An Industrial Court, sitting in Ibadan, Oyo State, has dismissed a ₦2 billion damages suit against Olabisi Onabanjo University (OOU), Ogun State by a lecturer, Dr Raymond Adegboyega, who recently from the institution.
Adegboyega, who retired from the Banking and Finance Department, OOU, had approached the court, seeking for an award of ₦2 billion in damages over an alleged decision to deny him promotion for decades in which he claimed to have served the institution.
The former lecturer, represented by his counsel, Mr Osuolale Asanike, had alleged that, following his engagement in 1992 by the institution, he was only promoted once in 2001 from Lecturer II to Lecturer I, and was never promoted again till he retired in 2022.
According to Dr Adegboyega, failure to promote him turned him to an alien in his own country, simply because he is not an indigene of Ogun State.
The former lecturer attributed the action of the OOU Management to nepotism, segregation and ethnic colouration, declaring that it had forced him into psycho trauma and harakiri.
Adegboyega also alleged that throughout the decades he served the institution, he never went on annual leave, and was never paid his leave entitlements
He therefore sought the relief of the court for the payment of all his deserved leave allowances, in accordance with his periodic promotion status.
Adegboyega also sought the court declaration for the payment of deductions from his salaries, which he said were never remitted to the OOU Co-operative Society.
The former lecturer also asked for the payment of the balance of the contributions to Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU) deducted from his monthly salaries that were not remitted.
In the same vein, the plaintiff sought a court order, mandating the university to use his perceived deserved promotions to calculate and measure his pensions and entitled gratuity and professional attainment.
However, counsels to OOU, Messrs Felix Ogunmade and Daniel Ola, asked the court to dismiss all the reliefs sought in the suit by the plaintiff, describing them as baseless, spurious, unproved, unsubstantiated and lacking in merit.
The lead counsel, Ogunmade, also told the court that promotion must be earned, insisting that promotion in OOU was predicated on the quality of a lecturer’s publications, membership of professional bodies, and merit based on recommendations from his department to the faculty.
He told the court that eventually when Adegboyega was recommended for promotion as a Senior Lecturer in 2019, the move was stalled by a petition from a student who accused him of abuse of office.
On pension, Oyemade said pensions were being paid by pension fund administrators and not by the institutions.
He added that Adegboyega unilaterally opted not to go on leave and hence, could not seek to convert the same to cash, noting that he had brought no evidence to affirm deductions from his accounts that were not remitted.
In his judgment, Justice JD Peters upheld the submissions of Ogunmade, saying promotion was the exclusive preserve of an employer, adding, “It is up to an employer to determine if its employee will be promoted.
“An employee is not entitled to promotion simply because he believes in his competence, skills and loyalty to his employer. After all, an employee cannot promote himself or herself.
“This court in resolving Reliefs 1 and 2 against the Claimant had held that promotion is not a right, but rather a privilege which must be earned.
“There is no evidence before the court that Claimant earned that promotion…This relief is like putting something on nothing. The claim for ₦2 billion is something. The foundation for same, which is promotion, is nothing.
“In the wise words of Lord Denning MR, in UAC v. MacFoy (1962) AC 157, you cannot put something on nothing and expect it to stay. It will collapse.
“Accordingly, this relief must collapse. There has been no strong foundation upon which it rests. I refuse and dismiss this relief.”
Justice Peters also dismissed other reliefs sought in the suit by Dr Adegboyega, saying the onus was on the plaintiff to prove his case.
Declaring that the plaintive, in this instance, had brought no evidence to justify his claims, the trial judge ruled: “I dismiss the case of the Claimant in its entirety for lack of proof by cogent, credible and admissible evidence.”
