The Presiding Judge, Akure Judicial Division of the National Industrial Court, Hon. Justice Kiyersohot Damulak has dismissed the case filed by Prof. Adebayo against Federal University, Oye-Ekiti and its Governing Council for lacking merit.
The Court held that Prof. Adebayo failed to prove that he accepted the employment offer by communicating the same to the Federal University Oye-Ekiti within six weeks of the offer letter and when he would resume duties.
Justice Damulak ruled that Prof. Adebayo has failed to establish an existing contractual relationship between him and the Federal University, Oye-Ekiti capable of being breached.
From fact, claimant- Prof. Adebayo had submitted that he was employed as a professor by the Federal University, Oye-Ekiti and he accepted the offer and resigned his appointment from his former University as directed in the offer letter.
Prof. Adebayo posited that on completing the forms, he contacted the head of department to know the next line of action, but he was told that the University was in a period of transition and that the new Vice Chancellor who was about to assume office had directed that resumptions be temporarily put on hold.
Submitting further, he asserted that when the time was overdue for his resumption and he did not hear anything from the University, he wrote to the Vice Chancellor explaining his plight through courier services, and he did not receive any response. Prof. Adebayo stated that since his resignation from his former University, he had not been earning any salaries and had not been in any employment, and urged the Court to grant the reliefs sought.
In defence, the defendants- Federal University, Oye-Ekiti and its Governing Council denied Prof. Adebayo’s assertion and maintained that Prof. Adebayo did not accept the offer of appointment, nor did he submit any acceptance form, the staff arrival form or any other form as stipulated in the offer.
Federal University Oye-Ekiti stated that Prof. Adebayo failed to adduce any credible evidence in support of his assertion that he accepted the offer of temporary employment made to him by the Oye-Ekiti University and, further, that there is no contract between the parties based on which Prof. Adebayo could have alleged any wrongful act.
Arguing further, the University posited that the honourable Court does not have the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the suit on the premise that Prof. Adebayo’s suit does not disclose any cause of action against the University and its Governing Council and urged the Court to dismiss the case in its entirety.
In opposition, the claimant counsel strongly maintained that there is a valid Contract between the parties as all the ingredients of a valid contract are captured in the case, and urged the Court to grant the reliefs sought.
Delivering judgment after careful evaluation of the submission of both parties, the presiding Judge held that Prof. Adebayo has, by the pleadings, disclosed a cause of action and dismissed the University’s objection for lacking merit.
However, Justice Damulak reiterated that that it is only when the conditions in the offer of appointment are met that a binding contract can be said to exist between the parties for which the court can order for specific performance.
On Prof. Adebayo assertion that head of department told him that the Oye-Ekiti University and its Governing Council was in a period of transition, the Court stated that the mere viva voce evidence of the claimant on the crucial assertion without more is not sufficient for the court to believe him, and the implication is that the assertion remains unproven.
“The claimant has not made any attempt to show when he signed the duplicate copy of the appointment letter over a Fifty Naira (N50.00) stamp or stamp of equivalent value, stating how soon he would be able to take up the appointment and return it to the Registrar. This is a failure to prove acceptance. Allegedly filing an acceptance form at the Registry on 4/2/2021 on arrival will not replace this requirement of acceptance 6 weeks from the date of the offer of appointment.” The Court ruled.
Visit the judgment portal for full details
