Solomon S. Haruna V. University of Agriculture, Makurdi & Anor. (2004)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

NZEAKO, J.C.A.

At the Federal High Court, Jos Division, the appellant herein, as the plaintiff had challenged the termination of his employment with the 1st respondent, the 1st defendant in the court below. The appellant was non-suited by the learned trial Judge, Gumel, J. who delivered his judgment dated 5th May, 2001 on 17th July, 2001 after learned counsel for the parties delivered their final address on 23rd January, 2001.

Dissatisfied, the plaintiff appealed to this court on 10 grounds. The claim of the appellant in the court below are as follows:-

(a) A declaration that the recommendation of the Senate Investigation Panel to the effect that plaintiff be “reprimanded” removed as Dean of Students and deployed elsewhere” acted upon by the 1st and 2nd defendants and culminating in plaintiff’s determination of employment is ultra-vires the powers of the said investigation panel having regard to its terms of reference on the students rampage of June 11, 1994.

(b) A declaration that the purported determination of plaintiff’s employment in pursuance of his alleged appearance before a non-existing or improvised administrative committee on Senior Staff Disciplinary Cases in relation to students rampage of 11th June, 1994 is invalid, null and void and based on a faulty foundation.

(c) A declaration that the purported disciplinary measures applied against the plaintiff in this case culminating in the termination of his employment vide a letter dated November 18, 1988 are a transgression of section 16 of the Federal Universities of Agriculture Decree No. 48, 1992, hence invalid, null and void.

(d) A declaration that in the absence of council to the 1st defendant, the 1st and 2nd defendants and the Honourable Minister of Agriculture and Natural Resources for that matter lack the competence and capacity to determine plaintiff’s employment with the 1st defendant in the way and manner it was done in this case.

(e) A declaration that the termination of plaintiff’s employment vide a letter dated November 18, 1998 and in pursuance of Senate Investigation Panel Report as well as purported Administrative Committee of Senior Staff Disciplinary Cases or by whatever name called is tainted with bias, manifestly in bad faith and a fundamental breach of right to fair hearing especially as the composition of the various committees/panel in this case was not only lopsided but were executing a predetermined script of discrimination against the plaintiff hence their decision are not free and fair and/or a tantamount to fair hearing.

(f) A declaration that the determination of plaintiff’s employment for various offences allegedly committed by the plaintiff as published vide the 1st defendant’s Weekly News Bulletin of 23rd – 27th January, 1998, without a prior arrangement, prosecution and conviction for those alleged offences is indefensible, incurably bad and of no legal consequences.

(g) A declaration that the determination of plaintiff’s employment at about the age of 51 and before his age of retirement from service is in bad faith, malicious in the extreme and a needless case of vendetta especially as the plaintiff was a major victim of the said students rampage.

(h) A mandatory order compelling the defendants to reinstate the plaintiff to his employment with full benefits with effect from November, 1998 with much ado.

In the alternative

N2,428,611.63 representing salary and emolument of the plaintiff with effect from 1st November, 1998, up to the year 2008 his year of retirement from service when plaintiff would have clocked the retirement age of 60 years.

The defendant/respondent denied the claim.