Judul : Court nullifies UNILAG lecturer’s sack over alleged harassment
link : Court nullifies UNILAG lecturer’s sack over alleged harassment
Court nullifies UNILAG lecturer’s sack over alleged harassment
The National Industrial Court of Nigeria has described as null and void the 2021 termination of the appointment of an assistant lecturer in the Department of Public Law, Mr Bamisaye Olutola, by the University of Lagos.
Olutola sued the university, challenging the termination of his appointment because it violated Section 18 of the University of Lagos Act, which requires the university Senate to investigate allegations against any staff member.
In suit no. NICN/LA/441/2021 between Mr Bamisaye Olutola as claimant and the University of Lagos as defendant, Olutola contended that his employment remained valid due to the illegal nature of the termination.
In the judgment delivered on July 17, 2025, Justice Ikechi Nweneka of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, Lagos Judicial Division, declared that the claimant’s appointment as Lecturer II still subsists.
The judge also declared that the claimant’s appointment “is deemed confirmed”, ruled that “the defendant cannot suspend the claimant indefinitely without due process” and ordered that “the claimant is reinstated to his position and employment without loss of seniority, promotion and emoluments.”
Also declared by the court were: that the defendant shall pay the claimant his full salary and allowances from August 2021 until the date of the judgment and shall continue to pay his salary thereafter; that “an order of perpetual injunction is made restraining the defendant either by itself, its agents, privies, servants or any person howsoever described from unlawfully tampering with the claimant’s employment; that the defendant shall pay the claimant N750,000 cost of this action; and that the judgment shall be implemented within 30 days from today, failing which, the monetary awards, as detailed in paragraphs (e) and (g) above, shall accrue interest at 10 per cent per annum from 15th August 2025 until the judgment sum is fully liquidated.”
The claimant commenced the suit on 19th November 2021, seeking 10 reliefs, including a declaration that his appointment as Lecturer II had not been determined and remained subsisting; a declaration that, having worked for over four years, his employment is deemed confirmed.
Olutola also sought a declaration that the University of Lagos and its agents had no power to indefinitely interdict his employment without recalling him and without due process; and an order reinstating him to his post and employment without loss of seniority, promotion and emoluments.
Further sought was an order compelling the defendant to pay the claimant his unpaid full salaries and allowances from the purported date of termination till liquidation; and an order perpetually restraining the defendant, either by herself, her agents, privies, servants, or any person howsoever described, from unlawfully tampering with his employment.
The claimant further argued that, having worked with the defendant for more than three years, his employment was deemed confirmed as permanent staff under the claimant’s contract of employment.
He also sought court order for general damages/compensation under Section 19 of the National Industrial Court Act, 2006, in the sum of N10m “for the unconscionable act of the defendant for her refusal to confirm the claimant’s employment and also subjecting him to pains and hardship on account of the unlawful termination”; cost of the action in the sum of N1m; and an order of the court for post-judgment interest of 20 per cent per annum.
Justice Nweneka, in her ruling, said, “The first claim seeks a declaration of this honourable Court that the appointment of the claimant as Lecturer II has not been determined and is still subsisting. A claim for a declaration is not automatically granted. In this judgment, I found that the claimant’s appointment was impliedly confirmed.
“I also rule that the termination of the claimant’s appointment was wrongful and unlawful, as it violated the claimant’s appointment letter, the applicable regulations and section 18(1) of the University of Lagos Act. Since the claimant’s appointment is supported by statute, the termination is null, void and has no effect whatsoever. This means that the claimant was and continues to be a lecturer at the defendant.”
On the second claim, she held, “The second claim seeks a declaration of this honourable court that the claimant, having worked for over four years with the defendant, his employment is deemed confirmed. In this judgment, I found that the claimant’s appointment was impliedly confirmed. I adopt my reasoning and conclusions in paragraphs 27 and 35 above, and hold that this claim has been established, and therefore, it is granted.”
On indefinite suspension, the judge said, “The third claim is for a declaration of this honourable court that the defendant and or her agents have no power to indefinitely interdict the employment of the claimant from service without recalling him and without due process. The claimant asserts that while awaiting the outcome of the investigative panels, he received a letter of indefinite suspension on 30th September 2019.
“The defendant’s authority to suspend the claimant is granted by clause 16(ii) of the regulations, which specifies that the suspension should be for a specific period or pending the determination of the case against him.
“The claimant was suspended for 21 months and 15 days, which breached clause 16(1) of the regulations. The defendant does not have the power to suspend the claimant indefinitely. In light of these circumstances, I conclude that this claim has been established and therefore, it is granted.”
On reinstatement and arrears, the judge held, “The fourth claim is for an order of this honourable court reinstating the claimant to his post and employment without loss of seniority, promotion and emoluments. This claim is related to the first claim that was granted. Therefore, this claim also succeeds.
“The fifth claim is for an order of this honourable court compelling the defendant to pay the claimant his unpaid full salaries and allowances from the purported date of termination till liquidation. It is a well-established legal principle that when the termination of an employee’s appointment, which is governed by statute, is declared null and void, the effect of that ruling is that the employee has always remained in the employer’s service.
“Consequently, the employee is entitled to receive his salary and allowances from the date of the purported termination and for the period thereafter. Furthermore, this claim is connected to the fourth claim that was granted, and therefore, it also succeeds.”
On the perpetual injunction sought, she ruled, “The sixth claim seeks an order of this honourable court perpetually restraining the defendant either by herself, her agents, privies, servants, or any person however described from unlawfully tampering with the employment of the claimant.
“Where a person’s legal right has been infringed or invaded and there is a threat of the continuance of the invasion, and the legal rights of the parties have been determined in a final judgment, the successful party is entitled to a perpetual injunction.
“Thus, a perpetual injunction is intended to prevent permanent infringement of those rights and obviate the necessity of bringing another action for every such infringement. Having ruled in favour of the claimant in this judgment and granted his claim for reinstatement, this order is now necessary. Therefore, I hold that this claim has been established, and it is hereby granted.”
The seventh relief was denied for duplication. “The seventh claim is for an order of this honourable court that the claimant, having worked with the defendant for more than three years, his employment is deemed confirmed as permanent staff under the claimant’s contract of employment. This claim duplicates the second claim, making it unnecessary and is hereby denied.”
On the claim for general damages, Justice Nweneka said, “The eighth claim seeks an order of this honourable court for general damages/compensation under section 19 of the National Industrial Court Act, 2006 in the sum of N10m for the unconscionable act of the defendant for her refusal to confirm the claimant’s employment and also subjecting him to pains and hardship on account of the unlawful termination.
“The claimant combined two unrelated claims. However, general damages are granted at the court’s discretion to compensate for losses caused by the actions of the opposing party. Having already awarded the claimant’s reinstatement and the payment of his salary and allowances, granting this additional claim would result in double compensation, which the law prohibits. Therefore, this claim is denied.”
On the cost of action, she said, “The ninth claim is for the cost of the action in the sum of N1m only. It is a well-established legal principle that a court has complete discretion to award costs, and this discretion must be exercised reasonably and thoughtfully. A fundamental rule is that costs follow the outcome of litigation. They are not intended to serve as punishment or as a reward for the successful party. Instead, costs are typically awarded to indemnify the successful party for the expenses incurred during the legal process.
“Given the circumstances of this case, I hold that the claimant is entitled to recover costs associated with this action. This claimant incurred approximately N22,190 in filing and service fees, attended hearings five times, and was represented by counsel at six proceedings that spanned about three years and eight months.
“Considering the depreciation of the naira, the inflation rate, the costs of filing and serving processes, and the length of time it took for the claimant to enforce his rights, I hereby award the claimant costs of N750,000 to be paid to the defendant.”
On the interest sought, she ruled, “The tenth claim is for an order of this honourable court for post-judgment interest of 20 per cent per annum. This court is empowered by Order 47 Rule 7 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017, to award post-judgment interest at a minimum rate of 10 per cent per annum.
“As the claimant has not provided sufficient evidence to support a claim for 20 per cent interest per annum, I hold that the claimant is only entitled to the statutory minimum interest of 10 per cent per annum, which shall be payable from 15th August 2025. Therefore, this claim is granted.”
Justice Nweneka concluded, “On the whole, the claimant’s case succeeds partially. Reliefs seven and eight are dismissed. Reliefs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9 and 10 are granted. For the avoidance of doubt, judgment is entered for the claimant against the defendant.”
According to the facts of the case, Olutola was employed by the defendant as an Assistant Lecturer in the Department of Public Law, Faculty of Law, University of Lagos on 28th November 2016, and his employment was regularised on 25th March 2019.
He was suspended indefinitely due to allegations of sexual harassment and subsequently had his employment terminated on the grounds of “services no longer required” via a letter dated 6th July 2021.
This termination, the claimant argued, breached Section 18 of the University of Lagos Act, which mandates the university to constitute a disciplinary committee of the Senate to investigate such allegations — a procedure that was never carried out.
Before the termination, the defendant also failed to confirm Olutola’s employment, despite having served over four years, breaching both his contract of employment and the regulations for senior staff, which provide for confirmation after three years of service.
Following the termination, the claimant’s solicitors wrote to the university on 27th July 2021, but received no response.
The university maintained that Olutola’s termination was lawful, asserting that he was still on probation.
Chief Paul Omoijiade appeared for the claimant while the university was represented by Ibukun Ajomo, B.A. Adesoji and Victor Ilodigwe.
Provided by SyndiGate Media Inc. (Syndigate.info).Demikianlah Artikel Court nullifies UNILAG lecturer’s sack over alleged harassment
Anda sekarang membaca artikel Court nullifies UNILAG lecturer’s sack over alleged harassment dengan alamat link https://www.punyakamu.com/2025/07/court-nullifies-unilag-lecturers-sack.html
0 Response to "Court nullifies UNILAG lecturer’s sack over alleged harassment"
Post a Comment