Connect with us

Judiciary

Court orders school to pay teacher N2m for unlawful dismissal

Published

on

Court-symbol
Court-symbol
Share

The National Industrial Court has ordered a school, Trinity Model Academy, to pay its former staff member, Lucy Agabo, N2 million for psychological trauma which resulted from unlawful termination of her employment.

The presiding judge, Justice Isaac Essien, on Monday, May 15, declared the action of the school as unlawful, null, and void, saying it was done in breach of the claimant’s fundamental rights to fair hearing.

Justice Essien also ordered the school to pay the claimant (teacher) N200,000 as cost of action within 30 days.

From facts, the claimant stated that she was employed by the defendant as a classroom teacher in September 2017 and was issued a letter of termination on April 5, 2019, on the grounds of alleged gross misconduct.

She asserted that she never engaged in any act of misconduct and was never issued a query before her termination.

Agabo added that the termination was an attempt to destroy her teaching career which she worked tirelessly to build over the years and to further prejudice her chances of job prospects in the future.

The school, however, said Agabo was found guilty of the offence of gross misconduct.

The school in addition argued that because the appointment of the claimant was temporary in nature, it did not need strict adherence to statutory provisions but from the condition of service drawn from the instrument of employment.

It further urged the court to dismiss the case in its entirety.

In response, Agabo’s counsel argued that the probation period was supposed to be for one academic calendar year, adding that his client had become a permanent staff from September 2018 when the new academic session commenced.

The lawyer stated that the claimant was no longer a temporary staff when her appointment was terminated, urging the court to grant the reliefs sought.

Justice Essien, after evaluating the submissions of both parties, declared that the failure of the school to confirm the employment of the claimant after one academic session and continuing to hold her in the employment was nothing but an unfair labour practice.

He added that the claimant was deemed to have been confirmed by operation of the law after one academic session.

The judge equally ruled that the failure of the defendant to issue the claimant a query as provided in the contract of employment which would have afforded her the opportunity to defend the allegation of misconduct made against her was a clear breach of the right to fair hearing as guaranteed by the 1999 Constitution as amended.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Judiciary

Court Jails Two Chinese Nationals 46 Years Each for Cyberterrorism, Fraud

Published

on

Two Chinese nationals, Huang Haoyu and An Hongxu
Share

The Federal High Court sitting in Ikoyi, Lagos, on Wednesday sentenced two Chinese nationals, Huang Haoyu and An Hongxu, to 46 years’ imprisonment each for cyberterrorism and internet fraud.

The trial judge, Justice Daniel Osiagor, handed down the sentence after the defendants changed their initial not guilty pleas to guilty during the court proceedings.

Huang and Hongxu were arraigned alongside one Friday Audu on a seven-count charge bordering on cyberterrorism, internet fraud, and money laundering involving N3.4 billion and $2.56 million.

The convicts were among 792 suspected fraudsters arrested on December 19, 2024, during a coordinated operation by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) tagged “Eagle Flush Operation.”

According to the prosecution, the syndicate orchestrated cryptocurrency, investment, and romance scams targeting unsuspecting victims. Investigations further revealed that Audu, allegedly acting on Huang’s instruction, incorporated Genting International Co. Ltd. to facilitate the fraudulent operations.

The court also heard that the defendants recruited Nigerian youths to impersonate foreign nationals online as part of the scheme to defraud victims.

Following their guilty pleas, the prosecution urged the court to impose the maximum penalty prescribed by law.

In his judgment, Justice Osiagor convicted and sentenced Huang and Hongxu to a cumulative term of 46 years’ imprisonment each, with an option of a N56 million fine. The court also ordered three days of community service and directed that the convicts be repatriated to China upon completion of their sentences.

Additionally, the court granted the prosecution’s application for the forfeiture of all items recovered during the EFCC investigation to the Federal Government.

The forfeited items include 1,596 mobile phones, 43 computer systems, hundreds of SIM cards, office equipment, generators, vehicles, and other electronic devices seized from four properties located in Victoria Island and Ikoyi, Lagos.

Meanwhile, the trial of the third defendant, Friday Audu, who maintained his not guilty plea, has been adjourned to April 29, 2026, for continuation of proceedings.

Continue Reading

Judiciary

Nnamdi Kanu Opts to Defend Himself as Legal Team Withdraws from Trial

Published

on

Nnamdi-Kanu
Nnamdi Kanu
Share

A dramatic twist unfolded on Thursday at the Federal High Court in Abuja as the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, announced that he would represent himself in court following the withdrawal of his entire legal team.

Lead counsel, Chief Kanu Agabi (SAN), informed the court that he and other Senior Advocates had stepped down from the case, stating that Kanu had decided to “take back his case.”

Confirming the development, Kanu told the presiding judge, “I will be representing myself for now. That might change later.” When asked if he wanted the court to assign a lawyer to him, he declined.

Speaking directly before the bench, Kanu argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to continue with the case against him. His submission formed part of an oral argument he personally presented—a rare occurrence in such a high-profile criminal trial.

The development marks a new phase in the long-running case, which has faced multiple adjournments and legal battles since Kanu’s arrest and extradition from Kenya to Nigeria in 2021.

Kanu faces charges bordering on treasonable felony and terrorism-related offences. Legal observers say his decision to conduct his own defence could significantly affect the direction and tempo of the trial in the coming weeks.

Continue Reading

Judiciary

Natasha Files Objections to FG’s Criminal Defamation Suit

Published

on

, Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan
Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan
Share

Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan has filed preliminary objections before the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory and the Federal High Court, contesting criminal defamation charges instituted against her by the Federal Government.

The senator described the case as an abuse of power and a calculated attempt at political persecution, alleging that the charges arose from petitions filed by Senate President Godswill Akpabio and former Kogi State Governor Yahaya Bello.

Her legal team, led by four Senior Advocates of Nigeria—Prof. Roland Otaru, SAN; Dr. E. West-Idahosa, SAN; J.J. Usman, SAN; and M.J. Numa, SAN—argued that the prosecutions are unconstitutional and aimed at silencing opposition voices rather than advancing public interest or national security.

The lawyers tendered exhibits indicating that the senator’s comments were part of legitimate public discourse and media commentary. They further contended that the Attorney-General of the Federation lacks the legal standing to prosecute defamation cases on behalf of private individuals.

According to the defence, defamation is a civil matter and criminalizing it amounts to intimidation, suppression of free speech, and misuse of the justice system.

Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan also accused authorities of selective justice, stating that while her own petitions over threats to her life were ignored, complaints from her political rivals were quickly acted upon. She maintained that this amounts to discriminatory prosecution in violation of Section 42 of the Constitution.

Her lawyers urged the courts to dismiss the cases at the preliminary stage, warning that allowing them to proceed would erode public confidence in the justice system and waste national resources.

 

Continue Reading