Mr. Lawrence Azenabor V. Bayero University, Kano & Anor. (2009)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

AMINA ADAMU AUGIE, J.C.A.

Three years after the 1st Respondent employed the Appellant as a Chief Typist in November, 1987, he was re-designated Higher Executive Officer (Accounts), and four years later, was promoted to Senior Executive Officer (Accounts). However, following an allegation of forgery and attempt to defraud the University of over N5.6 Million, he was suspended and later arraigned before a Chief Magistrate Court in Kano. After he was discharged but not acquitted by the Chief Magistrate Court, he wrote a letter dated 4th May, 1995 to the 1st Respondent requesting that he should be re-instated. But to his dismay, he received a termination letter dated 24th September, 1995.

Aggrieved by the termination of his appointment, the Appellant filed an action at the Federal High Court, Kano, wherein he claimed –

a) A declaration that the purported termination of appointment of the plaintiff by the defendants is unconstitutional, unlawful, ultra vires and void.

b) A declaration that the purported termination of the Plaintiff being void the Plaintiff continues to be an employee of the first Defendant.

c) An injunction restraining the Defendants from treating the Plaintiff as terminated from his employment.

d) An order restoring the Plaintiff to his position in the first Defendant together with all rights and privileges attached thereto.

At the trial, only the Appellant testified. The Respondents, who had filed a Statement of Defence, did not proffer any evidence, and in his Judgment delivered on the 13th of July, 1999, Senlong, J., held thus-

“Not only has the Plaintiff failed to plead and prove the conditions of service governing his employment but he also failed to prove that he was put on trial before the investigation Committee of the Defendants ‘on charges of criminal acts. His failure to tender the conditions of service applicable to his employment and the report of the investigating Committees is fatal to his case. He has therefore failed to discharge the minimal standard of proof required to discharge the minimal standard of proof required to sustain the case. – On the whole, I find that the Plaintiff has failed to prove his case and his case must fail. The case fails – -“.

Dissatisfied, the Appellant appealed to this Court with a Notice of Appeal containing four Grounds of Appeal, and in the Appellant’s brief prepared by O. E. B. Offiong, Esq., it was submitted that the Issues arising from the said four Grounds of Appeal are as follows –

(1) Was the learned trial Judge entitled to ignore the provisions of Section 15 of the Bayero University Act in the determination of whether Appellant’s employment had been lawfully terminated?

(2) Was the learned trial Judge right in his conclusion that upon a proper interpretation of Exhibit H in the circumstances of this case, the Respondents were not basing their termination of the Appellant upon the allegation of guilt in respect of the offence of attempting to use forged documents to defraud the account of the Respondents at Central Bank of Nigeria.

(3) Was the learned trial Judge right in holding that the Appellants could nevertheless be terminated upon allegation bordering on criminality even though he had not admitted the offence and notwithstanding that the allegation had not been proved against him in a Court of law or Tribunal of competent jurisdiction?

(4) Was the Judgment of the Court not against the weight of evidence?