DARAMOLA V. FUT YOLA & ANOR. (2025)

Background

Dr. Samuel A. Daramola, a senior lecturer at the Federal University of Technology, Yola, was dismissed for allegedly being absent from his duty post without permission. The university issued him a query requiring an explanation within 24 hours. He replied, but the Appointments and Promotions Committee of the University Council considered his response unsatisfactory and recommended dismissal. The Council approved the recommendation, and the Registrar communicated the dismissal by letter dated 7 October 1998.

Daramola commenced proceedings in the Federal High Court, Yola, seeking declarations that his dismissal was unlawful and void, reinstatement, payment of salaries and emoluments, and damages. The trial court granted the declaratory and consequential reliefs, but refused damages for lack of proof. The Court of Appeal, Jos Division, allowed the university’s appeal and set aside the trial court’s judgment. Daramola appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues

1. Whether the Court of Appeal was right to hold that Daramola was lawfully dismissed.
2. Whether the Court of Appeal was right to set aside the orders for reinstatement and payment of arrears of salaries, allowances and other emoluments.

Ratio Decidendi

Section 14(1) of the Federal Universities of Technology Act and the university’s Regulations Governing the Conditions of Service of Senior Staff applied concurrently to Daramola’s employment. For a lawful dismissal, the employee must have committed misconduct sufficiently serious to warrant dismissal, must receive notice of the allegation, and must be given a fair opportunity to answer it.

The query informed Daramola of the allegation that he had been absent from duty and required him to explain why disciplinary action should not be taken. His written response was considered by the university committee, which made a recommendation to the Council, and the Council made the final decision. This satisfied the statutory and constitutional requirements of notice and fair hearing. The term “notice” does not require a particular form; notification or communication of the allegation is sufficient.

The Court also held that, although the enabling Act would prevail over inconsistent university regulations, there was no conflict in this case. The Act and the regulations complemented one another. An employee is expected to familiarise himself with the terms and regulations governing his employment.

Court Findings

The Supreme Court found that absence from duty without permission constituted misconduct under the university’s regulations and was a ground for dismissal. Daramola had been notified of the accusation, had responded to it, and his response had been considered before the Council approved his dismissal. The fact that the Appointments and Promotions Committee investigated and recommended dismissal did not invalidate the process because the Council retained and exercised the final decision-making power.

The Court reiterated that the constitutional right to fair hearing under section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution applies to quasi-judicial and disciplinary bodies, not only to courts. However, the burden of proving a denial of fair hearing rested on Daramola, and he failed to establish such a denial.

The second issue was held to be academic because, after the dismissal was found lawful, a determination of the correctness of the orders for reinstatement and payment of arrears would have no practical effect.

Conclusion

The appeal was unanimously dismissed. The judgment of the Court of Appeal, Jos Division, which had set aside the Federal High Court’s judgment, was affirmed. The parties were ordered to bear their own costs.

Significance

The decision confirms that disciplinary dismissal of university staff governed by statutory employment protections must comply with the enabling statute, applicable service regulations, notice requirements and fair hearing. A query and opportunity to respond may satisfy fair hearing where the employee understands the allegation and the competent disciplinary authority considers the response. It also affirms that courts should not determine issues that have become purely academic.