CORAM
Uwani Musa Abba Aji Justice Supreme Court of
Adamu Jauro Justice Supreme Court of Nigeria
Chioma Egondu Nwosu-IhemeJustice Supreme Court
Obande Festus Ogbuinya Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Habeeb Adewale Olumuyiwa Abiru Justice Supreme
PARTIES
DR SAMUEL A. DARAMOLA
APPELLANTS
1. FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY, YOLA (FUTY)
2. ALHAJI MOHAMMED AMINU (REGISTRAR FUTY)
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, EMPLOYMENT LAW, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, EDUCATION LAW, NATURAL JUSTICE, CONTRACT LAW, UNIVERSITY REGULATIONS, FAIR HEARING, DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURE
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The case revolves around the dismissal of Dr. Samuel A. Daramola (the Appellant) from his position as a lecturer in the Department of Urban and Regional Planning at the Federal University of Technology, Yola (FUTY). The Appellant was employed by FUTY on October 10, 1989. In 1998, he was accused of absenting himself from his duty post without permission. The Registrar (2nd Respondent) issued a query to the Appellant on June 23, 1998, requiring him to explain within 24 hours why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for his absence. The Appellant responded with an undated letter. Subsequently, on October 7, 1998, the Appellant was dismissed from the service of the university by a letter signed by the 2nd Respondent.
The Appellant challenged his dismissal at the Federal High Court, Yola, claiming that it was contrary to the rules of natural justice, violated proper procedure under the university’s establishing Act, and should be declared null and void. The trial Court found in favor of the Appellant and granted all his reliefs except the claim for damages. Dissatisfied with this decision, the Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeal, Jos Division, which allowed their appeal and set aside the judgment of the trial Court. The Appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.
HELD
WHAT WAS HELD
1. The appeal was dismissed.
2. The judgment of the Court of Appeal, Jos Division in Appeal No. CA/J/250/2001 was affirmed.
3. The Supreme Court held that the Appellant was lawfully dismissed from the service of the 1st Respondent.
4. The Court found that the Respondents had complied with the requirements of Section 14(1) of the Federal University of Technology Act and the principles of fair hearing in dismissing the Appellant.
5. Parties were ordered to bear their respective costs.
ISSUES
1. Whether the Court of Appeal was right in holding that the Defendants/Respondents complied with the law establishing the 1st Defendant/Respondent, particularly Section 14(1) thereof, and did not breach the rules of natural justice in dismissing the Plaintiff/Appellant, and when it reversed the decision of the trial Federal High Court which declared the dismissal of the Plaintiff/Appellant wrongful or unlawful on those grounds.
2. Whether the Court of Appeal was right in setting aside the reliefs of reinstatement and the order directing the Defendants/Respondents to pay the Plaintiff/Appellant all arrears of salaries, allowances and other emoluments accruing to the Plaintiff/Appellant after declaring his dismissal null and void.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
DISMISSAL FOR ABSENCE FROM DUTY – WHAT CONSTITUTES MISCONDUCT UNDER UNIVERSITY REGULATIONS
“As reflected in Exhibit B, the reason for the dismissal of the Appellant was his absence from duty. Exhibits G and K which set the tone for the Appellant’s dismissal also accused him of absenting himself from duty. By virtue of Section 14(1) of the 1st Respondent’s establishment Act, a member of the academic staff of the university may be removed or dismissed from his employment on the ground of misconduct. Exhibit H defines ‘misconduct’ to include ‘absence from duty without permission’. Paragraph C of Exhibit H which I have reproduced earlier provides that a member of the senior staff who absents himself from duty without permission or who fails to resume duty at the end of a leave period shall be dismissed from service. It is therefore clear beyond equivocation that in line with the Regulations governing the service of the Appellant to the 1st respondent, he was indeed accused of an act of misconduct of such a nature that was grave enough to warrant his dismissal.” – Per ADAMU JAURO, J.S.C.
NOTICE OF ALLEGATIONS – WHAT CONSTITUTES ADEQUATE NOTICE IN DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
“The next consideration is whether the Appellant was given notice of the allegation against him. Section 14(1) of the Federal University of Technology Act did not specify how notice is to be given to a member of staff who the Council has seen reason to dismiss, neither does Exhibit H contain such a provision. The word ‘notice’ is defined by Merriam-Webster’s Law Dictionary in the following words: ‘A notification or communication of a fact, claim, demand or proceeding.’ Thus, it is enough if a member of staff under investigation receives some sort of notification or communication of the allegations levelled against him or if the University Council has conveyed to him the nature of the accusation against him. Contrary to the arguments of the Appellant’s counsel, the Appellant was given notice of the accusation against him via the query issued to him, Exhibit F.” – Per ADAMU JAURO, J.S.C.
FAIR HEARING – REQUIREMENTS FOR FAIR HEARING IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS
“With regard to the present appeal, it is a legal requirement that the principles of fair hearing be observed before an employee is dismissed or his employment terminated for disciplinary reasons. See SKYE BANK PLC V. ADEGUN (2024) LPELR – 62219 (SC), OLORUNTOBA-OJU & ORS V. ABDUL-RAHEEM & ORS (2009) LPELR – 2596 (SC), ZIIDEEH VS. RIVERS STATE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION (2007) LPELR – 3544 (SC).” – Per ADAMU JAURO, J.S.C.
OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND – WHAT SATISFIES THE REQUIREMENT OF FAIR HEARING
“As I have earlier noted, the Appellant was given notification of the allegation against him via Exhibit F. He gave his reply and told his side of the story via Exhibit G. Due to the unsatisfactory nature of his response; his case was taken up by the Appointments and Promotions Committee of the University Council. After duly looking into his case, the Committee considered a dismissal as the appropriate punishment and recommended same to the Council, which in turn approved the decision. In my view, notifying the Appellant of the allegations against him, requesting him to respond to the query issued to him and considering his response, satisfied the fair hearing requirement. What is important is that an employee to be dismissed ought to be afforded an opportunity to tell his side of the story, be it orally or in writing. Having been allowed to present his case in writing, there is no basis upon which the Appellant can mount his challenge or complaint of lack of fair hearing.” – Per ADAMU JAURO, J.S.C.
ROLE OF UNIVERSITY COMMITTEES – DELEGATION OF DISCIPLINARY POWERS
“Learned counsel for the Appellant has complained that it was wrong for the Appellants case to have been considered by the Appointments and Promotions Committee rather than the Council. With due respect, I do not agree with this position. By the unchallenged evidence on record, the Appointment and Promotions Committee is a Committee of the University Council. As the Council has the responsibility of considering the case of a member of the academic staff whose dismissal is contemplated, there is nothing wrong in the Council setting up a committee to look into such cases, provided that the overriding provisions of the enabling Act have not been violated and the committee at all times does not violate the sacred principle of fair hearing.” – Per ADAMU JAURO, J.S.C.
APPLICATION OF FAIR HEARING PRINCIPLES – BEYOND JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
“The constitutional right to fair hearing does not only apply to judicial proceedings before a Court. It also applies to any tribunal or body carrying out quasi-judicial functions or charged with the responsibility of determining a person’s rights and obligations.” – Per ADAMU JAURO, J.S.C.
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS – ROLE OF RECOMMENDATIONS IN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS
“Although it is in evidence that Appointments and Promotions Committee was set up to further consider the reply or defence by the Respondent, it is clear however that it was the University Council that considered the matter and decided to dismiss the Respondent and NOT the Appointments and Promotions Committee (See Exhibit B). I therefore do not agree with the finding of the trial Judge when he held that the ‘Council abandoned its statutory duty by allowing the Appointments and Promotions Committee to take central (sic) stage in the committee matter of discipline.’ This finding of the lower Court is in my considered opinion, perverse as I do not see how mere recommendation to the Council by the committee will amount to taking central (sic) stage in the matter of discipline in which its role is merely advisory and not executory.” – Per ADAMU JAURO, J.S.C.
DISMISSAL FOR MISCONDUCT – EMPLOYER’S RIGHT TO DISMISS
“Although every case must be determined on the basis of its peculiar facts, it needs to be borne in mind that irrespective of the nature of the employment, an employer may dismiss an employee who has committed gross or grave misconduct or a misconduct of such a nature that warrants the dismissal of the employee, as long as the employee is given a fair hearing. Having been accorded a fair hearing, the Appellant has no cause to complain.” – Per ADAMU JAURO, J.S.C.
ACADEMIC ISSUES – COURT’S JURISDICTION TO CONSIDER ACADEMIC ISSUES
“An academic issue, suit or appeal is one that is merely theoretical, has no relation to any practical aspect of human endeavour, makes empty sound and is of no utilitarian value to either of the parties. A resolution of issue 2, one way or another will have no real or meaningful impact on either of the parties. It will neither harm nor confer any benefit whatsoever on either of them. A consideration of the issue will therefore only serve no more than an academic purpose. It is trite that Courts lack jurisdiction to engage in academic considerations. Courts are not academic institutions and are precluded from expending valuable time and energy on academic endeavours. Such tasks are better left for academic institutions established for such purposes. The duty of Courts is to resolve live issues or disputes between feuding parties.” – Per ADAMU JAURO, J.S.C.
BURDEN OF PROOF – ALLEGATION OF DENIAL OF FAIR HEARING
“The burden is on the party alleging breach of fair hearing in a case to prove the breach and he must do so in the light of the facts of the case. See MAIKYO V. ITODO (2007) 7 NWLR (PT. 1034) PG.443. Also, the Appellant who alleges that he has been denied right to fair hearing must show that his civil rights and obligations has been adversely affected by the alleged breach. See Per OGWUEGBU, JSC in KENON & ORS V. TEKAM & ORS (2001) LPELR-1688(SC) (PP. 16-17 PARAS. F). Unfortunately, the Appellant has woefully failed to prove how he was denied fair hearing by the proceedings that led to his dismissal from the employment of the 1st Respondent.” – Per UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI, J.S.C.
EMPLOYEE’S DUTY – KNOWLEDGE OF EMPLOYMENT REGULATIONS
“The Appellant was a senior staff of the 1st Respondent and Exhibit H applied to him. An employee has a duty to familiarize himself with the regulations or other document governing his employment. He ought to be aware of the provisions of the conditions of his service and as such be aware of the consequences of any act of misconduct that may be committed by him. Hence, the Appellant knew or at least ought to know the consequence of the allegation of absence from duty post without permission, levelled against him.” – Per ADAMU JAURO, J.S.C.
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STATUTES AND REGULATIONS – NO CONFLICT WHEN COMPLEMENTARY
“Learned counsel for the Appellant argued vociferously that the Act is superior to Exhibit H. Without a shadow of doubt, in the case of a conflict between the provision of the two, the enabling Act of the 1st Respondent being an Act of the National Assembly will prevail over Exhibit H, which wasmade pursuant to the powers vested in the 1st Respondent by the Act and which derives its validity from that very Act. In the instant case however, I see no conflict. They rather complement each other in the provisions concerning discipline of members of academic staff and senior staff. The question of one prevailing over another does not therefore arise.” – Per ADAMU JAURO, J.S.C.
UNCHALLENGED EVIDENCE – EFFECT OF FAILURE TO CHALLENGE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
“I should also point out that Exhibits F, K and L detailing the Appellant’s absenteeism were tendered and admitted in evidence without objection from the Appellant or his counsel, neither did he at any point challenge the contents of the said exhibits. This was an indication from the Appellant that he did not take any issue with the genuineness or contents of the exhibits.” – Per ADAMU JAURO, J.S.C.
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
• Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended)
• Federal University of Technology Act
• Regulations Governing the Conditions of Service of Senior Staff (FUTY)