Alan Femi Lana V. The University of Ibadan (1986)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

UCHE OMO, J.C.A.

This is an appeal against the dismissal by the Oyo State High Court, Ibadan Judicial Division of the plaintiff/appellant’s claim for:-

“1. A DECLARATION that the Plaintiff ceased to be an employee of the University on 6th January 1981 when the Plaintiff by letter dated 6th January 1981 addressed to the Vice-Chancellor of the University resigned his appointment as Senior Lecturer in the Department of Agricultural Biology and paid three months’ salary in lieu of notice, and the resignation was accepted.

“2. A DECLARATION that the purported dismissal of the Plaintiff from the University service with effect from 27th February, 1981 as contained in the letter of the University dated 27th February 1981 (and publicised widely in the news media in Nigeria) was actuated by malice, is improper, unlawful, ineffectual, null and void.

“3. The Sum of N100,000.00 (One hundred thousand Naira) being damages for LIBEL in that the University falsely and maliciously wrote and published in its “University of Ibadan Official Bulletin” (Special Release) No. 498 dated 27th February 1981 defamatory matter of and concerning the Plaintiff.”

Before dismissing the claim in its entirety the learned trial Judge heard the evidence led by both parties during which over 70 exhibits were admitted in evidence. He was also addressed by counsel on their behalf.

The facts of this case, which are largely undisputed, show that the appellant was employed as a lecturer in the University of Ibadan’s Department of Agricultural Biology in February, 1975, on terms and conditions set out in Exhibit AB. By the time this present cause of action arose he had risen to the post of Senior Lecturer and was being considered for promotion to the post of Reader (otherwise called Associate Professor). Whatever other faults/weaknesses the appellant had (or has) he had by his hard work and brilliance become recognised as “a leading plant virologist in Africa.”

During the 1979/80 session, in the course of a promotion exercise, it was discovered that he had made some wrong claims about two publications by him in his curriculum vitae. This was considered a serious offence by his Dean and Head of Department who initiated action which led to his appearing before the Staff Disciplinary Committee of Council, which found him guilty of “an act of dishonesty”, an “offence” which could attract the punishment of dismissal. He was however dealt with leniently, the “sentence” being that he would not be considered for promotion in the subsequent three years. The appellant, dissatisfied with this decision, appealed against same to the Council, Exhibits Y and Z refer. It was while his appeal was being considered that he decided to resign his appointment.

By a letter dated 6th January, 1981 (Exhibit F) addressed to the Vice Chancellor, the appellant purported to resign his appointment “at this time and with immediate effect”. No doubt realising the conditions for so doing provided for by his terms of employment, he craved “the indulgence of the Vice-Chancellor for a waiver of the normal notice of resignation relevant to my (his) level of appointment”. Without waiting for a reply from the Vice Chancellor the appellant proceeded to pay his three months salary “in lieu of notice” to the cashier, who gave him a receipt there for.

Soon after this payment, the appellant left the University for several days without any permission in the conviction that he had properly severed his connection with the University. According to him he went job hunting. On his return he met a reply written on the instruction of the Vice-Chancellor drawing his attention to the requirements for resignation which he had infringed, and refusing any waiver. He was to remain on the University staff. His request for an inventory of “his” laboratory was also refused by his head of department – Exhibits L1 and L2 refer.

The appellant persisted in his stand that he was no longer an employee of the respondent, and so spurned all but one of the attempts made to get him to appear before the Staff Disciplinary Committee which was considering his appeal against the “sentence” earlier passed on him, to prosecute same. He had however previously sent a written defence which was before the Committee. On the one occasion he appeared he merely stated that he was no longer an employee of the defendant and was therefore not obliged to appear. He did not withdraw the appeal. The Committee then proceeded to consider his appeal, on available evidence, and recommended to Council that he be dismissed. Council subsequently accepted this recommendation and dismissed the appellant.

It was after this dismissal that a Bulletin of the University was issued (Exhibit A refers) setting out in detail the fact of his dismissal and the reasons there for. This document was widely circulated, extracts thereof being published by the media vide Exhibits B and C, and the evidence of P.W.1. After this action was commenced, Exhibit AC was much later issued by the respondent correcting some statements in Exhibit A. This document was not widely circulated. The third arm of the appellant’s claim, seeks damages for the publication of Exhibit A which is alleged to be defamatory of the appellant.

In his judgment, dismissing the appellant’s claim the learned trial Judge made the following important findings of fact and law –

(1) On the first leg of the claim, he held that the appellant had not resigned as provided by his terms of employment, and that he had not therefore ceased to be an employee of the respondent as a result of his purported resignation.