University Of Ilorin & Ors V. Dr (Mrs.) Aize Imonokhome Obayan (2018)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

KUMAI BAYANG AKA’AHS, J.S.C.

When this appeal was called for hearing on 6 November, 2017 Mr. Arosanyin of counsel who settled the appellants brief was absent. The Court registrar said that learned counsel was duly notified through a message sent to him on 3 November, 2017. Mr. John Baiyeshea learned senior counsel for the respondent then applied that since the parties had filed and exchanged the briefs, the appeal should be deemed as having been argued ex parte in accordance with Order 2 Rule 11(3) Supreme Court Rules.

The respondent was employed as a lecturer in the Department of Guidance and Counseling of the University of Ilorin in 1986. In 1997 she applied for sabbatical leave and one year sabbatical leave was approved by the Appointments and Promotions committee of the university. She then proceeded to the School of Psychology and Counselling, Rose Hampton Institute London. After the sabbatical, she applied for a year’s leave of absence which was granted by the same Appointments and Promotions committee of the university. On the expiration of the one year leave of absence the

1

respondent did not resume at the university but wrote requesting for additional four months. This request was refused and a letter dated 25 March, 1999 said to have communicated the refusal for the extension was sent by mail to the overseas address which she had supplied. She did not report for work until 1 September, 1999.

On 22 September, 1999 the appellants sent a letter to the respondent intimating her that she had voluntarily terminated her appointment with the appellants for failing to report for work after the expiration of the additional one year leave of absence after the expiration of the sabbatical leave. The respondent thereafter filed a suit at the Federal High Court, Ilorin, claiming the following reliefs: –

1. A DECLARATION that the Defendants’ letter reference UI/SSE/PF/818 of 22 September, 1999 purporting that the plaintiff had voluntarily terminated her appointment with the 1st defendant with effect from 17 day of April, 1999 is ultra vires, null and void and of no effect whatsoever.
2. A DECLARATION that the Plaintiff is still in the service of the 1st Defendant as a Lecturer and an Associate Professor in the Department of

2

Guidance and Counseling of the University.

3. AN ORDER directing and/or compelling the Defendants to reinstate and restore the Plaintiff to her post as a Lecturer and as Associate Professor in the Department of Guidance and Counselling of the University and to restore to her all her rights entitlements, and other perquisites of that office.
4. AN ORDER directing/compelling the defendants to pay to the plaintiff all her salaries and allowances from September, 1999 to the day of judgment and thenceforth.

The trial Court dismissed her case and she appealed to the Court of Appeal Ilorin which upturned the judgment of the trial Court and granted all the reliefs she sought.

It is against the judgment of the lower Court that appellants appealed to the Supreme Court.

The appellants formulated seven issues from eight grounds of appeal and except for issue 7, the appellants formulated more than one issue from a single ground, a practice that is highly deprecated by the appellate Courts

The issues raised in the appellants’ brief are: –

1. Whether the trial Court did not consider the totality of the evidence and circumstances before

3

him in reaching his decision as held by the Court below. (Grounds 1, 2 and 3)