Mallam Mohammed M. Alhassan V. Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria & Ors (2009)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

THERESA NGOLIKA ORJI-ABADUA, J.C.A.

By the Statement of Claim filed by the Plaintiff, now the Appellant, at the Federal High Court, in the Kaduna Judicial Division, on the 19th January, 2001, he claimed against the Respondents thus;

“(i). A declaration that the termination of his employment by a letter dated 24th October 2000 is wrongful, contrary to Rules and Regulations governing conditions of service, arbitrary, in breach of principles of fair hearing and therefore null and void ab initio.

(ii) An order declaring that the Plaintiff was not given fair hearing before the termination of his appointment by the Defendants which are in contravention of the procedure precedent to Termination of Appointment.

(iii) A declaration that the Plaintiff is still a lawful employee and still in the service of the Defendants notwithstanding the Termination of Appointment letter dated 24th October, 2000 given to the Plaintiff.

(iv) An order setting aside the Termination of Appointment letter dated 24th October, 2000 purportedly written to permanently disengage the services of the Plaintiff by the Defendants.

(v) an order reinstating back the Plaintiff to his employment and position with the Defendants.

(vi). An order directing payments of all arrears of salary, allowances and other entitlements due to the Plaintiff from 24th October, 2000 till the date of re-instatement by the Court and thereafter full salary, allowances and other entitlements due to the Plaintiff as an employee of the Defendants on monthly basis.

(vii). An order perpetually restraining the Defendants, their servants, privies and agents from harassing and intimidating and/or terminating the appointment of the Plaintiff on account of the facts prior to the filing of this action or an account of this Court action”.

On receipt of the Statement of Claim, the Defendants, in turn filed their Joint Statement of Defence dated 29th March, 2001.

At the completion of pleadings in accordance with the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, the matter was then fixed for hearing. At the hearing, the Appellant testified for himself and called no other witness while the Defendants did not adduce any evidence in rebuttal.

At the beginning of the trial, several documents titled; (1) Letter of Appointment dated 26/3/98, (2) Letter of Query dated 2/06/99, (3) Response to Query dated 03/06/99, (4) Application for Balance of 1998/99 Leave dated 05/06/2000, (5) Letter for Re-non-challant/sloppy attitude to work dated 21/06/2000, (7) Letter of Strong and Last Warning dated 07/07/2000, (8) Letter of Termination of Appointment dated 24/10/2000 and (9) Regulation, Governing Conditions of Appointment of Senior Staff of A.B.U, Zaria dated 15/07/83 were all admitted by the consent of the parties as Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 respectively.

During the proceedings at the lower Court, the Appellant testified that his academic qualification was a B.A. Public Administration. He had a Statement of Course Work on Masters Public Administration. His services were engaged by Ahmadu Bello University as an Administrative Officer on 26/3/98. On assumption of duty, he was posted to the security office and remained there till 02/07/99 when an anonymous letter was sent to the University. As a result, he was given a query, after which he was posted to the 2nd Defendant. He stayed with the 2nd Defendant for about a month, then, at the request of the 3rd Defendant, which was to the knowledge of the Director of the 2nd Defendant, he was posted to the 3rd Defendant and then became their College Secretary.

Then, one day, still working for with the 3rd Defendant, he applied for leave to enable him contest for the Chairmanship of SSANU (Senior Staff Association of University), but, he was advised against it by the 3rd Defendant. He did not heed the advice and then participated in the election which he eventually lost. Thereafter, a query was handed down to him containing some allegations which he said were fictitious. He also pointed out that the Registrar of the 1st Respondent ought to be the person to issue him with a query. His official relationship with the 3rd Respondent then soured.