Download PDF
IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA HOLDEN AT ABUJA Before His Lordship: - Hon. Justice P.O Lifu (JP) - Judge Monday 16th February, 2015 SUIT NO: NICN/ABJ/134/2013 Between: Mr. Edun Marcellin Akande Claimant And Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida University Defendants REPRESENTATION Claimant present defendants absents; S.I Suliaman with Aminu Baba Ahmad for the claimant ; No legal representation for the defendant JUDGMENT By a complaint filed on the 30th of May 2013, the claimant claim Jointly and severally against the defendants as follows-: 1. An order nullifying the defendant letter dated 17th April 2013 to the claimant titled “termination of appointment” purported to terminate the claimant appointment with the defendants. 2. An order setting aside the purported summary termination of the claimant appointment and nullifying the defendants letter to the claimant in that regard. 3. An order compelling the defendants to reinstate and or restore the claimant to his post as acting Head of Department in the IBB University Lapai with all his rights, entitlements and other prerequisites of his office 4. OR in alternative, to paragraph 3 above, payment of the (250, 000.00) Two Hundred and Fifty, Million Naira only to the claimant as general and exemplary damages for unlawful termination of his appointment. 5. An order compelling the defendant to pay the claimant his salary and allowances from 1st May 2013 till the day of Judgment 6. Payment of the cost of filing and prosecution of this matter. The parties filed their respective frontloaded processes in accordance with the rules of this court. The claimant filed his first witness statement on oath dated the 30th of May 2013 and filed the same day and the additional witness statement on oath was dated 7th of November 2013 but filed on 11th of November 2013. The claimant filed an additional list of document dated 7th day of November 2013 and filed 11th of November 2013. The claimant thereafter opened his case by calling it sole witness and tendered thirteen exhibits namely: (1) Exhibit EMA 01 claimant witness statement Exhibit EMA 01A Additional claimant statement on oath. (2) Claimant appointment letter dated 8th August 2006 – Exhibit EMA 02 (3) Notice of ratification letter dated 23rd August 2009 – Exhibit EMA 03 (4) Appointment as AG. HOD letter dated 20th May 2008 Exhibit EMA 04 (5) SOLICITORS LETTER OF March 15th 2012 written to chairman, Governing counsel of defendant, by chairman solicitor Akin Adewale &Co Exhibit EMA 05 (6) Letter of query dated 28th January 2013 from defendant to claimant exhibit EMA 06 (7) Letter of 17th April 2013 on termination of appointment exhibit EMA 07 (8) Claimant termination letter exhibit EMA 08 (9) The minutes of the 2nd regular meeting of the 2nd defendant exhibit EMA 09 (10) Letter of last warning exhibit EMA 10 (11) The law for the establishment of Niger State University to be known as IBB University Lapai Exhibit EMA 011. (12) Letter signed by the claimant address to the defendant dated 8th January 2013 exhibit EMA 012. (13) Letter of query answering from letter of request for payment of outstanding salaries July 2011 to November 2012 dated the 28th January 2013 written by the witness to the V.C. of the defendant exhibit EMA 013. The claimant witness Mr. Edun Marcellin Akande testified for himself as the claimant. He adopted his witness statement on oath filed on the 30th of May 2013 including the additional witness statement. In cross examination, the claimant testified that he was employed by the defendant on the 8th of August 2006 as lecturer I (one) French. He stated further that at that time there was a department of Arabic and French studies. He stated also that the 1st V.C. of the department appointed him as the Ag Head of the Department in 2008 and that there is no duration placed on that appointment. He stated that his appointment was terminated on the 12th July 2011 and that there was no reason stated in the letter of termination. The claimant denied the fact that as at the time he filed this action, the department of Arabic and French have been replaced with the department of Language and Linguistic studies. He testified that it was after his reinstatement that he became aware that there was a department called Language and Linguistic; through a letter of recall dated 23rd November 2012. As this case was filed on 30th May 2013 after his reinstatement. The claimant testified that as at the time of termination as at 12th July, 2011, 3 teachers were teaching French language namely Mr. Adelabu Mrs. Abdul Zainab, Mr. Ebine Adewale and himself. He admitted that he was recalled and reinstated subject to the condition such as letter of apology and address the issue contain in the letter as decision of the governing counsel. He admitted the payment of all his requested allowances and salaries as at the 25th of January 2013. He admitted being conversant with this claims before the court. He admitted that this present case has no claim bordering or relating to the first termination of 12th July, 2011 he admitted given a query on the 28th of January 2013, by the defendant which he replied instantly on the same date. He testified that on the 13th of February 2013 he appeared before a Senior Staff Disciplinary Committee set up by the Department. The claimant did not object to any point or the committee in carrying out their assignment. The claimant stated that he was conversant with the defendants rules governing the condition of service of senior staff. He further stated that the crux of his claim before the court was the termination of his appointment by the defendant for the 2nd time through their letter dated 17th April 2013 on 30th April 2013. See exhibit EMA 07. He stated that he was paid his outstanding salaries and 3 months salaries in lieu of notice as was done during his first termination. The payment to the claimant was made on the 17th April 2013 the same date the letter of termination was given to him. The claimant said he did not write the defendant to remove the salary in lieu paid to his bank account. He further stated that the defendant usual habit was to remove the salary paid to sacked staff upon reinstatement. He prayed the court to reinstate him to the department he was before his disengagement i.e Arabic and French studies because he was not originally aware that the department has been replaced. The claimant said the reason of the termination of this appointment was because he asked for his outstanding salaries in the letter dated 8/11/13 as exhibit EMA 012 with that the claimant closed his case as there was no re-examination. The defence opened on 15th of May 2015 with the testimony of Mr. Bala Mohammed Usman Legal Officer IBBU, Lapai Niger state as DWI. The defendant filed a 30 paragraph joint statement of defence, a witness statement on oath and relied on it document which was admitted in evidence and marked as exhibit EMA 14-28. DWI the DWI, Mr. Bala Moh’d Usman was affirm and spoke in English. He stated that he works with the Ministry of Justice in Niger state as Deputy Director Civil Litigation. He said he was seconded in October 2010 for 3 year to head the department and after the statutory 3 years, he was reposted back to the ministry in October 2013. DWI told the court that he is conversant with the facts of this case as he swore to an oath on 21st October 2013 as a witness. His statement on oath sworn to on 21st October 2013 was tendered by his counsel and admitted in evidence and marked as exhibit EMA 014. He prayed the court to admit it as his oral testimony. He further identify the following documents that were tendered in evidence and marked accordingly without objection. It is to be noted that some of these documents are tendered by the claimant namely:- (1) IBB University Law containing 78 pages is marked as exhibit EMA 015 (2) SSDC minutes of meeting and report on the case of claimant dated 13/02/13 exhibit 016 (3) Memo on the claimant dated 12/1/13 signed by Samaila Moh. Registrar is exhibit EMA 017 (4) Regulation governing the condition of appointment of service of senior staff of IBB University Lapai dated October 2006 is Exhibit EMA 018. (5) Letter of Query arising from letter of request for payment of outstanding salaries dated 28/1/13 exhibit EMA 019 (6) Letter of query dated 28/1/13 to claimant from department is exhibit EMA 020. (7) Minutes of meeting of 21st regular session of dept governing council dated 15/4/13 is Exhibit EMA 021. (8) Letter of Apology and good behaviour written by claimant to dept dated 20/11/12 is Exhibit EMA 022 (9) Council decision on format of appt of claimant dated 27/09/12 is exhibit EMA 023. (10) Dept. letter of 9TH May 2012 to S.I Suleiman on the claimant exhibit EMA 024. (11) Letter of last warning dated 23/11/ 12 is exhibit EMA 025. (12) Minutes of 19th regular session of Governing Council of dept. dated 20/9/12 is Exhibit EMA 026. (13) Termination of appointment of claimant dated 28/11/11 exhibit EMA 027. (14) Minutes of 13 regular session of Governing Council dated 12/5/2010. DWI on cross examination stated that he was not around when the department of French and Arabic was phased out and there was no way he can know when such decision was taken. He stated that exhibit 09 was made on 12/5/10 and he was not in the employment of the department then or on secondment then. Furthermore, he said in exhibit EMA 09 paragraph 5:3 as at the time the department passed the resolution to phase out the Arabic & French department, there were students in 100 to 400 level. DW1 said a student that was in 100 level then would be in 400 level now He said as at today, there are students presently in the department as a result of the repackaging. As at the time of the first termination of the claimants appointment, there were students in the department. DWI testified to the effect that the termination of the claimant employment was based on the phasing out of the department which he called repackaging; He stated that it was the SSDC of the defendant that recommended the termination of the claimant appointment the 2nd time. DWI further testified that the management reported his case to council who in turn directed the setting up of a committee to look into the case for non compliance with the condition for his recall and …………………….. he said the issue of non compliance with condition is not the basis of exhibit EMA 020 which is query. He stated that the query was not based on the alleged non compliance; DWI further stated that there are some members of Council who are members of SSDC such as Madalla Ahmed, Madam Dr Elizabeth Angulu; are the only 2 members of Council that are members of the SSDC; He stated that Yakubu Anna Dr. was not a member she was deputy VC Admin. On further questioning, he said No 9 in attendance or Exhibit EMA 026 is Dr. Yakubu Auna, he attended the 19 regular meeting. DWI said he was seconded to the department on October 2010. He said all that happened before his secondment are not within his knowledge. He said he cannot say the 1st termination of the claimant was wrongful as he was not in the system when the Arabic and French department was subsumed into Linguistic and Language Department. He further said he was not there when the repackaging was done but available records shows that the claimant was not comfortable with the repackaging. The claimant was confrontational With the decision of management and that was the reason for the termination of his appointment the 2nd time. He stated that the 2nd termination was as a result of the decision of the SSDC. DWI said the reason / part of the reason for termination of the claimant are found in page 2 paragraph 7 (Item 7) of exhibit EMA 016. He stated that those caption 1-7 is part of the query particular item 7 referred to in exhibit EMA 020 bordering on query where as a reference to item 7 in EMA 016. On further Cross Examination, DWI said he is not from the Accounts Department of the defendant and did not know whether the claimant was paid his salaries or not. He said his committee made recommendations for the claimant payment DWI said he was posted back to the Ministry of Justice on 31st October, 2013 and that what happened there after were not within his knowledge. There was no re-examination. The defendant in his final written address formulated two issues for determination as follows: On issue one; has the plaintiff made out any cases for which the court can grant reliefs sought? The plaintiff provided that by virtue of section 132 of the Evidence Act, 2011 the burden of proof in a suit lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side. He also cited section 133 (1) of the Evidence Act 2011 and the cases of Adediji Vs. Oloso (2007) 5 NWLR (Part of 1026) PAGE 133 at 196 Paragraph E.G. (SC) W.A Cotton Ltd, Vs. Haruna (2008/all FWLR (Part 416) page 1942 at 1955, paragraph B-C (C.A ). The defendant argued that a careful consideration of the statement of claim, of the plaintiff as contained in his witness statement, and the response under cross examination reveals that the plaintiff’s grouse against the defendants is his claim that the termination of his appointment vide letter dated 17th April, 2013 was born out of victimization and that there is nowhere in both his complaint and witness statement on oath the plaintiff complained about the procedure and process adopted for termination of his appointment. The defendant submitted that the plaintiff did not complain that the process and procedure for issuing him with official query was wrongful and that it is on record that he replied to the query Secondly, the defendant stated that the plaintiff did not deny that he was invited to appear before Senior Staff Disciplinary Committee set up by the defendants and that the plaintiff admitted under cross examination that he made both oral and written submissions before the committee. Thirdly, the defendant also testified that the plaintiff did not raise any objection to the composition, procedure and processes of the disciplinary committee before which he appeared, neither did he raise any issue of denial of fair hearing in his entire suit before the court. Fourthly, the defendant argued that the plaintiff never contended in his complaint (or witness statement) that any specific provision of the law or condition of service was breached as to enable the defendants specifically controvert same in evidence. Fifthly, the defendant further stated that on the issue of “ victimization” raised by the plaintiff in his paragraph 28 of the complaint and paragraph 30 of his witness statement on oath as the basis for his suit against the defendants, it is doubtful whether this could constitute a legal basis for instituting an action in court for the relief interalia, of an order of reinstatement in the absence of specific details. The defendant in support of this issue cited the supreme court case of university of Calabar Vs. Essien (1996) 10 NWLR (pt 477) page 225 per Mohammed JSC at page 56 to 57, paragraph F-B Thus: “In an action where a party seeks for a declaration that the termination of his employment was wrongful null and void the most fundamental issue to put before the court is the condition of service. The aggrieved party must averitasa cardinal point in his pleading and adduce evidence before the trial court on non compliance with the terms of the condition of service in effecting the termination Of his employment if the conditions have been pleaded, it is important to plead also that the disciplinary proceedings have not been conducted fairly. The employee may assert that his employer was in breach of his fundamental right to fair hearing. The right to fair hearing is founded mainly and solely on rules of natural justice” The defendant submitted further that the plaintiff not having pleaded the conditions of service, or led evidence to any specific infraction of any of its provisions, the suit is incompetent and ought to be dismissed. Counsel stated that even the plaintiff’s reliance on the issue of victimization as a basis for bringing this suit is not linked to any specific infraction of any law or procedure, or rule of fair hearing as contained in the 1999 Constitution (as amended). Counsel further contended that the blanket reference in paragraphs 21 and 22 of the complaint to non compliance with the University condition of service and bad faith by the defendants in terminating the plaintiff’s appointment, there was no specifics even in his witness statement on oath, paragraph 23 and 24 of his statement on oath merely replicated the aforementioned paragraphs of the complaint. Defendant reiterated that the essence of pleading is to disclose specific facts that parties intend to rely upon at the trial, in order to enable the other party respond accordingly. Counsel cited in support of his submission order 3 rule 4 (1) of the rules of this court which states that a complaint shall be accompanied by “a statement of facts establishing the cause of action” Counsel submitted that merely averring that conditions of service or a law has been violated, without giving any specific fact in support cannot sustain the relief claimed. Defendant contended that under reliefs 3 as couched where the plaintiff seeks an order of this court to compel the defendant to reinstate him to “his post as acting Head of Department in the IBB University, Lapai. Counsel submitted it is in record that while the defunct department has be subsumed into a new faculty of languages and communication studies, his appointment was not terminated as acting Head of Department but as a staff of the new faculty/university. On issue two: whether the termination of the appointment of the plaintiff vide letter of 17th April, 2013 was valid and proper? Defendant contended that the defendants validly terminated the plaintiff’s appointment and that the defendants are vested with powers to relieve the plaintiff of his appointment. He referred to section II (c) and (e) of the Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida University law, 2005, and section 6 (a) and (b) of the regulations governing the condition. Counsel submitted that the plaintiff did not make any reference to any specific procedure or the law that the defendants may have violated in effecting the decision to terminate his appointment. Counsel also posited that facts not pleaded cannot form part of the court’s proceeding, such facts goes to no issue and must be discountenanced. Counsel cited the cases of; Hashidu Vs. Goje (2003) 15 NWLR (Part 483) page 325 at 379 -381, paras A-B (CA). Apga and another Vs. Dangote (2011) LPELR -9233 (CA); and sodipo Vs. Ogidan (2007) All FWLR (Part 393) page 67 at 68, para E (C A). Counsel further stated that the plaintiff never pleaded any issue of denial of fair hearing in the process leading up to the termination of his appointment, neither did he plead any violation of specific provisions of the law nor led evidence in respect thereto. It is submitted that the admission made by the plaintiff in his complaint and witness statement, and response under cross examination, to the effect that the defendants have paid him his terminal benefits, including three months’ salary in lieu of notice upon his termination of appointment vide letter dated: 17th April, 2013 and his admission that he did not return the monies paid to him before he subsequently instituted this suit. Counsel urges the court to hold that the plaintiff cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. That plaintiff cannot accept payment of his terminal benefits (including three months’ salary in lieu of notice), and yet challenge the action which formed the basis of the said payment to him. The claimant’s filed his final written address dated 17th of September, 2014 and filed on the same day. The claimant formulated three issues for determination as follows: 1. Whether the requirement of fair hearing has to be complied with by the defendant’s before the purported termination of the claimant’s employment on 17th of April, 2013 could be valid. 2. Whether the requirement of exhibit EMA 0II has to be complied with before the purported termination of the claimant’s appointment could be valid. 3. Whether the claimant had proved his case to be entitled to the relief sought before this court. On issue one counsel submitted that the requirement of fair hearing which is premised on the twin maxims of Nemo Judex in Causa Sua and Audi Alteram partem as envisaged under section 36 (I) of the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended ) where breached by the defendant to terminate the claimant’s appointment. He further submitted that the 2nd defendant vide exhibit EMA 06 noted the disrespectful language in exhibit EMA 012, and even term it insubordination to constituted authority. Counsel refers the court to section 128 (I) of the Evidence Act 2011 (as amended) to the effect that oral evidence is excluded from the content of exhibit EMA 06. Claimant submitted that the defendants in order to carry out their predetermined objective on the claimant made Mallam Ahmed Salihu Madalla, chairman, Dr. Elizabeth Anyu, and Dr. Yakubu Auna who are all members of the Governing Council by virtue of exhibit EMA 021 they are number 16, 15 and 10 on the attendance in exhibit EMA 021, that they are members of the Governing council was also confirm by DWI under cross examination. Counsel posited that the 2nd defendant who noted the language of the claimant exhibit EMA 012, and even term it insubordination went ahead to constitute it disciplinary committee. He submitted that the acts of the second defendant expressly violate the provision of section 36 (I) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) which reads thus: “In the determination of his civil right and obligation, including any question or determination by or against any government or authority in person shall be entitled to a fair hearing within a reasonable time by a court or tribunal established by law and constituted in such a manner as to secure it independence and impartiality” The claimant argued that the Governing Council had already taken position, before directing some of its members to try the claimant. He submitted that there is a real likelyhood of bias as the governing council was the complainant, prosecutor, witness, judge and also the executioner. He further stated that any pecuniary interest no matter how small is sufficient to disqualify the 3 afore said members of the Senior Staff Disciplinary Committee from adjudicating on this matter. In support of his argument, counsel cited the case of Garba Vs. University of Maiduguri (1986) I NWLR (Pt. 18) 550 S.C. I have carefully read the various submissions of learned counsel for the parties. I have also painstakingly considered the various exhibits and the authorities cited. The facts of this case briefly put is that the claimant was employed as a lecturer in the department of Arabic and French studies and rose to the position of Ag. Head of department. The claimant was relieved of his employment by the defendant on the ground that the department was phased out from the University Curricula. After series of correspondences and protest, the claimant was reinstated. A subsequent request by the claimant for his arrears of salaries and allowances occasioned by the earlier disengagement was considered an affront by the defendant as per the use of language as the content of the said letter was considered insubordination. The claimant was queried and a response was proffered. A disciplinary committee was set up and he was found guilty. Consequently the Council of the University terminated the claimants employment on the 17th of April 2013. The claimant has approached this court seeking sundry reliefs as earlier stated in this judgment; The law is that civil cases are determined on the balance of probabilities. It is the primary duty of this court to place each of the parties case on an imaginary scale of justice to determine where the scale tilt more in weight. The fate of every case depend on the pleadings and the evidence led in support as he who alleges must prove. See the case of EsiegheVs. Agholor 1993 9 NWLR Pt 316 at 150. The duty therefore of the court is to assess the evidence before him to see whether or not the claimant has sufficiently discharged the burden of proof in a case – See Leventis Motors Ltd Vs. Nunieh 1999 13 NWLR (Pt. 634) 235 The lone question that calls for determination then is whether or not the claimant has proved his case based on balance of probabilities and preponderance of evidence to entitle him to Judgment in all the heads of claims. The argument of the defendant is that the claimant has failed to prove his case and so he is not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed. Now by NRT Industries Ltd Vs. Akingbulugbe 2011 11 NWLR Pt. 125 (CA) an employee who seek a declaration that the termination of his employment was unlawful or wrongful must prove the following facts: (1) That he is an employee of the defendants (2) The terms and condition of his employment (3) The way and manner and by whom he can be removed (4) The way and manner the terms and conditions of his employment were breached by his employer It is not the duty of the employer to prove any of these facts. See the cases of AfribankNigPlc Vs. Osisanya 2000 1 NWLR (Pt. 642) 592 (CA); Adams Vs. LSDPC 2000 5 NWLR (Pt.656) 291; Kabel Metal Nig. Ltd Vs. Ativie2002 10 NWLR (Pt. 775) 250 CA; Emokpae Vs. University of Benin 2002 17 NWLR (Pt. 795) 139 CA; There is no issue between the parties as to the fact of the requirement of (1) above; ie both are ad idem on the fact that the claimant was an employee of the defendant, at least until the termination of employment. The court should concentrate and look for the documents that contain the terms and conditions of the contract to determine Nos. 2, 3 and 4 conditions stated above, to see whether or not the claimant has proved them. The law is that more than one documents may make up the terms and conditions of service in a contract of employment. See the case of LadipoVs. Chevron Nig Ltd 2005 1 NWLR (Pt. 907) 277 CA Within the context and perimeters of this case, the letter of offer of provisional appointment which is Exhibit 02, the letter of ratification which is Exhibit 03, the IBB University Law which is Exhibit 011 and the Regulations governing the conditions of appointment and services of senior staff which is Exhibit 018. In this testimony before the court the claimant stated that he was queried by the defendants dated the 28th of January 2013 over a purported disrespectful language he used in a letter he wrote asking for his arrears of salaries upon his recall after his first termination; The claimant replied in the said query. The query and the reply are exhibits 20 and 19 respectively. In Exhibit 016, the report of the Senior Staff disciplinary committee set up by the 2nd defendant indicted the claimant and found him guilty of Gross misconduct and recommended him for termination. Consequently by exhibit 07, his employment was terminated by the 2nd defendant through the Registrar of the 1st defendant. There is no reason stated in Exhibit 07, the letter of termination of appointment as being responsible for the defendant action but from exhibit 16 which is the report of the disciplinary committee for senior staff of which the claimant appeared, the reason for the termination was given as Gross misconduct. The excerpts of the senior staff disciplinary committee is here reproduced as follows: “…..similarly, the same disrespectful behavior and unwarranted demeanours were exhibited by Mr. Edun, when he appeared before this committee (SSDC). He ravingly responded to the committee’s questions and shouted at the top of his voice, repeatedly threatening that he had briefed his lawyer. When cautioned by the chairman, he explained that he is hot tempered and that was why he reacted the way he did” The committee went further thus in their report in exhibit 016 “The committee also observed that all the previous punitive measures, in the form of verbal and written warnings and query served on him had not made any impact on Mr. Edun. In fact he told the committee that he is hot tempered and can lose his posture and even faint when enraged” By the provisions or content of Exhibit 10, which is headed last warning the 1st defendant letter to the claimant, in paragraph 3 stated as follows “In view of the above, you are hereby given the last warning to desist from undermining the constituted authorities of the University and also adhere strictly to the rules and regulations of the University” The question to be asked is, has the defendant justified the reason for the sack of the claimant? The Law is that an employer is not bound to give reasons for terminating the appointment of his employee. However where the employer gives a reason for the termination, the onus lies on him to justify or establish that reason. See the cases of Afribank Nig Plc Vs. Osisanya 2000 1 NWLR (Pt. 642) 592 CA; Angel Shipping & Dyeing Ltd Vs. Ajah 2000 13 NWLR (Pt. 685) 532 CA. The defendant has given the reason for the claimants termination as insubordination amounting to gross misconduct; what is insubordination and is it found in this case before the termination; The Black Law Dictionary 9th Edition by Bryan A. Garner defined the word insubordination to mean. “A willful disregard of an employer’s instruction especially behavior that gives the employer cause to terminate a workers employment” By exhibit 010, the claimant was given the last warning which was an instruction not to undermine the constituted authorities of the University by using insulting and disrespectful language. In exhibit 016, he was quoted at shouting at the top of his voice and repeatedly threatening the disciplinary committee with his lawyer. The act of shouting at a committee at that level of the University administration on its own is res Ipsa Loquitor; The fact speaks for itself; Moreover, Exhibit 19 which has the attached offensive letter of insubordination is headed: RE: Letter of recall to duty on the appointment. Request for statutory payment or Restoration of outstanding salaries for the months of July 2011 to November 2012. The letter is also Exhibit. 012. The letter in question delve into other areas instead of the heading requesting for payment such as (1) The reference to the letter from the ministry of tertiary education, science and technology, Minna Niger State on the termination of his appointment and how it was done in error (2) Joining issues with his employer on his previous disengagement of which he had been pardoned and recalled upon his letter of apology that attracted final warning. (3) Giving the impression that the Vice Chancellor and management of the defendant were acting contrary to the Chief servants (Governors) directive on sacking of lecturers. (4) Accusing the vice Chancellor of unlawfully terminating his employment in error and solely predetermining the termination without following due process on an issue that had been settled (5) Resurrecting his animosity and grievances over his termination within the period of the demise of his father (6) Questioning the integrity and impartiality of the Vice chancellor since same lecturers in the Arabic and language department said to be phased out are not terminated. A cursory look at the above issues has no bearing with the request for payment of salary arrears but a calculated attempt to demean the person and office of the Vice Chancellor, which is tantamount to insubordination which is a behaviour that gives the employer cause to terminate a worker employment. It is on record that the claimant had been given last warning in Exhibit 10 with respect to undermining constituted authority of the University. The claimant counsel has argued vehemently that there was a breach of fair hearing in all its facets and ramifications. I do not think so with due respect to the learned counsel. Fair hearing means, an opportunity to be heard. The various exhibits earlier highlighted shows that the claimant was given a query, there was a response, he appeared before a disciplinary committee and he was appropriately disciplined. All what the law requires in fair hearing is to confront the claimant with the accusation made against him and requiring him to defend himself; Thus, to satisfy the rule of natural justice and fair hearing, a person likely to be affected directly by the disciplinary proceedings must be given adequate notice of the allegation against him to afford him the opportunity for representation in his defence. See the case of ATA Poly Vs. Maina 2005 10 NWLR (Pt. 934)487 CA Contrary to the argument of the claimant counsel Exhibit 018 binds all senior staff of the defendants including the claimant. Moreover exhibit 03 which is the notice of ratification of the claimants employment reads in paragraph 2 as follows: “The appointment is subject to the provision of the IBB University Laws and Statutes and the Regulations Governing the conditions of service of senior staff of the University” The claimant counsel has equally argued vehemently that there is absence of good cause in the termination of the claimant’s employment. By paragraph 11(f) (iii), Exhibit 011 has this to say: “Conduct of a scandalous or other disgraceful nature which the council considers to be such as to render the person concerned unfit to continue to hold office” It should be remember that the claimant in the process of defending himself before the committee shouted on top of his voice and repeatedly threatened the committee. I consider this attitude as gross insubordination and disrespect to constituted authority. Moreover, by exhibit 016, the claimant was stated to be a man of hot temper and can lose his posture and even faint when enraged. This piece of evidence about the disposition of the claimant is not denied or controverted in anyway throughout the trial. By section/article 11(f)(iv) of Exhibit 11, it is stated as follows; “Conduct which the council considers to be such as to constitute failure or inability of the person concerned to discharge the function of his office or to comply with the terms and conditions of his service” Can it be said that the temperament and emotions of the claimant is congenial for training of young ones where morals, discipline, decorum, decency and tolerance are the hallmarks? I doubt seriously. By the provision and conduct of Exhibit 24A, the claimant was paid his three months’ salary in lieu of notice and his terminal benefits all totally the sum of N3,550,844.11 on the 18th of April 2013, forty two days before he instituted this suit. Where an employee accepts payment after the employment is brought to an end he cannot be heard to complain later that his contract of employment was not properly determined. See the case of Ekeagwu Vs. Nigerian Army 2006 11 NWLR (Pt. 991) 382 CA; Alhassan Vs. ABU Zaria 2011 11 NWLR (Pt. 1259) 467 and PWTHANG Vs. Ceddi Corp Ltd 2012 2 NWLR (Pt. 1285) 492. An extension of this principle is that where an employee collects his terminal benefits or his retirement benefits and stop coming to work thereof, he has by his conduct accepted the letter and its content. In such a circumstance the plea of estoppel will avail the employer. See the case of NEPA Vs. Egboigbe 2009 8 NWLR (Pt. 1142) 150 CA. The claimant in this case was paid the 3months salary in lieu and his final entitlements. He accepted same and stopped going to report for duty and waited more than a month to file a complaint in court; moreover, he did not protest by exercising his right of appeal as provided for in article 6.3 of Exhibit 018 of the condition of service. He has accepted the sum as settlement of his termination entitlements; he cannot be heard to complain. On the issue of claim for filing and prosecution of this case, there is no evidence whatsoever in the entire trial to show the cost of filing and prosecution of this suit as such special damages need to be proved specifically. Is the claimant expecting the court to calculate the cost of filing this suit as well as the cost of prosecuting? i.e the solicitors fees and out of pocket expenses? However, it is unethical and an affront to public policy to pass on the burden of solicitors fees to the opposing party. See the case of Guinness Nig Plc Vs. Nwoke 2000 12 NWLR (Pt. 689) 135 at 150 On the whole, once it is shown that termination is in accordance with the terms of the employment the issue of natural justice does not arise. See the case of Adams Vs. LSDPC 2000 5 NWLR (Pt. 656) 291. From the available evidence and the exhibits in this case I hold that the termination of the claimant’s employment was lawful. Consequently issues one and two formulated for determination by the claimant counsel are resolved in the affirmative while issue three is resolve in the negative. On the issues formulated by the defendant counsel for determination, issue one is resolved in the negative while issue two is resolve in the affirmative. For the avoidance of doubt, I hold that the claimants case fails and is accordingly dismissed. I make no order as to cost. ----------------------------- Hon. Justice P.O Lifu JP. Judge