DAMULAK

DATED THIS 17TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2020                                                                                                                                           SUIT NO: NICN/ABJ/339/2018

BETWEEN

  1. ABAYOMI AYANSOLA……………………………CLAIMANT

AND

10.VERITAS UNIVERSITY , ABUJA

(The Catholic University of Nigeria)

11.THE VICE CHANCELLOR,

VERITAS UNIVERSITY, ABUJA

(The Catholic University of Nigeria)                ……………………..DEFENDANTS

12.THE REGISTRAR,

VERITAS UNIVERSITY, ABUJA

(The Catholic University of Nigeria)

 

JUDGMENT ORDER

 

WHEREAS the claimants took out a complaint on the 3rd December 2018, against the defendants seeking, among others, the following reliefs:

  1.             A Declaration that the wilful and deliberate refusal and neglect of the 3rd defendant to invite the comments from the claimants in respect of the disciplinary allegations against the claimant before setting up the disciplinary committee is in gross violation and breach of the Claimant’s Fundamental Right and fair hearing guaranteed by Section 36  of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria,1999 as amended as well as modus operandi of disciplining the claimant in accordance with the 1st defendant’s staff handbook 2011.
  2.             A Declaration that the wilful and deliberate refusal and neglect of the defendant to expressly state the nature of the allegation against the claimant in the letter of invitation dated 27th day of November 2018 in order to allow the claimant ample opportunity and time to prepare his defence or make legal representation is in gross violation of the claimant’s fundamental right to fair hearing guaranteed by section 36 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended.
  3.             A Declaration that the wilful refusal and neglect of the Ad-hoc disciplinary committee set up by the defendant to allow the claimant see the evidence against her at the disciplinary panel and/or cross-examine any witness or witnesses whatsoever throughout the proceedings of the disciplinary panel and/or cross examine any witness or witnesses whatsoever throughout the proceedings of the disciplinary panel is in violent breach of the claimant’s fundamental right to fair hearing guaranteed by section 36 of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended.
  4.             An Order of the Honourable Court setting aside and declaring null and void and of no effect the issuance of the letter of invitation dated 27th day November 2018 to the claimant to appear before the defendant’s Ad-hoc disciplinary panel on Wednesday, 28th day of November 2018 at the 2nd defendant’s board room.
  5.             An Order of Perpetual Injunction restraining the defendant or any of its agents or privies from taking any disciplinary action whatsoever against the claimant in respect of the allegation and proceedings of the Ad-hoc disciplinary committee conducted on the 28th day of November 2018.
  6.             General and Exemplary damages in the sum of N20,000,000.00 (Twenty Million Naira) for the pain and trauma suffered by the claimant as a result of the defendant’s act and for the gross violation of the fundamental  right of the claimant as guaranteed by the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended.
  7.             10% (ten percent) interest on the judgment sum from the date of judgment to the date of final liquidation of the entire judgment date.(sic)

AND after hearing the evidence of both parties and the address of Gbenga P. Ologundoye for the claimant and Godwin Sunday Ogboji with him Vivian Ovie-Whisky for the defendants, it is held that the case of the claimant succeeds in part and it is hereby ordered as follows;

 

COURT ORDER

  1. It is hereby declared that the constitution of an ad-hoc disciplinary committee to investigate the complaint against the claimant is contrary to the procedure spelt out in the defendants’ condition of service and therefore wrongful and same is hereby set aside.
  2. It is hereby declared that the issuance of the letter of invitation dated 27th day November 2018 to the claimant to appear before the defendant’s Ad-hoc disciplinary committee on Wednesday, 28th day of November 2018 at the 2nd defendant’s board room is null and void and of no effect and same is hereby set aside.
  3. An Order of Perpetual Injunction is hereby issued restraining the defendant or any of its agents or privies from taking any disciplinary action whatsoever against the claimant in respect of the proceedings of the Ad-hoc disciplinary committee conducted on the 28th day of November 2018.

 

                  GIVEN UNDER THE SEAL OF THE COURT AND THE HAND

OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE,  HON.  JUSTICE K. D. DAMULAK THIS 17TH  DAY OF JANUARY, 2020.

 

 

                              ………………………………….                                   

HON. JUSTICE K. D. DAMULAK

JUDGE

 

admin

Website:

Related Story