Download PDF
JUDGMENT This suit was commenced by way of complaint dated and filed on the 24th day of February 2015, wherein the Claimant sought the following reliefs: 1. A DECLARATION that the purported revaluation of the Claimant’s master’s and doctorate degree certificates by the Expanded Management Committee (EMC) of the 1st Defendant at the behest of the 2nd and 3rd Defendants and the consequent demotion of the Claimant from Lecturer 1 to Lecturer 111 by the Defendants is null and void and of no effect whatsoever. 2. A DECLARATION that the decision of the Defendants and in particular the 3rd Defendant vide its letter Ref. FPN/R/CLM/11/79 of September 23, 2013 to the effect that the Claimant must acquire M.Sc. degree within 3 (three) years or stand dismissed by the 1st Defendant is null and void. 3. A DECLARATION that the 2nd and 3rd Defendants have no powers under the Polytechnic Act, 2004 to terminate the employment of the Claimant with the 1st Defendant in the absence of the commission of a crime. 4. AN ORDER OF MANDATORY INJUNCTION restoring the Claimant to his post as Lecturer 1 based on his numerous scholarly publications and academic performance and in any case with his colleagues who have been promoted to senior lecturers by the 1st and 2nd Defendants. 5. AN ORDER OF MANDATORY INJUNCTION compelling the Defendants jointly and severally to pay to the Claimant all his salaries, arrears of salaries and/or entitlements as a Lecturer 1 from the 3rd day of December 2012 till this case is determined upon trial. 6. AN ORDER OF MANDATORY INJUNCTION compelling the Defendants jointly and severally by way of special damages to pay to the Claimant the sum of N114,460.00 (One Hundred and Fourteen Thousand, Four Hundred and Sixty Naira) being an amount owing to him for attending a conference of Chemical Society of Nigeria in September 2014 which was authorized by the 2nd Defendant. 7. AN ORDER OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION restraining the Defendants, by their agents, servants and/or privies from further suspending the Claimant from duty or terminating his employment as a member of staff of the 1st Defendant. 8. N50,000,000.00 (Fifty Million Naira) GENERAL DAMAGES for the defamation of the character and person of the Claimant. Upon receipt of the said Complaint and other accompanying processes, the Defendants entered appearance and filed a joint statement of defence on the 19th day of May 2015 vide a motion for extension of time. This was duly regularized on the 26th day of June 2015. The Claimant filed a Reply to the Defendants' joint statement of defence on the 13th day of October 2015. Same was duly regularized on the 2nd day of December 2015. Hearing commenced on the 27th day of January 2016. The parties fielded one witness each. The Claimant testified for himself as CW1. Mrs. Honorine Nneka Amanze, a Legal Officer with the 1st Defendant testified for the Defendants as DW1. Hearing ended on the 27th day of September 2017 and parties were ordered to file their Final Written Addresses. The Defendants’ Final Address was filed on the 25th day of October 2017. The Claimant’s Address was filed on the 24th day of November 2017. The Defendants filed a Reply on the 24th day of January 2018. These were duly regularized and parties adopted their respective Final Written Addresses on the 24th day of January 2018. In the Final Address of the Defendants, counsel first addressed his objection to the admissibility of Exhibits C22, C26, C27, C28, C29A, C29B, C30, C31, C32, C34, and C35. Leave of court had earlier been sought and obtained during trial, to argue this objection in the Final Written Address of counsel. According to counsel, relevancy governs admissibility. He cited the provisions of Section 104 (1), (2) and (3) of the Evidence Act 2011, and submitted that Exhibits C22-C35 are public documents, therefore, only the original copies or Certified True Copies thereof are admissible in evidence. Section 104 of the Evidence Act 2011 is unambiguous, and has clearly prescribed the fulfillment of five conditions before any document purporting to be a Certified True Copy could be admissible in evidence, those conditions must be fulfilled. Counsel relied on the cases of AINA vs. LINADU (1992) 4 NWLR (Pt. 233) 911, FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF NIGERIA vs. ZEBRA ENERGY LTD (2003) FWLR 154. Counsel proceeded to copiously describe each of the documents being objected to, giving specific reasons for their inadmissibility, ranging from non-certification to failure to lay proper foundation, amongst other reasons. He urged the court to reject the said Exhibits and mark them rejected on the ground that they are inadmissible because the Claimant failed either to have them Certified by the appropriate authority in custody of the original copy or lay proper foundation as to where the copies are. On this point, counsel relied on the decisions in ABDURAHMAN vs. UNILORIN TCH MGT BOARD (2013) 35 NLLR, WODI vs. DIFFERENTIAL ALUMINUM & STEEL CO. LTD & ANOR (2014) 42 NLLR. Counsel proceeded to identify a sole issue for determination as follows: Whether the Ph.D and M.Sc degrees in Digital Chemistry obtained by the Claimant in the Atlas University, Philadelphia, U.S.A are approved by the Federal Ministry of Education as a recognized degree in Nigeria. In arguing this issue, counsel cited the case of N.B LTD vs. D.C HOLDINGS LTD (2004) 13 NWLR 436 at 462 and submitted that it is trite law that he who asserts must prove. According to counsel for the Defendants, the Claimant’s case is that he was employed by the 1st Defendant on 2/1/2010 as Lecturer II. Thereafter, his employment was re-designated as Assistant Lecturer on the ground that his academic certificates were revaluated by the Expanded Management Committee (EMC) of the 1st Defendant. He was subsequently suspended from duty based on the ongoing and lingering investigation of the authenticity of his certificates and his continued inability to fulfill the conditions for his earlier recall to duty. On the other hand, the case of the Defendants is that the Claimant had been evasive in submitting his academic certificates for verification and the basis for his suspension is as a result of the letter from the Federal Ministry of Education that his M.Sc and Ph.D certificates obtained from Atlas University Philadelphia, United states of America are not approved by the Federal Ministry of Education and therefore not recognized in Nigeria. It is counsel’s submission that the gravamen of the present case is whether the Claimant's academic certificates are genuine. According to counsel, assuming without conceding that the various documents (Exhibits C9, C10, C22, C24, C27, C28, C29A, C29B, C30, C31, C32, C34, and C35) tendered by the Claimant are admissible, they are not relevant to this case There is no nexus between these exhibits and the reliefs sought by the Claimant, and there is no way the said exhibits can aid the court in determining whether or not the Claimant's academic certificates are genuine. Further, counsel contended that it is the Federal Ministry of Education that is saddled the responsibility of verifying the Claimant's academic certificates. The Claimant under cross-examination, admitted this fact, and therefore needs no further proof. Counsel went on that the Claimant's Master's and Doctorate Degree were not genuine and that was the reason why he was why he was downgraded to Lecturer 3 and subsequently suspended from the 1st Defendant Institution. This was communicated to the Claimant through Exhibits C12 and C23, and the reasons for doing so were contained therein. The Claimant admitted these facts during his cross- examination when he said: “at some point in time, I was suspended from the institution; the reason given was that I did not obtain M.Sc and Ph.D from a recognized institution”. Citing the case of OGOLO vs. OGOLO (2006) 5 NWLR (Pt. 972) and OLOGUN vs. FATAYO (2013) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1335), counsel submitted that the Claimant knew clearly the reason why he was suspended from the 1st Defendant. Having so admitted that he knew, such admission requires no further proof. Counsel urged the court to so hold. Counsel contended that the Claimant failed to prove that the 2nd defendant and her group were victimizing him, or that his academic certificates were verified during his probation period as contained in Exhibit C7. The content of Exhibit C7 according to counsel, cannot pass for verification of the Claimant's academic certificates. Besides, Exhibit C12, which was made later in time, overrides Exhibit C7. Furthermore, counsel argued that though the two Exhibits tendered by the defendants were not frontloaded, they were pleaded and are relevant to this case in assisting the Court determine this case. One of them (Exhibit D1) is a certified True Copy of a letter from the Federal Ministry of Education to the 1st Defendant confirming that the Claimant's M.Sc and Ph.D certificates obtained from Atlas University Philadelphia, United States are not approved by them and therefore not recognized in Nigeria. Counsel argued further that even though the Claimant's counsel raised objection to the admissibility of Exhibit D1, he failed to cross-examine DW1 on the content of same. It is therefore counsel’s submission that the evidence of DW1 pertaining to Exhibit D1 was unchallenged, not controverted and deemed to have been admitted. Counsel urged the court to accept the piece of evidence on Exhibit D1 as having been admitted by the Claimant, in line with N.A.B. LTD vs. ABDULLAHI (2000) 16 NWLR (Pt. 662) 549. Again, Counsel submitted that the 2nd and 3rd Defendants have the powers under the Polytechnic Act 2004 to terminate the employment of the Claimant with the 1st Defendant, the Claimant having failed to obtain the requisite qualifications for the post of a Lecturer which he was occupying. From the evidence elicited from DW1 under cross-examination, the action taken by the Defendant to verify the Claimant's academic certificates, according to counsel, was in order. On whether the Claimant is entitled to his salaries from the last time he was paid or whether he is entitled to the sum of N114,460.00, counsel submitted that the Claimant failed to specifically plead and lead any evidence on that. Counsel therefore urged the court to dismiss this suit for lacking merit. The Claimant’s counsel filed his final address on 24th November 2017, and distilled a set of issues for determination, thus: 1. Whether this Honourable court can rely on Exhibit D1 which was neither specifically pleaded nor front-loaded by the Defendants in deciding this case in favour of the Defendants. 2. Whether the emergence of Exhibit D1 for the first time after the Claimant had closed his case and at the time of defence and its admission by this court would not constitute a breach of the Claimant's right to fair hearing as enshrined in Section 36 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended). 3. Whether the admission of the Defendants' counsel that though Exhibit D1 was neither front-loaded nor among the documents filed along with the statement of defence and served on the Claimant's counsel, but a copy thereof was in the court's file did not on its own smack of fraud and dishonesty on the part of the Defendants against the court and the Claimant. 4. Whether the admission thereof would not occasion a miscarriage of justice against the Claimant. 5. Whether the Claimant has proved his case as required by law, that is to say, on the balance of probability and thus entitled to judgment. Counsel argued issues 1, 2, 3 and 4 together and stated that by virtue of the provisions of Order 30 Rule 8 of the National Industrial Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017, all grounds of defence or reply must be specifically pleaded. Exhibit D1 was not specifically pleaded within the contemplation of the rules of this court. Also, counsel contended that Order 15 Rule 1(c) of the Court rules mandatorily stipulates that the statement of defence is to be filed along with the list of documents and other exhibits to be relied upon at the trial, a requirement which the Defendants failed to comply with by tendering Exhibit D1, a document which purported to be a Certified true copy of a letter from the Federal Ministry of Education dated 29th November, 2011. It is counsel’s opinion that Exhibit D1 was not specifically pleaded by the defendants within the contemplation of Order 30 Rule 8, because the document did not plead the date, names or particulars related to the Claimant but to another person called Ekeocha Ugochukwu, as required by the rules of court. Counsel submitted that the said document was not frontloaded or listed among the documents to be relied upon by the Defendant as required by the rules of this court, and do not come under Order 40 Rule 4 of the rules of this court which provides that; “unless the court for special reasons at or before trial; otherwise orders or directs, no document, plan, photograph or model shall be receivable in evidence at the trial unless it has been filed along with the pleading of the parties under these rules.” It is counsel’s argument that it was wrong for such document to have suddenly sprung up in court and admitted in evidence after the Claimant had closed his case; making it impossible for the Claimant to respond to it while filing his reply to the Defendants' statement of defence or any other way. Counsel relied on the case of ADEJUMO & ANOR vs. GOVERNOR OF LAGOS STATE (1970) All NLR 187, and contended that the golden rule of practice is that a party should not spring a surprise against his adversary, a situation which in counsel’s view, the rules of this court came to cure by providing that parties to a case plead and frontload documents intended to be relied upon at the hearing of the case so that the adverse party might react to same at the earliest opportunity for the court to dispense justice. In the same vein, counsel submitted that by having a document not pleaded or frontloaded in the Court’s file, the Defendants would gain some undue advantage against the Claimant and occasion a miscarriage of justice against the Claimant, a situation which the court has a duty to condemn, in line with Order 2 Rule 2 (7) of the rules of this court which provides that: “Where an officer in a State Registry wrongly or mistakenly accepts any process which does not comply with the provisions of these rules on filing, such process shall be incompetent and shall not be allowed by the court to be used for the purpose for which it is intended”. More so, counsel asserted that decided authorities have emphasized that documents not pleaded will not be admitted in evidence, as held in the case of OBA R. A. OYEDlRAN vs. OBA ALEBIOSU & ORS (1992) 6 NWLR (Pt. 249) 550 at 559. Counsel submitted that the admission of Exhibit D1 by this court is a nullity, and may be treated in two ways, by either expunging it from its records or give no weight to it, at all. See AGAGU vs. DAWODU (1990) 7 NWLR (Pt. 160) 56. Counsel urged the court not to give any weight to Exhibit D1, but rather, invoke the provisions of Section 167 of the Evidence Act, 2011 and rightly presume that Exhibit D1 was merely made by the Defendants for the purpose of this case so as to work injustice against the Claimant. According to counsel, if Exhibit D1 was in existence at the time of the filing of the statement of defence, it would have been pleaded and frontloaded; the only reason it was not done was that Exhibit D1 was non-existent at the time of the filing of the Defendants' statement of defence, it was made during the pendency of this action. Counsel submitted that Section 36 of the Nigerian Constitution guarantees that a party that appears before this court is entitled to fair hearing, and any reliance on the said Exhibit D1 which the Claimant had no opportunity of countering at the earliest opportunity will derogate from the right to fair hearing as provided by the constitution. Also, counsel contended that if Exhibit D1 has any relevance in this case, the Defendants ought to have tendered the original copy which was given by the Federal Ministry of Education and not a certified copy without the foundation of the whereabouts of the original copy; and Section 104 (1) of the Evidence Act, 2011 does not entitle the Defendants to certify for themselves a photocopy of the said original copy in their possession, and tender same without letting this court know where the original copy is and why it has become necessary to tender a document other than the said original copy. It is counsel’s submission that the said Exhibit D1 is fraudulent and suspicious. He urged the court not to admit or place any weight on it, because it is not an irregularity which this court can cure, but a fundamental defect that goes to the root of the case of the Defendants. Regarding issue five, counsel submitted that the Claimant has proved his case as required by law, on the preponderance of evidence, and the only thing that the Defendants seem to have against the Claimant is that Atlas University, Philadelphia USA is not in the Federal Ministry of Education's List of accredited institutions in the USA, a list not tendered before this court, all that was produced was Exhibit D1 which counsel has urged the court to reject, relying on his earlier submissions in respect of issues 1 to 4. Similarly, counsel urged the court to “treat with utmost caution” the evidence of the DW1 in her written deposition that the claimant was evasive with respect to the verification of his academic credentials, in view of DW1’s admission that the verification of the academic credentials of an employee of the 1st Defendant can be done unilaterally, hence an inference that the Defendants did not require the input of the Claimant who had years ago submitted his credentials to them for verification. Again, counsel buttressed that if the Federal Ministry of Education had written Exhibit D1 to the Defendants as early as 2011, it was not necessary to secure the attendance of the Claimant in their verification; and with DW1’s admission that she was employed by the 1st Defendant some years after the employment of the Claimant, her evidence in her written deposition stemmed from lack of knowledge both of the Claimant and his specialized field of study. Counsel urged the court to discountenance much of her evidence for not actually flowing from facts personally known to her and if they are facts relayed to her by another, she failed to state the source of such knowledge as required by the Evidence Act. Furthermore, counsel contended that contrary to the argument of the Defendants’ counsel that the evidence of the DW1 regarding Exhibit D1 was unchallenged by the Claimant's counsel because the DW1 was not cross examined on it, an objection to the admission and tendering of the said document for reasons stated by the Claimant's counsel was a suitable challenge to the said document; and that DW1 was not cross examined by the Claimant's counsel on a defective Exhibit D1 of which she was not the maker, would not in law amount to the Claimant's counsel not challenging the validity of the said document. The court was urged by counsel to uphold his submission. Again, counsel urged the court to discountenance the argument of the Defendants’ counsel regarding Exhibit C22, because it was pleaded in paragraph 29 of the Statement of facts as well as 29 of the Claimant's deposition, and the Defendants’ counsel also admitted that Exhibit C22 emanated from the Defendants. They were not taken by surprise by the Claimant’s averments and did not also challenge it in their statement of defence. It is counsel’s contention that Exhibit C22 is relevant and admissible, for it is relevancy that governs admissibility, and that the Defendants' counsel's objection bothers on technicality which this court by its rules will not be bothered about. Counsel referred the court to Section 89(a) of the Evidence Act, 2011 (as amended) which is to the effect that if the original of the document sought to be tendered is shown to be in the custody of the party against whom the document is sought to be tendered, then secondary copy of the said document can be tendered. He submitted that the original of Exhibit C22 is in the custody of the 1st Defendants, and there is nothing wrong with the Claimant tendering a secondary copy of the said original document in line with Section 89(a) of the Evidence Act. On the argument that exhibits emanating from the Defendants, tendered by the Claimant were not certified, counsel urged the court to place great weight on the exhibits tendered by the Claimant in the determination of this case because they are pleaded and relevant; and hold pursuant to Section 167 of the Evidence Act, 2011 that it would be impracticable for the Defendants to certify for the Claimant, documents which he intends to use against them in this present case, especially as the Defendants were given notice to produce them. Further, counsel submitted that the Defendants are not alleging a case of forgery against the Claimant, they have not stated that the Claimant was not a lecturer in their employment, and in the absence of any crime on the part of the Claimant the Defendants lack the power to terminate the appointment of the Claimant, because he is by his B.Sc. certificate, entitled to be in the Lecturer cadre/staff of the 1st Defendant by virtue of Exhibit C22. In conclusion, counsel urged the court to hold that the Claimant has proved his case as required by law and as such is entitled to the reliefs sought by him. The Defendants filed a Reply on points of Law wherein counsel urged the court to dismiss the objection of the Claimant to the admissibility of Exhibit D1 and consequently dismiss the Claimant’s suit in its entirety. According to counsel, relevant facts relating to Exhibit D1 was copiously pleaded in Paragraphs 12(c) and 14(c) of the joint statement of Defence. Counsel cited the case of MONIER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY vs. AZUBUIKE (1990) 3 NWLR (Pt. 136) S.C.74 and ALLIED BANK (NIG.) LTD. vs. AKUBEZE (1997) 6 NWLR (Pt. 509) and submitted that the law permits a situation where the facts relating to a document, though not frontloaded, is admissible in evidence, in so far as the facts relating to such document sought to be tendered in evidence are pleaded. Counsel in his reply, also proffered further arguments in support of his objection to Exhibits C22, C28-C30, and urged the court to discountenance the submissions of learned counsel for the Claimant. COURT’S DECISION Having analyzed the submissions of counsels to the parties in their final written addresses, I will proceed to examine the case presented by the parties before I determine the claims of the Claimant in this suit. The Claimant’s case is that he is a staff of the 1st Defendant as a lecturer in the department of Chemistry/Biochemistry. He was employed as Lecturer II on CONTISS 9 Step 2 with effect from 11th December 2007 to introduce and teach Digital Chemistry (Computer Applications in Chemistry). Before his employment, he had obtained B.Sc (Ed) in Chemistry. He later studied and obtained masters and Ph.D degrees in Digital Chemistry (Computer Applications in Chemistry) from Atlas University, Philadelphia, USA. He also had his NYSC discharge certificate. These were among the documents he presented to the Defendants for his employment. He was also interviewed by the Defendant and officials of the National Board for Technical Education. He was then employed by the 1st Defendant and placed on probation for 2 years. After the probation period, his employment was confirmed by the 3rd Defendant as Lecturer II with effect from 2nd January 2010. Based on his academic performance and scholarly achievements, he was promoted to Lecturer 1 by the 3rd Defendant through a letter dated 1st August 2011. The 2 years he was on probation meant that the Defendant would verify all his academic credentials during the period before confirmation of his employment. In September 2012, he received a letter dated 5th September 2012 from the 1st Defendant where he was informed that his academic certificates have been revaluated by the Expanded Management Committee (EMC) of the 1st Defendant and that his employment has been redesignated as Assistant Lecturer on CONTISS 7 step 2 with effect from 1st December 2007 by the Expanded Management Committee. His promotion of July 2011 as Lecturer 1 on CONPCASS 05/1 was reverted to Lecturer III on CONPCASS 02/1. The reason given in the letter for the development is that the Atlas University USA where the Claimant obtained his Masters and Ph.D in Digital Chemistry is not in the Federal Ministry of Education’s list of accredited institutions in the USA and thus the certificates obtained by the Claimant in that school be evaluated. The letter also contains that the EMC has directed the 1st Defendant to accept only the Claimant’s B.Sc certificate. The Claimant was surprised that the Defendants are now raising issue of genuineness of his certificates when they had ample time to have verified the certificates. The Claimant consulted his solicitor, Chief Victor Agwu, on the matter, who wrote a letter dated 12th October 2012 to the Defendants to demand immediate return of the Claimant to his position. On 20th November 2012, the Claimant received 2 letters both dated 12th November 2012. The letters were invitation of the Claimant to appear before an investigative panel on 13th November 2012. His HOD informed him that the letters were sent on 13th November 2012. When he contacted the chairman of the panel, the Claimant was informed that the matter has been treated and concluded. On 3rd December 2012, he received a letter dated 30th November 2012 suspending him from duty with effect from 3rd December 2012 for an initial period of 3 months. He was also placed on half salary during the suspension. He wrote a letter dated 4th December 2012 to the Registrar of the 1st Defendant to complain about the decision of the panel and his suspension. The Claimant contended that he was not given fair hearing by the panel before he was suspended. The Claimant also stated that his B.Sc certificate is a sufficient qualification for employment, therefore, he ought not to have been suspended or placed on half salary. The revaluation of his employment and downgrading to Lecturer III was wrong since his B.Sc degree already qualified him to be a staff of the 1st Defendant. The Defendants ought not to have revaluated and downgraded him without first verifying his B.Sc certificate. The Claimant was recalled to duty in a letter dated 25th April 2013. In the letter, the Claimant was asked to withdraw the letter written by his lawyer and to render an unreserved apology to the investigative panel for falsely accusing them of denying him fair hearing. He resumed duty on 2nd May 2013 and he communicated this fact to the Defendants. In March 2014, he received another letter from the Defendants dated 5th March 2014 suspending him from duty for 3 months effective from 5th March 2014. The reason for the suspension is because of the ongoing investigation on the genuineness of the Claimant’s certificates and his continued inability to fulfill the conditions for his earlier recall to duty. During the investigation of his academic credentials by the Defendants, his credentials were found to be genuine and he was found not to have committed any crime hence his earlier recall to duty. The issues of investigation of his credentials have since been laid to rest that was why he recalled to work. The Defendants have defamed him by their actions and imputations. He has suffered injury and damages as a result. The Defendants have also not paid to him the sum of N114,460.00 which was the money he spent to attend the conference of Chemical Society of Nigeria in September 2014. The Claimant also stated that the Defendants have concluded arrangements to terminate his employment in addition to the fact that his salaries as Lecturer I have not been paid to him since the 3rd December 2012. In their statement of defence and evidence of DW1, the Defendants stated that the Claimant was employed into the department of Chemistry/Biology to teach Chemistry. He was not employed to teach Digital Chemistry as there is no such course in the NBTE syllabus nor does it exist in the curriculum of any recognized polytechnic in Nigeria. The Defendants admitted that the Claimant obtained B.Sc in Chemistry Education but contended that he obtained it through sandwich programme. They also stated that the Claimant’s Ph.D and M.Sc degrees were obtained by the Claimant through online correspondence learning in Digital Chemistry. The 1st Defendant offers only programmes and courses approved by NBTE. Also, academic staff of the 1st Defendant must possess academic qualification approved as relevant to the discipline he teaches by the NBTE and the qualification must be obtained from institutions approved and recognized by the Federal Ministry of Education. The Claimant’s certificates in Digital Chemistry is not approved by NBTE, and Atlas University is not recognized as a degree awarding institution by the Federal Ministry of Education. The Claimant obtained employment and promotions by misrepresentations as he did not possess the required academic qualification for employment in the 1st Defendant. The genuineness and status of the Claimant’s academic certificates became an issue as a result of report of staff verification exercise conducted by the 3rd Defendant between 2009 and 2011. Although the Claimant’s employment was confirmed and he was subsequently promoted, it was after this the 1st Defendant received a reply from the Federal Ministry of Education on the evaluation of the Claimant’s certificates. The FME stated that Atlas University and the degrees obtained by the Claimant from that University are not approved by the Ministry, and so not recognized in Nigeria. Upon discovering the defective status of the Claimant’s M.Sc and Ph.D certificates, the Defendants downgraded the Claimant to a B.Sc status with effect from the date of his employment while the matter was referred to a panel to investigate how the Claimant managed to deceive the 1st Defendant. Investigation by the 1st Defendant revealed that the Claimant did not travel to the countries he claimed to have gone to deliver lectures. The Claimant’s other claims about his performances could not also be authenticated. The Claimant was invited several times to appear before the panel but he was evading appearing before the panel. Consequently, his HOD was instructed to produce him on 13/11/2012 and the Claimant was given separate notice to appear on 13/11/2012. The letters were delivered on 12/11/2012 but the Claimant failed to turn up. As a result of the Claimant’s continued uncooperative attitude, the Rector of the 1st Defendant suspended the Claimant pursuant to Section 17 of the Federal Polytechnic Act which suspension was a procedural step during investigation and it was not a punishment for any misconduct, neither was it a punishment on the Claimant before being given a hearing. The suspension compelled the Claimant to appear before the panel. When the Claimant made himself available before the panel, the panel investigated the matter and found that the Claimant has unrecognized M.Sc and Ph.D degrees in Digital Chemistry and that his sandwich B.Sc degree in Chemistry was obtained in Education. The Claimant was therefore not qualified to be employed as academic staff in the 1st Defendant in the first place. The management of the 1st Defendant adopted the report of the panel and transmitted it to the Emergency Management Committee which stood in place of the 3rd Defendant who had not been constituted at the time. The EMC reviewed the employment of the Claimant and magnanimously suspended the exit of the Claimant from the 1st Defendant for three years on the conditions that the Claimant obtains requisite Master’s degree in Pure Chemistry within 3 years; the Claimant be downgraded to Lecturer III pending the time he updates his certificates and that the Claimant retracts his allegations in his solicitor’s letter against the panel. When the 3rd Defendant was reconstituted, it ratified the actions of the EMC on the Claimant’s case. The Claimant thereafter wrote a petition to the Minister of Education who referred the petition to the 3rd Defendant for treatment. The 3rd Defendant reheard the matter by inviting and hearing from the Claimant. The 3rd Defendant came to the same conclusion as the EMC and communicated it decision to the Claimant. It is the statutory duty of the Federal Ministry of Education to keep list of educational institutions worldwide and their courses recognized in Nigeria while it is the statutory duty of NBTE is to draw up curriculum for Technical Education, and accredit each course taught in Nigerian Polytechnics. It was the Federal Ministry of Education that evaluated the Claimant’s M.Sc and Ph.D degrees in Digital Chemistry from Atlas University USA and informed the Defendants that the degrees are not approved by the Federal Ministry of Education or recognized as degrees in Nigeria. The said Digital Chemistry is not a course of study in the approved curriculum of NBTE in Nigerian Polytechnics. B.Sc (Ed) certificate possessed by the Claimant is not a cognate degree for teaching in Nigerian Polytechnics. The Claimant is not employable with that degree on a lecturer cadre. The Lecturer III to which he was downgraded was only adhoc on the condition that he updates the certificate within 3 years. Masters’ degree is a minimum academic qualification for progression to Senior Lecturer position. The Claimant does not have it. The Claimant also does not have qualification to teach in the 1st Defendant, not even as Assistant Lecturer which is the lowest rank in the academic staff ladder of the 1st Defendant. The Defendants further stressed that the certificates with which the Claimant was employed were his B.Sc (Ed) in Chemistry, M.Sc and Ph.D in Digital Chemistry. But inquiry revealed that the M.Sc and Ph.D were not recognized in Nigeria and the B.Sc (Ed) is not a relevant degree for employment as academic staff in Nigeria Polytechnics. When the Claimant was recalled from suspension of 30/11/2012, he resumed duty without fulfilling the other conditions of his recall. The Defendant consequently suspended him again from 5th March 2014. The Claimant was not defamed. The Defendants were justified in their comments about the status of the Claimant’s certificates and non-teaching qualifications. The Defendants did not sponsor the Claimant to any conference in September 2014 and have not concluded arrangement or intend to terminate the Claimant’s employment. In view of these facts of the case, my view is that only one issue ought to be considered to resolve the claims of the Claimant in this suit. The issue is whether the Claimant has proved his case and is entitled to the reliefs he sought in this suit. Before I go into the issue, let me quickly determine the Defendants’ objection to admissibility of documents in evidence as Exhibits C22, C25, C26, C27, C28, C29A, C29B, C30, C31, C32, C34 and C35. The objection of the Defendant’s counsel to the admissibility of these documents is on the ground that the documents are public documents whose original copies or Certified True Copies ought to be tendered in evidence. Since the copies tendered in evidence are photocopies and not certified they are inadmissible in evidence. Counsel urged the court to reject the exhibits. In his response to the arguments of the Defendants counsel, the Claimant’s counsel submitted in his final address, that the documents were pleaded, they are relevant and admissible. Counsel also submitted that it will be impossible for the Claimant to get the Defendants to certify the documents. I have examined the documents in contention. They are public documents and are photocopies. By the provisions of Sections 85, 86(1), 89 (e) and 90 (c) of the Evidence Act, the only admissible evidence of public documents is either the original document or a certified true copy of the document. Since the copies in issue are not certified, they are inadmissible in evidence. The documents marked Exhibits C22, C25, C26, C27, C28, C29A, C29B, C30, C31, C32, C34 and C35 are hereby expunged from evidence. From the evidence adduced by the Claimant, he was employed by the 1st Defendant on 11th December 2007 as Lecturer II in the department of Chemistry/Biochemistry. The academic certificates he submitted to the 1st Defendant for the employment include B.Sc (Ed) in Chemistry obtained from University of Portharcourt, M.Sc and PhD degrees in Digital Chemistry obtained from Atlas University, Philadelphia, USA. The Claimant’s cause of action in this case started when he received the letter dated 5th September 2012 from the 1st Defendant. The letter is in evidence as Exhibit C12. In this letter, the Claimant was informed that the Expanded Management Committee has considered the report of the evaluation of the Claimant’s certificates presented for appointment in its meeting held on 14th June 2012. The Atlas University where the Claimant obtained M.Sc and PhD is not in the list of accredited institutions in the USA with the Federal Ministry of Education. Accordingly, the EMC directed that the Claimant’s B.Sc degree from the University of Portharcourt be accepted and the Claimant be re-designated accordingly with effect from the date the Claimant assumed duty in the Polytechnic. The Claimant was consequently informed that his employment on 11th December 2007 was re-designated as Assistant Lecturer while his promotion to Lecturer I on 1st July 2011 was reverted to Lecturer III. As at the date of this letter, the Claimant was in the position of Lecturer 1. By effect of this letter, the Claimant was demoted to Lecturer III. The reason given by the 1st Defendant for the demotion of the Claimant is that Atlas University USA where the Claimant obtained his M.Sc and PhD in Digital Chemistry is not among the recognized or accredited institutions in the USA by the Federal Ministry of Education. It is on the basis of this demotion from the rank of Lecturer 1 the Claimant sought the reliefs in this suit. In his 1st claim, the Claimant sought this court to declare that the revaluation of his master's and doctorate degrees and his consequential demotion from Lecturer I to Lecturer III by the Defendants is null and void and of no effect whatsoever. In the evidence of the Defendant’s witness, she told the court that the Claimant was employed when he presented B.Sc in Chemistry, M.Sc and Ph.D in Digital Chemistry from Atlas University USA. There was a staff verification exercise conducted by the 3rd Defendant between 2009 and 2011 where the Defendants sent the Claimant’s certificates to the Federal Ministry of Education for evaluation. In the reply of the FME, it stated that Atlas University and the degrees obtained by the Claimant from that University are not approved by the ministry and so not recognized in Nigeria. It was on this basis the Claimant was demoted. DW1 also explained that the 1st Defendant offers only programmes and courses approved by NBTE. Academic staff of the 1st Defendant must possess academic qualification approved as relevant to the discipline he teaches by the NBTE and the qualification must be obtained from institutions approved and recognized by the Federal Ministry of Education. Since the Claimant’s certificate in Digital Chemistry is not approved by NBTE and the Atlas University is not recognized as a degree awarding institution by the Federal Ministry of Education, the Claimant was downgraded to Lecturer III which is the position the Defendants could place him in view of the B.Sc degree. It is clear from Exhibit C12 and the case of the Defendant that the demotion of the Claimant was informed by the letter from the FME. This is the document admitted as Exhibit D1. The Claimant’s counsel had objected to the admissibility of the document when it was tendered by DW1. Counsels to the parties addressed the court on the admissibility of the document but this court deferred ruling on the issue until judgment while leave was given to counsels to the parties to advance further arguments on the matter if they so desire. Counsel for the Claimant has made further submissions in the final written address of the Claimant when he urged this court to either expunge Exhibit D1 or attach no weight to it while the Defendants’ counsel responded in the reply address. The arguments of counsels have earlier been summarized in this judgment; I therefore see no need to repeat them at this point. One of the contentions of counsel for the Claimant is that the document was not specifically pleaded by the Defendants contrary to Order 30 Rule 8 of the NICN Rules 2017. I have examined the averments in the statement of defence and I find that the document is pleaded. The defendants pleaded in paragraph 16 (g) of the statement of defence that the Claimant’s M.Sc and Ph.D certificates were sent to the FME for evaluation. The FME replied in writing that Atlas University, Philadelphia, USA and the degrees obtained by the Claimant from that university are not approved by the ministry and so not recognized in Nigeria. The paragraph further contain that “the letter containing the response which incidentally includes that of another staff equally sent out is hereby pleaded”. See also paragraph 12 (c) of the statement of defence. The said response from the FME is the document in question. The document contains the facts pleaded in paragraph 16 (g) of the statement of defence. The law is well settled that documentary evidence need not he specifically pleaded so long as facts and not the evidence by which such a document is covered are pleaded. See OKEKE vs. ORUH (1999) 6 NWLR (Pt. 606) 175; ALHAJI B. THANNI vs. SABAIEMONT SAIBU (1977) 2 S.C. 89. The document is the evidence of the facts pleaded in paragraph16 (g) of the statement of defence. I find that the document is pleaded and it is admissible on this ground. The Claimant’s counsel also argued that the document was not frontloaded contrary to Order 15 Rule 1 of the rules of this court and Order 40 Rule 4 of the rules which prohibits admission of documents not filed along with the pleading in evidence. The Defendant listed the document in the list of documents to be relied on at trial but did not frontload a copy of the document. Besides the fact that Order 40 Rule 4 of the rules does not close admissibility of documents once it is not frontloaded, the rule gives the court a discretion in such a situation. The rule empowers this court to admit a document in evidence notwithstanding that it was not frontloaded. By the rules of evidence on admissibility of documents, the requirements for admissibility are whether the document is pleaded and whether it is relevant. In this case, the document is pleaded and it is relevant. It is therefore admissible in evidence. The Claimant’s counsel contended that the Claimant learnt about the existence of Exhibit D1 after he had closed his case, and this amounted to denying the Claimant the right to fair hearing and it had occasioned a miscarriage of justice against the Claimant. I have mentioned earlier that facts relating to the document have been copiously pleaded by the Defendants particularly in paragraph 16 (g) of the statement of defence. Parties reply to pleadings and not documents. Therefore, I find the allegation of the Claimant’s counsel that the Claimant had no opportunity to respond to the document preposterous. If the Claimant’s counsel had read the processes before trial, he would have seen that the Defendants made reference to the letter from Federal Ministry of Education and pleaded facts from the content of the document. The pleading of the Defendants in paragraph 16 (g) of the statement of defence had put the Claimant on notice of the document and he had the opportunity to respond to the facts in his reply. I do not see how the document is a surprise to the Claimant or how the admission of the document in evidence is a denial of the Claimant his right to fair hearing. Counsel for the Claimant also submitted that the Defendants ought to have tendered the original document and not a CTC. Counsel stated that Section 104 (1) Evidence Act disentitled the Defendants from certifying for themselves a photocopy of the said original copy. I see no merit in this line of objection. The facts pleaded in paragraph 16 (g) of the statement of defence show that the letter was sent to the 1st Defendant, a public institution. It is part of the record of the 1st Defendant making the document a public document. The Defendants can either bring the original to court or certify a copy for the purpose of these proceedings. In Sections 89 (e), 90 (c) and 105 of the Evidence Act 2011, in the absence of original public document, the only secondary evidence admissible is the CTC. The Defendants are not obligated by law to tender the original in evidence. A Certified True Copy suffices. In view of the foregoing, I overrule the objection of the Claimant’s counsel on the admissibility of Exhibit D1. I hold that the document has been properly admitted in evidence. Exhibit D1 is dated 29th November 2011 from the Federal Ministry of Education, Evaluation and Accreditation Branch, to the Registrar of 1st Defendant. The subject is on evaluation of certificate of two staff of the 1st Defendant. With respect to the Claimant, the letter states as follows: “The Bachelor of Science (Education) in Chemistry awarded to Samuel Azuma Okore in 1999 by the University of Portharcourt has been forwarded to the awarding institution for confirmation. Atlas University, United States of America is not on this Ministry’s list of accredited institutions in the United States of America. Therefore, the Master of Science and Doctor of Science in Digital Chemistry awarded to Okore Samuel Azuma in July 2001 and December 2004 respectively by the Atlas University, United States of America cannot be evaluated.” Following this letter from the FME, the Defendants wrote Exhibit C12 to the Claimant. It is clear from Exhibit D1 and C12 that the FME could not evaluate the Claimant’s M.Sc and Ph.D certificates he obtained from Atlas University USA because that University is not on the Ministry’s list of accredited Universities in the USA. Consequent upon that, the Defendants accepted only the Claimant’s B.Sc certificate and downgraded him to Lecturer III. It is trite that a party seeking for a declaratory relief must prove his case to be entitled to the declaration sought and must succeed on the strength of his or her case. See CHEMIRON INT’L LTD vs. EGBUJUONUMA (2007) ALL FWLR (Pt. 395) 444 at 454; PAUL NWAZUAH NKWO vs. IBOE (1998) 7 NWLR (Pt. 558) 354; FATOBA vs. OGUNDAHUNSI (2003) 11 WRN 56 at 84; ATUNWA vs. LADENIKA (1998) 7 NWLR (Pt. 557) 221. In this case, the Claimant who claims for a declaration that the revaluation of his master's and doctorate degree certificates and his demotion by the Defendants is null and void has the evidential burden to prove his claim. From the evidence of the Claimant, the only assertions I can see therein to consider his claim that the revaluation of his certificates and consequential demotion are null and void is when he stated that the Defendant ought to have verified his academic credentials during the 2 years period he was on probation before confirmation of his employment. The Claimant also asserted that the revaluation of his employment and downgrading to Lecturer III was wrong since his B.Sc degree already qualified him to be a staff of the 1st Defendant. He also said the Defendants ought not to have revaluated and downgraded him without first verifying his B.Sc certificate. I do not find these reasons sufficient to support the declaration sought by the Claimant. The Claimant’s claim that the revaluation of his certificates and consequential demotion are null and void presupposes that the Defendants do not have authority to do so or that their acts are not authorized by law or they offend the provisions of a law. Therefore, the Claimant is expected to prove that the Defendants do not have power to revaluate his certificates or demote him or prove that the acts of revaluation of his certificates or demotion are not authorized by law or offends the provisions of a law. From the totality of the evidence of the Claimant, he did base his case on the angle that the Defendants do not have the right or are not authorized by law to revaluate his academic qualifications or to demote him as they did in Exhibit C12. I cannot also find any other evidence from the Claimant to support his claim for a declaration that the revaluation of his certificates and consequential demotion by the Defendants are null and void. The 1st Defendant is established in the Federal Polytechnics Act 2004. Section 13 of the Act confers the power on the 3rd Defendant to appoint employees of the 1st Defendant and to determine the conditions of service of the employees. Section 17 of the Act gives the 3rd Defendant power of discipline over academic, administrative or technical staff of the 1st Defendant. The responsibilities of the 3rd Defendant under its power of employment and discipline of staff include to promote or demote where necessary and to evaluate employment of staff of the 1st Defendant. In other words, the Defendants who employed the Claimant also have the power at anytime to re-evaluate the employment. The fact that the Claimant’s employment was confirmed by the 1st Defendant does not preclude his certificates from being subsequently verified. The Claimant’s confirmation letter is Exhibit C7. It was his employment that was confirmed in the letter not his academic credentials. The certificates with which the Claimant was initially employed as Lecturer II by the 1st Defendant on 11/12/2007 are the B.Sc in Chemistry Education and the M.Sc and Ph.D certificates obtained from Atlas University in the USA. These certificates go to the foundation of his employment and subsequent promotion to Lecturer I. The Defendants’ averment that the Federal Ministry of Education has the statutory duty to keep list of educational institutions worldwide and their courses recognized in Nigeria has not been denied by the Claimant. Under cross examination the Claimant confirmed that the Federal Ministry of Education has the responsibility to verify lecturers’ certificate when sent to them. The Defendants also pleaded that academic staff of the 1st Defendant must possess academic qualification approved as relevant to the discipline he teaches by the NBTE and the qualification must be obtained from institutions approved and recognized by the Federal Ministry of Education. The Claimant did not deny this fact. It is clear from Exhibit D1 that it was the FME that verified the Claimant’s M.Sc and Ph.D certificates. By virtue of Exhibit D1, the Claimant’s M.Sc and Ph.D degrees are not recognized in Nigeria. The Claimant has not proved otherwise. There is no evidence from the Claimant to show that academic certificates from Atlas University USA are recognized and acceptable in Nigeria. Consequently, such academic qualifications not recognized in Nigeria cannot be of any value in employment. The foundation of the Claimant’s employment is affected since it was on the basis of these certificates the Claimant was employed as Lecturer II and progressed in the employment to Lecturer I. Since the Claimant’s M.Sc and Ph.D certificates are of no moment in the employment, the only recognized certificate which the Claimant presented for his employment is his B.Sc in Chemistry Education. The Claimant contended that his downgrade to Lecturer III was wrong since his B.Sc degree already qualified him to be a staff of the 1st Defendant. From the evidence of the parties, the Claimant is still in the employment of the 1st Defendant by virtue of this B.Sc certificate although now at a lower rank of Lecturer III by the effect of the downgrade. The Claimant has not shown that he ought to be at a higher rank with the B.Sc certificate. On the other hand, DW1 has told this court that the Claimant’s B.Sc (Ed) certificate does not qualify him to be a lecturer in the 1st Defendant, however, he was downgraded to Lecturer III. The Claimant also alleged that he ought not to have been revaluated and downgraded to Lecturer III without first verifying his B.Sc certificate from the University of Portharcourt. From the evidence of the Claimant, his B.Sc certificate is not the reason for his downgrade. The reason is because of the unrecognized certificates from Atlas University. In fact, he remained in the employment because of the B.Sc certificate. This is clear in Exhibit C12. The fact that he was downgraded to Lecturer III before verification of his B.Sc certificate is of no moment in this case. Therefore, I do not see how the allegation that the Defendants did not first verify his B.Sc certificate affects the revaluation of his certificates and his downgrade to Lecturer III. Having examined the evidence of the Claimant in this case, I find that he did not adduce satisfactory evidence with which this court will come to the conclusion that the evaluation of his academic certificates and his demotion to Lecturer III by the Defendants were null and void. In the result, the Claimant has not satisfied this court of the declaration he sought in relief 1. I find however, from the evidence, that the Defendants have the authority and the right as the Claimant’s employer to verify his academic certificates and was justified in the demotion of the Claimant to the position his B.Sc degree could earn him. This conclusion of this court has effect on reliefs 4 and 5 of the complaint. In these claims, the Claimant sought for an order restoring him to Lecturer I position and an order for the payment of his salaries and entitlements as Lecturer I. These reliefs cannot be granted in view of the failure of relief 1. The result is that reliefs 1, 4 and 5 sought by the Claimant fail. The 2nd claim of the Claimant is for a declaration that the decision of the Defendants, particularly the 3rd Defendant, in the letter ref. FPN/R/CLM/11/79 of September 23, 2013 to the effect that the Claimant must acquire M.Sc degree within 3 years or stand dismissed by the 1st Defendant is null and void. This claim is founded on the letter with Ref. no. FPN/R/CLM/11/79 and dated 23rd September 2013. However, the Claimant did not plead this letter or the fact that the Defendants have directed him to acquire M.Sc degree within 3 years or be dismissed. The said letter is also not in evidence in this case. I cannot consider a document not before me nor can I examine the claim of the Claimant when he did not plead any fact or give any evidence with respect to the claim. This relief fails. In paragraph 41 of the statement of facts, the Claimant pleaded that the Defendants have concluded arrangement to terminate his employment based on trumped up charges. The Claimant mentioned this fact also in his evidence in addition to his evidence that he is still a staff of the Defendants. From the case of the Claimant, his employment has not been terminated. I therefore see no basis for his claim in relief 3 where he sought this court to declare that the 2nd and 3rd Defendants have no powers under the Polytechnic Act, 2004 to terminate his employment with the 1st Defendant in the absence of the commission of a crime. This claim is pre-emptive and premature. The Claimant has also not disclosed any reasonable cause of action for the claim. In any case, the issue raised in the instant claim of the Claimant has been settled in Section 17 of the FPA 2004. The section gives power to the 3rd Defendant to terminate or dismiss staff of the 1st Defendant where it appears to the 3rd that the staff is guilty of misconduct or on ground of inability to perform the functions of his office. Therefore, the fact that the employee of the 1st Defendant did not commit any crime is not a bar for the 3rd Defendant from terminating the employment of staff of the 1st Defendant. The section clearly states that where the staff is found to have committed misconduct or found unable to perform his functions, the 3rd Defendant may terminate the employment. I find no merit in this relief. Consequently, I cannot also grant relief 7 where the Claimant sought an order restraining the Defendant from further suspending the Claimant from duty or terminating his employment as a member of staff of the 1st Defendant. The power to suspend from duty or terminate employment of staff of the 1st Defendant for disciplinary purposes is given to the Defendants by statute. I cannot restrain the Defendants from the exercise of their statutory duty to investigate and discipline the Claimant or any employee of the 1st Defendant when necessary. The Claimant gave evidence on the fact that in September 2014 he was authorized by the 2nd Defendant to attended a conference of the Chemical Society of Nigeria but the Defendants have refused to pay him the conference debt in the sum of N114,460.00. This evidence formed the basis of the Claimant’s claim in relief 6. The Claimant claimed from the Defendants the sum of N114,460.00 owed to him for attending the said conference. The Defendants denied the claim of the Claimant and averred that they did not sponsor the Claimant to the said conference. Application to attend conference must be approved by the 2nd Defendant before the 1st Defendant can pay for such conference. In the case of the Claimant, the 2nd Defendant did not approve the Claimant’s application for sponsorship to the conference. In the Claimant’s reply to the statement of defence, he averred that the 2nd Defendant approved his participation in the said conference and did also approve the sum of N69,693.00 to be paid to him. This sum was paid into the Claimant’s account on 7th July 2015. The Claimant pleaded his application for sponsorship and his bank statement but he did not put them in evidence. By his pleading and evidence, the Claimant’s bill for the conference was the sum of N114,460.00 but the 2nd Defendant approved the sum of N69,693.00 to be paid to him and the sum has already been paid to him. If the Claimant submitted a bill of N114,460 and N69,693 was paid to him, how does he still claim the sum of N114,460 in this suit? Again, he has stated that the 2nd Defendant approved the sum of N69,693.00 to be paid to him. The Claimant’s case is not that the 2nd Defendant has the obligation to approve the entire sum he submitted. In the absence of such obligation, the sum of N69,693.00 approved and paid to the Claimant ought to conclude the matter. As it is, I find the claim for the sum of N114,460.00 to be frivolous and without merit. I dismiss the claim accordingly. The Claimant alleged that the Defendants have defamed him and he suffered damages and injuries as a result. The Claimant consequently claimed the sum of N50 Million general damages for defamation of character in relief 8 of his claims. This claim of the Claimant is purely a claim in defamation under the common law of tort. The matters which this court is permitted to exercise jurisdiction in Section 254C (1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) does not extend to actions in defamation. Clearly, this court does not have jurisdiction to entertain this claim. The claim is struck out. In the final result of this suit, I find that the Claimant has not proved his claims. He is not entitled to the reliefs he sought in this case. The suit has no merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost. Judgment is entered accordingly. Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe Judge