By Desire Emmanuel
The National Industrial Court has ordered a lecturer of the Ladoke Akintola University of Technology (LAUTECH), Ogbomosho, Oyo State, to repay the sum of N34 million scholarship bond to the university within 30 days.
He was asked to repay the money because he refused to return to the institution as a lecturer after completing his Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D) programme at a foreign university.
Justice Yakubu Hassan of the Ibadan Division of the court ordered the lecturer, simply known as Ola, to refund the money to Ladoke Akintola University of Technology for breaching a scholarship bond agreement.
The court held that Ola’s refusal to resume duty after completing his PhD programme abroad constituted a fundamental breach of contract and a violation of TETFUND guidelines.
Justice Hassan ordered Ola and his surety to jointly and severally refund N26,005,786, being tuition fees and living expenses spent on the PhD programme, and an additional N8,169,250 representing amounts received during his study leave to Ladoke Akintola University of Technology.
The court said the money must be paid within 30 days failing which it would attract 10 per cent interest per annum.
According to court documents, Ladoke Akintola University of Technology stated that Ola was sponsored under the TETFUND Academic Staff Training and Development intervention to study abroad.
As part of the scholarship conditions, Ola was said to have executed a bond agreement, with an undertaking to return to the university and serve for three years after completing the programme.
The university told the court that Ola had completed his Ph.D, but told the university that he still had extra sessions to run, and has since refused to return to work or submit his certificate.
In his defence, Ola, through his counsel, told the court that the university violated TETFUND guidelines by paying the scholarship funds into his salary account instead of a domiciliary account, adding that the exchange rate fluctuation forced him to take a loan abroad, which necessitated his decision to stay back to work and repay the loan.
The counsel also said that the university failed to comply strictly with the scholarship guidelines and therefore could not enforce the bond agreement.
However, counsel to the university argued that the bond agreement was clear, binding and mandatory, and that parties are bound by the terms they freely entered into.
Delivering judgment, Justice Hassan held that the bond agreement clearly obligated Ola to return to the university after completing his programme, noting that the lecturer admitted receiving the funds and failed to show any formal protest against the mode of disbursement.
Justice Hassan added that requests for variation of sponsorship cost after approval were prohibited under TETFUND guidelines, and that having benefitted from the scholarship, Mr Ola could not evade their obligations under the bond.
