Court Restores Olutayo David’s As FUTA Deputy Bursar

The Presiding Judge, Akure Judicial division of the National
Industrial Court, His Lordship, Hon. Justice Kiyersohot Damulak has
declared the withdrawal of Olutayo David’s appointment as deputy
bursar of the Federal University of Technology Akure as unlawful,
null and void; ordered her restoration with payment of salaries
commensurate to her level from the date of her appointment 2019 as
required by the scheme of service with 400,000 costs of the
action.

The Court held that the University cannot withdraw Olutayo’s
appointment on the basis that she was appointed based on the
university advertisement requiring 12 years working experience in
the University system rather than 12 years post qualification
experience as stated in the Institution scheme of service that the
University cannot benefit from their wrong.

From facts, the claimant- Olutayo David’s had submitted that she
was given a letter of appointment as deputy bursar dated 2/5/2019
that since the appointment, her salary (commensurate to the new
appointment) as well as some other persons who were appointed at
the same time, were directed to be put on hold by the
Vice-Chancellor, who investigated the appointments that two
separate panels found that her appointment met all extant
requirements.

Further that on 29th September 2019 her appointment was
withdrawn after she had approached the Court to enforce the payment
of her outstanding entitlements as a Deputy Bursar, urged the court
to grant the reliefs sought.

In defense, the University claimed that Olutayo David’s was not
qualified for the post of deputy bursar going by the scheme of
service that the job advertisement violated the provisions of the
scheme of service and the Council had no option but to exercise its
general control power over the irregular appointment to avoid
consequential sanction from relevant supervisory agencies.

The defendants filed an objection asked the court to strike out
the suit for want of jurisdiction on the ground that the suit was
filed outside the statutory period of limitation.

In opposition, the claimant counsel, Esho Victor Esq averred
that Olutayo’s having accepted the position of Deputy Bursar in the
University is entitled to her salary as appointed and to retain the
position since the Defendants had offered her the position that no
polluted hand shall be allowed to touch the pure fountain of
justice.

Delivering the judgment, the presiding judge, Justice Kiyersohot
Damulak dismissed the objection for lacking merit and held that the
claimant was not expected to investigate and establish evidence of
approval before applying for the post or accepting the
appointment.

The Court further held that the alleged violation of the scheme
of service by replacing 12 years post qualification experience with
12 years working experience within the University system by the 4th
defendant itself is inconsequential in the circumstance.

“I agree with the claimant’s counsel submission that the scheme
of service is a reasonable guide and not an iron-cast rule of law,
like the Constitution or an Act that requires legislative amendment
before the council can make the slightest variation therefrom, as
the council has done in this case.

The Presiding Judge, Akure Judicial division of the National
Industrial Court, His Lordship, Hon. Justice Kiyersohot Damulak has
declared the withdrawal of Olutayo David’s appointment as deputy
bursar of the Federal University of Technology Akure as unlawful,
null and void; ordered her restoration with payment of salaries
commensurate to her level from the date of her appointment 2019 as
required by the scheme of service with 400,000 costs of the
action.

The Court held that the University cannot withdraw Olutayo’s
appointment on the basis that she was appointed based on the
university advertisement requiring 12 years working experience in
the University system rather than 12 years post qualification
experience as stated in the Institution scheme of service that the
University cannot benefit from their wrong.

From facts, the claimant- Olutayo David’s had submitted that she
was given a letter of appointment as deputy bursar dated 2/5/2019
that since the appointment, her salary (commensurate to the new
appointment) as well as some other persons who were appointed at
the same time, were directed to be put on hold by the
Vice-Chancellor, who investigated the appointments that two
separate panels found that her appointment met all extant
requirements.

Further that on 29th September 2019 her appointment was
withdrawn after she had approached the Court to enforce the payment
of her outstanding entitlements as a Deputy Bursar, urged the court
to grant the reliefs sought.

In defense, the University claimed that Olutayo David’s was not
qualified for the post of deputy bursar going by the scheme of
service that the job advertisement violated the provisions of the
scheme of service and the Council had no option but to exercise its
general control power over the irregular appointment to avoid
consequential sanction from relevant supervisory agencies.

The defendants filed an objection asked the court to strike out
the suit for want of jurisdiction on the ground that the suit was
filed outside the statutory period of limitation.

In opposition, the claimant counsel, Esho Victor Esq averred
that Olutayo’s having accepted the position of Deputy Bursar in the
University is entitled to her salary as appointed and to retain the
position since the Defendants had offered her the position that no
polluted hand shall be allowed to touch the pure fountain of
justice.

Delivering the judgment, the presiding judge, Justice Kiyersohot
Damulak dismissed the objection for lacking merit and held that the
claimant was not expected to investigate and establish evidence of
approval before applying for the post or accepting the
appointment.

The Court further held that the alleged violation of the scheme
of service by replacing 12 years post qualification experience with
12 years working experience within the University system by the 4th
defendant itself is inconsequential in the circumstance.

“I agree with the claimant’s counsel submission that the scheme
of service is a reasonable guide and not an iron-cast rule of law,
like the Constitution or an Act that requires legislative amendment
before the council can make the slightest variation therefrom, as
the council has done in this case.