Dr. J. I. Okwusidi V. Ladoke Akintola University (2011)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

MODUPE FASANMI, J.C.A.(Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the judgment of an Oyo State High Court delivered in Ogbomoso on the 25th day of February, 2004.

The brief facts of the case are that the Appellant was an employee of the Respondent wherein he was employed on the 6th of January, 1994 as a Lecturer in the Department of Physiology of the Ladoke Akintola University. The letter of temporary appointment was conveyed to the Appellant. Appellant’s appointment was regularized vide letter dated 20th July, 1995. Subsequently his appointment was confirmed through letter dated 14th May, 1997 reference No. REG/ESTAB/SS/PR.317. Para. 2 of the letter of confirmation, dated 14th May, 1997 thereof states:

“By this confirmation, your appointment is to retiring age, but shall be subject to the regulations of the University and such conditions of service as may be approved by the Council of the University from time to time.”

Appellant accepted the confirmation of his appointment through a letter dated 27th May, 1997.

Appellant’s appointment was later terminated through a letter dated 6th November, 2002. The notice of termination of Appellant’s appointment by the Respondent was communicated to the Appellant by the Registrar of the University. Mr. J. A. Oladokun. Dissatisfied with the termination of his appointment, Appellant challenged the mode of the termination of his appointment by the Respondent conveyed to him by the Registrar of the University and Secretary of the Governing Council through the mode of judicial review of administrative action – Certiorari. Appellant was granted ex-parte application for leave to apply for an order of Certiorari for the purpose of being quashed the decision to terminate the Appellant’s appointment as contained in the letter dated 6th November, 2002.

At the hearing of the substantive application, arguments were canvassed by learned counsel for the parties and the lower court in a well considered judgment dismissed the application of the Appellant on the 25th of February, 2004.

Dissatisfied with the judgment of the lower court, Appellant filed his notice of appeal on the 27th of April, 2004. In compliance with the rules of this court, Appellant filed his brief of argument on the 5th of April, 2005 but deemed properly filed and served on the 7th of November, 2005. Respondent filed a notice of preliminary objection that the ground of appeal No. (e) Contained in the Appellant’s notice of appeal is incompetent and same should be struck out. Respondent filed his brief of argument on the 25th of November, 2005.

At the hearing of the appeal, Respondent’s Counsel was absent in Court. No reason given for his absence. The Courts record showed that Respondent was served with the hearing notice for the day through his Counsel Awomolo Otaru & Co. on the 28th of June, 2010. Hence the Respondent’s brief filed on 25/11/05 was deemed argued pursuant to Order 17 rule 9 subrule (4) of the Court of Appeal rules 2007.

Appellant distilled four issues for determination thus:

(1) Whether the Learned Trial Judge was right in holding that the appointment of the Appellant is not one governed by Statutory Provisions.

(2) Whether the Learned Trial Judge was right in his finding that Respondent acted within its right under the contract to determine the contract and terminate the Appellant’s appointment by giving him three months notice.

(3) Whether the Learned Trial Judge was right in holding that no other person than the Registrar would be more competent to convey the messages contained in the letter of termination.

(4) Whether in certiorari proceedings, the Learned Trial Judge was right in making a finding on the allegation levied against the Appellant.