Professor E. O. Adekolu John V. University Of Ilorin (2012)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

TIJJANI ABDULLAHI, J.C.A (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Federal High Court sitting in Ilorin (coram) P. F. Olayinwola (J) delivered on the 30th June, 2006 wherein his Lordship held inter-alia thus:

“In view of my findings supra I do not see merit in the case of the Plaintiff. It is therefore dismissed in its entirety.

That is my decision.”

By paragraph 26 of the Amended Statement of claim of 26/11/03, the Plaintiff now Appellant sought for the following reliefs:

“(1) A declaration that the purported termination of the appointment of the Plaintiff as a professor and Consultant of Community Medicine in the service of the Defendant via a letter No. UI/RO/C.16 of 22nd September, 2000 is contrary to:

(1) Revised Regulations governing the condition of service of Senior Staff, 1994;

(2) Rules of National (sic) Justice and;

(3) Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution and is therefore null and void.”

The facts that gave rise to the appeal under consideration as can be gathered from the record of the Court below are that: The Plaintiff, hereinafter referred to as the Appellant, was a lecturer in the Department of Epidemiology and Community Health in the Faculty of Health Sciences of University of Ilorin, hereafter referred to as the Respondent.

By an Amended Statement of claim which could be found at pages 66-70 of the record, the Appellant claimed two reliefs as stated supra.

The institution of the matter as can be gleaned from the reliefs sought by the Appellant was as a result of the termination of appointment of the Appellant by the Respondent due to alleged serious misconduct by the Appellant.

In 1990, the Appellant applied to the Respondent for permission to proceed on sabbatical leave which application was disapproved by the Vice Chancellor of the Respondent. In 1991, the Appellant re-applied along with two other staff of the department. The Appointment and Promotion Committee of the Respondent considered the application and directed the Dean of the Faculty of Health Sciences to rate and rank the staff in order of proceedings on the sabbatical leave for the purpose of considering those that could be released in order not to jeopardize the departmental activities.

The Appellant was adequately informed vide a memo UI/FHS/U/159 tendered and admitted as exhibit 6, that he was ranked third, and further that he could not proceed on sabbatical leave with one other person both of whom were clinically qualified, and his reaction on the matter was being expected for the purpose of advising the vice Chancellor accordingly.