PLATEAU: “THERE WAS NO FAIR HEARING”. COURT OF APPEAL DECLARES IN NVRI vs MR. REUBEN AWANYE ITRUMA’S CASE

By: Amb. Valentine Adese (JP),

SUIT NO: CA/J/276/2013, is an Appeal filed by the National Veterinary Research Institute (NVRI), against the Judgment of the National Industrial Court, Jos Division, presided over by Hon. Justice R. H. Gwandu, delivered on the 2^nd of June 2018 in Suit No: NICN/JOS/47/2013 in favour of Mr. REUBEN AWANYE ITRUMA.

The Court of Appeal in its Judgment on Tuesday, 8^th August 2022, while affirming and dismissing the Appeal filed by NVRI, declared that the Respondent, MR. REUBEN AWANYE ITRUMA was not given a fair hearing by the Committee which conducted the proceedings which dismissed him.

Hon. Justice Ibrahim A. Andenyangtso (JCA) who delivered the lead Judgment in part stated that:

“I am satisfied that the lower court was on firm ground in his findings that the Respondent (MR. REUBEN AWANYE ITRUMA) was not given a fair hearing by the Committee which conducted the proceedings which dismissed him. I so hold, resolving these issues against the Appellants.

“…Appellants’ Issues 4 & 6 & Respondent’s Issue 4: These issues relate to non-proof of the claims of the Respondent. In the Record, there were many instances where the Respondent proved his case and the lower court found for him.

“Having considered the findings of the lower court, I have no reason to upturn the. I so hold, resolving these issues against the Appellants.

“Having resolved all the issues against the Appellants, I hold that this Appeal lacks merit, and same is hereby dismissed.

“The Judgment of the lower court is accordingly affirmed. I award no cost”.

You would recall that REALITY had reported that at the lower court, MR. REUBEN AWANYE ITRUMA, in his Further Amended Statement had averred that:

1.    He was never at any time summoned to appear before the Staff Welfare And Development Committee of NVRI or any other Committee for that matter, to answer to any charge or query before NVRI the 1^st Defendant to their decision of the 28^th September 2007, and the person whose names and signatures appear on the report of the said Committee never endorsed any such report which purportedly indicted him.  

2.  That, he was not afforded any opportunity to defend himself in person and or to cross-examine any person who made any allegation against him under the relevant conditions of service.

3.      TO BE CONTINUED…