Dr. Martins Babatunde Fabunmi V. University Of Ibadan & Anor (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

OBIETONBARA DANIEL-KALIO, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This appeal is from the decision of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (the Lower Court) in a matter that has to do with whether the action of the Claimant (the appellant in this appeal) is statute barred. The appellants case as gleaned from the Statement of Facts shows that he was employed by the University of Ibadan the 1st Respondent, in December, 1997 as an Assistant Lecturer in the Department of Educational Management in the Faculty of Education.

His employment was confirmed on the 30th of September, 2000. On the 1st of October 2003, he was promoted to the rank of Senior Lecturer. On the 14th July 2008 he was attacked and assaulted at the Agbowo Area by four suspects namely Miss Thelma Uzomah Adoseh, Kolawole Adesina, Peter Ogere and Femi Adesina. All the suspects were apparently students of the 1st Respondent, the University of Ibadan. He promptly reported the incident to the Police and also notified the 1st Respondent of what transpired. He did so personally through letters and also through his Solicitors, the Law Firm of Olujinmi and Akeredolu. On

1

the 29th of July 2010, he received a query from the 1st Respondent alleging that he demanded sexual gratification from Miss Thelma Uzomah Adoseh on 14th July, 2008 before awarding her B.Ed Research Project score. In his answer to the query he denied the allegation that he demanded sexual gratification. It was his case that his attackers apologized to him and that their parents also wrote a joint letter of apology to him. The police he said carried out an investigation into the matter and absolved him of the allegation of sexual gratification.

In spite of these developments, he was summoned by different Committees constituted by the respondents, namely the Students Disciplinary Committee for Jointly Committed Offences (SDCJO), the Central Students Disciplinary Committee (CSDC), the Panel of Investigation and the Senior Staff Disciplinary Committee (SSDC). None of the Committees made their reports available to him. Instead, on the 13th of July, 2011, he was served with a Letter of Dismissal. The letter was dated 30th June, 2011. Although he wrote a letter of appeal over the dismissal on 30/7/11, he received no reply to the letter. He considered that the

2

respondents acted mala fide and that their action had brought untold hardship to him. He therefore sought 6 reliefs from the Lower Court. Brevi manu, the reliefs were to quash the findings and recommendations of the Committees, a declaration that his dismissal was unlawful, a declaration that he is still a bona fide staff of the 1st respondent, a declaration that his dismissal was null and void, illegal and unconstitutional, and an order directing that he be reinstated in the service of the 1st respondent and that all his salaries, allowances and entitlements, be paid.

On 23/4/2013, the respondents, that is to say, the defendants in the Lower Court, filed a preliminary objection dated 22/4/13 on two grounds, namely, (1) that the suit of the claimant is statute barred by virtue of the Statute of Limitation Act, and (2) that the claimant is caught by the Provisions of Section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act, Cap. P.41, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004. The Preliminary Objection was supported by a written address. The appellant, that is to say the claimant at the Lower Court, filed a counter-affidavit dated 4/5/13, to the preliminary

3

objection and also a written address dated 31/5/11 detailing his arguments in opposition to the preliminary objection. After considering the affidavits both in support of and in opposition to the preliminary objection and the written addresses of learned counsel, the learned trial judge on 27/1/14 came to the conclusion that the action is statute barred. He dismissed the suit based on the preliminary objection.

Dissatisfied, the appellant pronto, filed a Notice of Appeal on 10/2/14. He challenge the Ruling of the learned trial judge on the following two grounds.

GROUND 1

The learned trial judge erred in law and thereby occasioned a miscarriage of justice when he dismissed the suit of the appellant on the ground that it is caught by the statute of Limitation and is statute barred.