By Desire Emmanuel
The National Industrial Court has ordered the Osun State governor, Ademola Adeleke, to promote one of its senior civil servants to Level 17 with immediate effect following its refusal to do so after the employee attended and passed the promotion interview.
Justice Kiyersohot Damulak of the Akure Division of the court declared that the refusal of the Governor of Osun State, the Head of Service and the state Civil Service Commission to consider the senior civil servant, Mr. Olabisi Abidemi, for promotion to the post of Director, Grade Level 17, after adjudging him eligible and inviting him for promotion interview was unfair, inconsistent and contrary to the principles governing fair administrative discretion in public service.
The judge therefore ordered the governor to reconsider Abidemi’s candidature for promotion to Grade Level 17 in accordance with the Osun State Public Service Rules, without reliance on any undisclosed policy relating to leave of absence, and such promotion shall take immediate effect with the sum of N500,000 awarded as cost of action.
According to available court documents, Mr. Abidemi submitted that he was employed into the Osun State Civil Service in May 2004 and rose through the ranks to become Deputy Director, Grade Level 16, with effect from July 2021 and that despite being on approved leave of absence, he appeared on the list of officers eligible for promotion interview to Grade Level 17 held in August 2025, which he attended.
He further averred that he wrote letters of complaint and appeal to the state Head of Service after waiting for several days without any response regarding his refusal to be promoted despite being shortlisted and invited for the interview exercise.
In defence, the governor, through the office of the Attorney General, maintained that Mr. Abidemi was not denied promotion because of leave of absence but because he failed to satisfy the prerequisites for promotion under the Osun State Public Service Rules, particularly the requirement relating to continuous supervision under a reporting officer and annual performance evaluation reports for four years.
The governor also stated that Abidemi had only rendered service to the Osun State Civil Service for about eight months within the last eight years and that a civil servant on leave of absence does not render service to the state or remain under the supervision of a reporting officer during the period of such leave.
However, Abidemi’s counsel faulted the submission, saying that there was nowhere in the Osun State Public Service Rules or in his client’s approval for leave of absence where leave of absence was made a basis for deprivation of earned promotion and submitted that the alleged recent policy relied upon by the governor did not exist.
Delivering judgment, Justice Damulak held that while promotion is generally not an automatic right, the discretion of a public authority in a statutorily regulated employment must still be exercised fairly, consistently, transparently and in accordance with the applicable rules.
The judge added that no written policy that Abidemi must be under the supervision of a reporting officer for four years was produced before the court, and the defendant equally failed to place before the court the report of the promotion committee, the committee’s recommendation or any documentary explanation showing precisely why Abidemi was denied promotion.
He added that the Osun State Public Service Rules did not contain any provision expressly stating that an officer on approved leave of absence automatically forfeits promotion consideration and noted that Mr. Abidemi was previously promoted to Grade Level 16 in 2021 while still on leave of absence.
Justice Damulak stated that by previously promoting Mr. Abidemi while on leave of absence and subsequently shortlisting him again in 2025 for promotion interview, the governor of Osun State created a legitimate expectation that leave of absence would not automatically disqualify him from promotion consideration.
“I therefore find that the governor acted inconsistently and unfairly in refusing to consider the claimant for promotion after listing him as eligible for promotion,” the judge stated in his ruling.
