Industrial Court rules in favour of dismissed FUOYE lecturer, awards N40m compensation

The court found that Akingbe’s termination in 2018 was unjust and based on unfounded allegations of plagiarism.

It was recalled that Professor Akingbe, a vocal critic of the university’s administrative practices under former Vice-Chancellor Kayode Soremekun, was dismissed following a query related to plagiarism.

The court proceedings, documented under Suit No: NICN/AK/58/2018, revealed that the university failed to adhere to proper procedures outlined in the Federal University of Oye-Ekiti Act of 2015 and relevant regulations governing senior staff service conditions.

Counsel for Akingbe, Ademola Olowoyeye, argued that the plagiarism allegations were vague and lacked substantial evidence.

The court also addressed several other declarations, including the illegality of the letters accusing Akingbe of misconduct and the unlawful nature of the Staff Disciplinary Committee that investigated the plagiarism claims.

The counsel emphasized that Akingbe had met all requirements for promotion to the position of Professor in the Department of English, and the denial of this promotion based on unsubstantiated allegations was deemed unlawful.

ALSO READ: ‘Gov Ododo’s transformative governance, result of positive thinking’

Counsel to the defendant, Olasunkanmi Ladeji Esq., in his final written address, argued on the competence of the suit and the failure to confer jurisdiction on the court.

“That the amended complaint of 28/2/2024 is neither signed by counsel nor by the claimant, contrary to Order 4 Rule 4 (3) of the Rules of this court. This affects the validity of the process and renders the complaint incompetent, which raises issues of jurisdiction and the competence of this court to adjudicate on the matter,” he said.

The defense counsel also argued on the preponderance of evidence, saying that the claimant is not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed.

The claimant adopted his deposition of 28/2/2024 as his evidence but admitted in cross-examination that he relocated to South Africa in 2019 and has not returned to Nigeria since then. The question is, when did the claimant appear before the commissioner for oaths to sign his deposition? He was not in Nigeria on 28/2/2024 to depose to his oath before a commissioner authorized by law. Consequently, the claimant’s pleadings, unsupported by credible evidence, are deemed abandoned.

He also said that the defendant had the authority and followed the enabling Act and regulations in dismissing the claimant and urged the court to resolve all issues in favor of the defendant.

The judge, Hon. Justice K. D. Damulak, ordered FUOYE to pay Akingbe within 30 days of this judgment; otherwise, the sum shall attract a 10% interest per annum.

In the ruling, the judge said, “The claimant’s case succeeds in part. For the avoidance of doubt, it is hereby declared and ordered as follows: A declaration that an allegation of plagiarism against the claimant cannot be made in the absence of the work/publication of a particular author or authors whom the claimant allegedly plagiarized, specifying what part of the work was copied, printed, or passed off as original without acknowledgment.”

The judge lamented the lack of fair hearing on behalf of the lecturer.

The ruling said, “Similarly, the failure of the defendant to produce the alleged report of external assessors as evidence, despite the claimant’s assertion that no such report exists, serves as proof of its non-existence or, at best, a presumption that if it were produced, it would reveal that the dismissal on the plagiarism allegation lacks substance, was conducted without fair hearing, is unlawful, and is therefore set aside.

“He was dismissed on 31/10/2018 based on a report from the disciplinary committee, which was only signed on 7/11/2018.

“I have examined the dismissal letter (defendant’s exhibit LE 10) and the staff disciplinary committee’s report (claimant’s exhibit 20). The defendant relied on the disciplinary committee’s report on TETFUND in dismissing the claimant.

“It is clear that the dismissal occurred on 31/10/2018, while the report of the disciplinary committee on the TETFUND intervention grant was signed by committee members on 7/11/2018. This means that as of 31/10/2018, there was no formally signed and issued report from the disciplinary committee,” the court said.

“A declaration that the claimant’s dismissal via a letter dated October 31, 2018, without fair hearing, is null and void.

“The defendant is hereby ordered to pay the claimant general damages assessed at N40,000,000.00 (Forty Million Naira) within 30 days of this judgment, or the sum shall attract a 10% interest per annum.”