Photo: Counsel to OOU
An Industrial Court sitting in Ibadan, the Oyo State capital, has dismissed a N2 billion damages’ claim against Olabisi Onabanjo University (OOU) in Ogun State by a lecturer, Dr Raymond Adegboyega, who retired recently from the institution’s Banking and Finance Department.
The ex-don had approached the court, seeking its relief for an award of N2 billion in damages against OOU over its alleged decision to deny him promotion for decades in which he said he served the institution.
Adegboyega, represented by his counsel, Mr Osuolale Asanike, had alleged that following his engagement in 1982 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 him, failure to promote him turned him to an alien in his own country, simply because he is not an indigene of Ogun State.
He attributed his former employers’ action to nepotism, segregation and ethnic colouration, which he said 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, and therefore sought the relief of the court for the payment of all his deserved leave allowances according to his periodic promotion status.
He also sought the court declaration for the payment of deductions from his salaries, which he said were never remitted to OOU Co-operative Society as well the payment of the balance of 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, counsel to OOU, Messrs Felix Ogunmade and Daniel Ola, asked the court to dismiss all the reliefs sought 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 is 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 also told the court that when eventually Adegboyega was recommended for promotion as senior lecturer in 2019, the move was stalled by a petition from a student.
On pension, the counsel said pensions are paid by pension fund administrators and not by the institutions adding that Akingbade unilaterally opted not to go on leave and hence, could not seek to convert same to cash just as he said 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 is the exclusive preserve of an employer, and hence, “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.”
He added: “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 Two Billion Naira 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 by the plaintiff, saying the onus usually lies on the plaintiff to prove his case but in this instance, the plaintiff had brought no evidence to justify his claims and therefore, “I dismiss the case of the Claimant in its entirety for lack of proof by cogent, credible and admissible evidence.”