The Presiding Judge, Akure Judicial division of the National Industrial Court, His Lordship, Hon. Justice Kiyersohot Damulak has struck out the case filed by Dr. Olonisakin Tunrayo against Ekiti State University over alleged unlawful dismissal from service for being premature and incompetent.

The Court held that Dr. Olonisakin failed to satisfy a condition precedent for filing the suit that the rules of the court do not support non-adherence to the provision of law.

From facts, the claimant- Dr. Olonisakin Tunrayo had submitted that prior to the commencement of her Ph.D. program in 2016, the institution agreed and approved to sponsor her Ph.D. program wherein it was agreed that she shall be bound to the university for at least 5years after the completion in 2019.

Claiming further, she averred that she was disengaged from the services via a letter dated 5th December 2019 for services no longer required in violation of her conditions of service, urged the court to grant the reliefs sought.

In defense, the university urged the court to strike out the case for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that Dr. Olonisakin failed to give the requisite pre-action notice before filing the suit as stipulated by the university law and further that Olonisakin’s termination was rightly done in consonance with the regulations guiding the employment.

In reply, the Olonisakin counsel contended that her client served the university the pre-action notice that the argument of the institution is academic, argued that by the Rules of the Court, the fact that pre-action notice was not frontloaded with the statement of fact is not fatal to the suit urged the court to grant the reliefs sought in the interest of justice.

Delivering the judgment via virtual proceeding, the presiding Judge, Justice Kiyersohot Damulak held that Dr. Olonisakin did not front-load the said pre-action notice which could have ascertain if the condition precedent was complied with or not and she expects to escape the consequences.

In addition, Justice Damulak said the simplicity of the rules of the court are never meant to allow parties liberty to refuse to do what ordinarily could have been done and still escape the consequences that the Rules of the court do not support non-adherence to the provision of law.

The case was struck out for being premature and incompetent.

Kindly share this story: