➥ CASE SUMMARY OF:
Yunus Adinoyi Omanayin v. Federal University of Technology Minna (NICN/MN/05/2018, 7th day of November 2019)
by Branham Chima (LL.B.)
➥ ISSUES RAISED
Sexual harassment;
Dismissal.
➥ CASE FACT/HISTORY
This judgment borders on a claim of unlawful dismissal.
The claimant seeks the following reliefs: 1. A Declaration that the dismissal of claimant’s appointment was in gross violation of his right to fair hearing. 2. Order compelling the defendant to restore the appointment of the claimant forthwith. 3. An Order mandating the defendant to pay all salaries, allowances and arrears with effect from the date of his purported dismissal until the final determination of this suit. 4. The cost of this suit.
The claimant was a lecturer in the department of Geology with the defendant. He was queried for sexual harassment. He replied and was suspended. He appeared before a disciplinary committee and was subsequently dismissed; thus this action.
➥ ISSUE(S) & RESOLUTION(S)
[CASE SUCCEEDED]
↪️ I. Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs claimed by him against the Defendant in the circumstances of this case?
RESOLUTION: IN CLAIMANT’S FAVOUR.
[THE CLAIMANT’S FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESS IS INCOMPETENT FOR IT WAS FILED OUT OF TIME
‘The first issue is the contention that the claimant’s final written address should be discountenanced for having been filed outside the 21 days allowed without an order for extension of time. There is no contrary contention to this by the claimant’s counsel. On the 27/6/2019, the claimant’s counsel asked for 21 days to file his final written address after service of the defendant’s final written address. The defendant’s final written address was served on claimant’s counsel on 3/7/2019 as shown in the endorsement copy in the Court’s file but his final written address was filed on 3/9/2019 without an order for extension of time. This renders the claimant’s final written address incompetent and liable to be discountenanced, same is hereby discountenanced.’
THE SCHOOL’S DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE WAS IN A POSITION TO INVESTIGATE SEXUAL HARASSMENT
‘Sexual harassment is both a criminal act and a civil wrong. In the circumstance of this case, sexual harassment at place of work contrary to the school’s Rules and regulations is strictly a civil wrong as contemplated under section 254(1)(g) of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended as well as Order 14 Rule 1 of the 2017 Rules of this Court. Accordingly, the defendant’s disciplinary committee was in a position to investigate same and to recommend appropriate disciplinary measures. I so hold.’
THE CLAIMANT WAS NOT AFFORDED FAIR HEARING; OPPOSING WITNESSES DID NOT TESTIFY IN HIS PRESENCE
‘According to the claimant, “At the Council Chamber I met my H.O.D. Dr Alkali, Mr. Adegbe (office mate), Mr. Jude (200 level adviser), Dr. Fatima (University Health Services) and Deborah but we were separately interacted with. All the witnesses who purportedly testified at the committee against me did so in my absence”. This was not denied by the defendant but the DW1 confirmed this under cross examination when she testified thus; “Witnesses were called in the investigation. The witnesses did not testify in the presence of the claimant. None of the witnesses witnessed the action.” The implication of this is that the claimant was not afforded fair hearing before he was found liable and dismissed. This disciplinary proceedings and the punishment was in violation of claimant’s right to fair hearing as enshrined in section 36 of the Constitution and in violation of section 7 of exhibit PYO 10, the defendants conditions of service. I find that the dismissal of the claimant in violation of his Constitutional right to fair hearing is unconstitutional, unlawful, null, void and of no effect whatsoever.’
THE EMPLOYMENT OF THE CLAIMANT IS REGULATED BY STATUTE
‘The employment of the claimant with the defendant has statutory flavor which is not contested herein. The authorities are to the effect that where an employment is covered by statutory flavor and the court makes a finding of unlawful dismissal, the remedy is an order of reinstatement and payment of emoluments to the employee. The defendant’s counsel however submitted that an order of re-instatement of a dismissed employee is not granted by the court as a matter of course, it is an equitable remedy which the Hon. Court may grant in deserving cases by exercising its discretion judicially and judiciously. Such remedy will be refused by the court where the confidence between the employer and the employee has been destroyed. The defendant has not in any way shown how the confidence between the employer and the employee has been destroyed nor any other reason why an order of reinstatement should not be made in the circumstance of this case. The claimant is entitled to an order of reinstatement and payment of his emoluments. I so hold.’]
.
.
.
✓ DECISION:
‘For the avoidance of doubt, the claimant’s case succeeds and the court hereby orders as follows; 1. It is hereby declared that the dismissal of claimant by the defendant was unconstitutional, unlawful, null, void and of no effect whatsoever. 2. The claimant is hereby reinstated to his position from today the 7 day of November, 2019 without any loss of remuneration. 3. The defendant is hereby ordered to pay all salaries, allowances and arrears to the claimant from the date of his purported dismissal to the day of this judgment, today the 7 day of November, 2019. 4. I award Cost of N100,000.00 in favour of the claimant.
This is the judgment of the Court and it is entered accordingly.’
➥ FURTHER DICTA:
➥ LEAD JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY:
Justice K.D. Damulak
➥ APPEARANCES
⦿ FOR THE CLAIMANT(S)
S.O. Ogbeche, holding brief of M.C. Abubakar Esq.
⦿ FOR THE RESPONDENT(S)
Philip A. Olusola Esq.
➥ MISCELLANEOUS POINTS
➥ REFERENCED (LEGISLATION)
➥ REFERENCED (CASE)
➥ REFERENCED (OTHERS)