Download PDF
JUDGMENT 1. Introduction & Claims By her Complaint, Statement of facts and all other frontloaded processes dated 5/4/16 the Claimant approached this Court and sought the following reliefs against the Defendants- 1. A declaration that the Letter of Compulsory Retirement dated 26th January, 2016 compulsorily retiring the Claimant from the Public Service, Oyo State is illegal, null and void. 2. An order setting aside the Letter of Compulsory Retirement dated 26th January, 2016 compulsorily retiring the Claimant from Public Service, Oyo State. 3. A declaration that the Claimant is still in the employment of the Public Service of Oyo State. 4. An Order directing the Oyo State Post Primary Schools Teaching Service Commission to reinstate the Claimant to the Public Service of Oyo State. 5. An Order directing the Defendants to pay to the Claimant all the arrears and allowances, benefits and entitlements due to the Claimant from the date of her purported compulsory retirement till the date of her reinstatement. The Defendants entered and appearance and by a joint amended statement of defence dated 8/1/19 opposed the claims of the Claimant. 2. Case of the Claimant Claimant opened her case on 14/5/19 and testified in chief by adopting her statements on oath of 5/4/16 and 20/2/19 as her evidence in chief. Claimant tendered 15 documents as exhibits. The documents were admitted as exhibits without objection and marked as Exh. OF1-Exh. OF15 respectively. The case of the Claimant in brief as revealed by her pleadings is that she was an employee of the 2nd Defendant until 26th day of January, 2016 when she was asked to proceed on compulsory retirement from the Oyo State Public Service; that she was posted to Bishop Phillips Academy, Iwo Road, Ibadan, Oyo State; that on 28th January, 2015 she was instructed by the school Principal (Mrs Iyabo Ladapo) to pack some items from the old Principal’s office to the new Principal’s office where she met three SS2 students attempting to pack some items out of the office; that she challenged the students and the students admitted their wrongs and appealed to her not to report them to the school authority; that in consideration of the students’ plea she gently tapped their cheeks one after the other; that more than two weeks after this incident precisely 16th February, 2015, one Yetunde Ajayi said to be an Auntie of Iyanuoluwa Dahunsi brought Iyanuoluwa to the School and reported that the girl (Iyanulouwa) was slapped in the face and that this gave the girl a red eye and that subsequently the student IyanuOluwa was admitted in the Hospital and eventually died. Under cross examination, Claimant testified that she was attached as a Clerk to Principal’s office at Bishop Phillips Academy, Ibadan; that on 28/1/15 the Principal sent her on an errand to go and repack the remaining loads in the office to be renovated; that she met 2 students inside the Principal’s office on getting there packing text books; that she asked them why they were packing the text books belong to the school authority; that she reported the incident to the Principal same day; that the Principal said she should go and bring the two students; that she told the principal that the students were crying and begging her; that she did not slap the students but only tapped their cheeks before she reported them to the Principal; that Iyanuoluwa’s (one of the students concerned) Aunt came to lodge complaint against her to the Principal; that she is aware that Iyanuoluwa’s Aunt lodged a complaint against her at the Police Station and that was why she (Claimant) went to the Police Station to make a statement; that the Principal was also invited to make a statement at the Police Station; that she was subsequently queried by the Principal and that she replied to the Query; that she was later invited to appear before a Panel; that she appeared before the Panel but was not allowed to explain herself; that she later explained what happened respecting Iyanuoluwa to the Panel; that her husband was not called to appear before the Panel and that she informed her counsel that she was served letter of invitation to appear before the Panel of Enquiry. 3. Case of the Defendants The Defendants also opened their case on 14/5/19 and called one Bolanle Ayeni as their sole witness. The witness adopted her witness deposition dated 16/8/16 as her evidence in chief and tendered 6 documents as exhibits. The documents were admitted in evidence and marked as Exh. BA1-Exh. BA6 respectively. The case of the Defendants is that the Claimant without authority slapped three students of which one of them through her Aunt came to report the incident some weeks later; that immediately the matter was reported to the school authority (Bishop Phillips Academy) Claimant was queried, a Panel of Enquiry set up to look into the matter and also criminal proceedings were commenced against the Claimant and consequently Claimant was issued a letter of compulsory retirement from the State Public Service on 26th January, 2016 for gross misconduct punishable under the extent Public Service Regulation Vol. 1 section 030402 sub section (W). Under cross examination, the witness stated that she has been in the service of Oyo State for about 9 years; that she never worked at Bishop Phillips Academy Ibadan; that what happened between the Claimant and those students were reported to her; that the composition of the Panel of Inquiry was middle level officer; that she cannot remember the exact number of members of the Panel; that she was a member of the Panel; that the proceedings of the Panel were recorded; that she is aware that 3rd Defendant files criminal action against the Claimant; that she did not attach the court proceedings; that Iyanuoluwa’s parents did not attend the Panel sitting but the Aunt attended; that she does know the outcome of the criminal proceedings against the Claimant; that the 2nd Defendant constituted the Panel; that the Principal of Bishop Phillips Academy is a member and an integral part of the 2nd Defendant; that the other 2 students aside IyanuOluwa were invited to the Panel and their statements were recorded by the Panel; that she knows the Principal of Bishop Phillips Academy at the time of the incident; that only the Junior Staff Disciplinary Committee Panel was set up; that recommendations of the Panel were not communicated to the Claimant and that she does not know if Claimant has contrary reports in her file as she does not have access to it. 4. Final Written Addresses of Counsel At the close of trial and pursuant to the direction of the Court, learned Counsel on either side filed their final written addresses in accordance with the Rules of Court. The final written address of the Defendants was filed on 7/6/19. In it learned Counsel set down 3 main issues for determination as follows - 1. Whether or not the Panel of Inquiry set up by the Defendants to investigate the alleged misconduct of the Claimant was in compliance with the Public Service Rules. 2. Whether or not the Claimant was given Fair Hearing to defend the allegation of misconduct levied against her by the Defendants. 3. Whether or not the Letter of Compulsory Retirement issued by the 1st – 3rd Defendants was in compliance with the Public Service Rules. Arguing these issues learned Counsel submitted that it is trite that the nature of a contract of an employment existing between parties must be critically examined before an employment is terminated; that where a contract of employment is regulated by statute or public services rules there must be compliance with the statute or public service rules in terminating the employment citing Raji v. Unilorin (2007)15 NWLR (Pt. 1057) 259 at 275 and that where an allegation of misconduct is made against an employee, the employer is entitled to set up a Panel to investigate the allegation. Counsel submitted that following an allegation of misconduct against the Claimant, a query was issued to her which she replied to and a Panel eventually established to investigate the allegation; that the Claimant appeared at the Panel and confirmed under cross examination that she stated her position to the allegation before the Panel and the Panel then made a finding which led to her compulsory retirement. Learned Counsel prayed the Court to dismiss the case of the Claimant in its entirety. On 21/6/19, a 15-page final written address was filed on behalf of the Claimant in which Counsel set down the following 2 issues for determination - 1. Whether the principles of natural justice were observed in the trial of the Claimant before the issuance of a letter of compulsory retirement from State Public Service on 26/1/16 2. Whether from the state of pleadings and evidence before the Court, the Claimant is not entitled to all the claims as endorsed on the General Form of Complaint and statement of facts both dated and filed on 5/4/16. In arguing these issues, learned Counsel submitted that the Defendants failed to observe the twin pillars of natural justice of no man being a Judge in his own cause and the right to fair hearing citing Aiyetan v. NIFOR (1987)3 NWLR (Pt. 59) 48 & SBN Plc v. Mpie Ltd (1998)3 NWLR (Pt. 492)209; that the Claimant was made to appear before a Panel set up by the Defendants; that the Principal of Bishop Phillips Academy was the accuser having issued the Claimant a query and yet sat on the Panel set up by the Defendants and that the Claimant was not afforded a hearing at the Panel nor given opportunity to call witness or be faced with her real accusers. Learned Counsel prayed the Court to grant the reliefs sought by the Claimant having proved same. 5. Decision I have read all the processes filed by learned Counsel on both sides. I have a clear understanding of the diverse issues canvassed in them. I heard the oral testimonies of the witnesses called at trial, watched their demeanor and carefully evaluated all the exhibits tendered and admitted. I also heard the oral submissions of learned Counsel at the point of adoption of final written addresses. Having done all this, I narrow the issues for the just determination of this case to the following - 1. Whether or not the letter of compulsory retirement of the Claimant dated 26/1/16 with Reference Number SBNTP/2005/2554/6 is validly issued. 2. Whether the Claimant has proved her case to be entitled to all or some of the reliefs sought. The first issue for determination is whether or not the letter of compulsory retirement issued and served on the Claimant by the Defendants is valid. It is important that I state from the outset that retirement, which may be voluntary or compulsory, is one of the modes of disengagement or termination of employment. While an employee may voluntarily retire from service either upon attainment of retirement age or even before the attainment of retirement age, an employer may also compulsorily retire any of its workforce. The power to compulsorily retire an employee is inherent in the employer. It is a disciplinary measure. See Nawa v. Att. Gen, Cross Rivers State (2008) All FWLR (Pt. 401) 807 at 831.(CA). For the employer to exercise this power, a recourse must be had to the existing contractual terms and conditions of employment. Thus where the terms and conditions of employment are contained in a statute or regulations, such an employee can only be compulsorily retired in accordance with the provisions of the applicable laws, rules and regulations. See Iderima v. R..S.C.S.C (2005) All FWLR (Pt. 285) 431, (2006) 7 WRN 11; Shitta-Bey v. Federal Public Service Commission (1981) 1 SC 40 & Raji v. Unilorin (2007)15 NWLR (Pt. 1057) 259. I note that in all the processes filed by the Claimant as well as through the length of this trial, the Claimant did not challenge the power of the Defendants to compulsorily retire her. The argument has been the invalidity of the letter of compulsory retirement for non-compliance with the rules of natural justice. Now, is the said letter validly issued and served? The events culminating in this case are rather unfortunate and heart-touching. The Claimant, a clerical staff in the office of the Principal of Bishop Phillips Academy in Ibadan had reasons to chastise 3 students of the institution. According to the Claimant she '' ... asked the students to puff out their cheek and gently tapped their cheeks one after the other releasing the air in their mouths; one of the three students was IyanuOluwa Dahunsi, an SS2 Student''. The said Miss IyanuOluwa Dahunsi was alleged to have sustained permanent injury on her right eye, was admitted to the Hospital and eventually died on 22/7/15. In her evidence in chief, the Claimant admitted that she was queried by the Principal of the school and that she answered the Query. Under cross examination, Claimant testified that a Panel of enquiry was set up to investigate the incident as contained in the query and her reply; that she appeared before the Panel and explained her own side of the incident. The recommendations of the Panel eventually led to the letter of compulsory retirement served on the Claimant. From the evidence led, I note that the Claimant was given an opportunity to be heard. She stated that as much in her evidence in chief as well as under cross examination. The right to fair hearing is not a magic wand to turn the right to wrong. It is on record that by Exh. BA3, Claimant was issued and served a Query and given 24 hours to reply to same. Exh. BA4 is the response of the Claimant to the Query. By Exh. BA2, Claimant was invited to appear before a Panel of Inquiry in Re:MISS DAHUNSI BLESSING IYANUOLUWA. It was the evidence of the Claimant that she indeed appeared before the Panel and gave evidence. Exh. BA6 is the Letter of Compulsory retirement From the State Public Service to the Claimant. The right to fair hearing is nothing but mere opportunity to be heard and as Niki Tobi JSC of blessed memory pointed out in INEC v. Musa (2003) LPELR-1515(SC) where a party is afforded an opportunity to be heard he/she cannot be heard to complain of denial of the right to fair hearing. I find and hold that the Claimant was not denied the right to be heard. It is sufficient for me to hold and I so do without much ado that the letter of compulsory retirement issued by the Defendants and served on the Claimant is validly made and is neither null nor void. The second issue for determination is whether the Claimant has proved any or all of her reliefs to be entitled to same. The reliefs sought by the Claimant are 5 in all. They are dependent on a finding against the validity of the letter of compulsory retirement issued by the Defendants and served on the Claimant. This Court has found and held that the said letter Exh. BA6 is valid. It portends therefore that the basis for the claims of the Claimant is not only weak but faulty. To therefore consider whether or not the Claimant proved her case to be entitled to the reliefs sought is nothing short of efforts in futility or t best a mere academic exercise which this Court is not inclined to do. Finally, for the avoidance of doubt and for all the reasons as contained in this Judgment, I dismiss the case of the Claimant in its entirety. I make no order as to cost. Judgment is entered accordingly. ____________________ Hon. Justice J. D. Peters Presiding Judge