Mrs. Ubochi a former Chief Accountant of the institution through her lawyer, Ladan Baba-Kodong, had approached the court in suit marked NICN/ABJ/72/2023, challenging her termination and sought for multiple reliefs which included; her reinstatement, payment of all outstanding entitlements, and a declaration that her dismissal was unlawful and unconstitutional.
She had argued that NOUN and its governing council failed to comply with statutory provisions and denied her fair hearing during disciplinary proceedings.
The claimant, a former Chief Accountant at NOUN, recounted that she joined the institution in 2005 and rose through the ranks before the incident that led to her termination. According to her, during a promotion examination in October 2021, she inadvertently entered the hall with a sheet containing personal revision notes.
She maintained that the material was not used and that she was allowed to continue the exam after the invigilator confiscated the paper.
However, months later, she was summoned before investigative panels probing alleged examination malpractice. She contended that these panels acted as judge and prosecutor, pressuring her to confess and disclose the source of the notes. Her employment was eventually terminated in December 2022.
Defending the suit, NOUN through its lawyer, Emmanuel Umoren, Defendants, by a statement of defence and amended statement of Defence, wherein it joined issues with the claimant and contend that the Claimant’s suit is misconceived, frivolous, and an abuse of the process of this Honourable Court.
NOUN also stated that the claimant was found with a prepared answer sheet containing detailed responses to one of the examination questions, suggesting prior knowledge of the exam.
The institution argued further that her refusal to disclose the source of the material further strengthened suspicions of misconduct, while insisted that due process was followed, including multiple opportunities for her to defend herself before various committees.
NOUN thereafter prayed the court to dismiss the suit with punitive cost.
In her judgment, Justice Haastrup, after legally studied all the submissions of the parties and cited series of legal authorites, determined all issues raised by the parties and dismissed the claimant’s arguments that the disciplinary process violated her constitutional right to fair hearing.
The judge also held that she was given adequate notice of the allegations, sufficient time to respond, and multiple opportunities to present her case before both the investigative and joint council/senate committees.
“The procedure adopted by the defendants complied with the principles of administrative fair hearing,” the judge stated. While noting that there was no evidence of bias or procedural irregularity in the panels that handled the matter.
On the issue of whether the university was required to report the matter to the police before taking disciplinary action, the court ruled in the negative. The judge emphasized that employers are entitled to discipline staff for misconduct, even where such actions may also constitute criminal offences, without waiting for criminal prosecution.
The court further found that the disciplinary process complied with the provisions of the National Open University Act and the institution’s conditions of service.
The judge concluded that the claimant’s possession of unauthorized materials in the examination hall amounted to misconduct enough to justify her termination.
Justice Haastrup however. noted a lapse on the part of the university regarding the claimant’s entitlement to salary in lieu of notice. Saying that the termination letter provided for such payment and the defendants failed to make it, the court ordered that Mrs. Ubochi be paid accordingly.
“In choosing termination instead of dismissal, the defendants are bound to fulfill the obligations attached to termination, including payment in lieu of notice,” the court held.
All other claims by the claimant, including reinstatement and damages, were dismissed.
