By Desire Emmanuel
A woman who was retired at the age of 44 years by the authorities of the Lagos University Teaching Hospital (LUTH) over her health condition has had her reinstatement case dismissed by the National Industrial Court for lacking merit.
Justice Sanda Yelwa of the Lagos division of the court dismissed the suit filed by the woman, known simply as Oluwabunmi, against LUTH challenging the invalidation of her employment.
The court found that the invalidation of Oluwabunmi’s employment could not be regarded as unconstitutional, and held that the hospital had provided adequate reasons connected with failure to comply with management directives and continued absence from duty.
According to court documents, the woman submitted that she was prematurely retired by the hospital management having only attained the age of 44 years with the expectation of 16 years more to attain her retirement age of 60 years in the service of the hospital.
She told the court that due to her medical condition, she repeatedly sought leave to undergo treatment overseas and later applied for six months’ leave of absence without pay, which was rejected by the hospital.
She added that despite being declared fit to continue in service by a Medical Board, Lagos University Teaching Hospital proceeded to invalidate her employment and retire her.
Oluwabunmi further stated that her constitutional right to a fair hearing was violated, that the invalidation of her employment was unlawful, and claimed various monetary reliefs running into several millions of naira, including future emoluments, pension contributions, gratuity, life insurance benefits, special damages and general damages.
In its defence, LUTH told the court that Oluwabunmi persistently absented herself from duty without authorisation despite several warnings and management directives requiring her resumption.
It stated that while numerous requests for medical leave had earlier been approved, management eventually declined further extensions and directed her to return to work.
The hospital further argued that following Oluwabunmi’s continued absence, a Medical Board was constituted to assess her fitness for service and recommendations arising from the board were communicated to her.
It maintained that Oluwabunmi failed to comply with the directives contained in the recommendations and continued to be away from duty without official approval, and regarded it as “absence from duty without Medical Board advice.”
Opposing the argumens, Oluwabunmi’s counsel argued that his client never concealed her medical condition from LUTH, consistently keeping the hospital informed of her health status, treatment progress and appointments with medical specialists through written communications.
The counsel further contended that the invalidation of his client’s employment was not carried out in accordance with due process and the applicable Public Service Rules, urging the court to resolve the issues in her favour.
Delivering judgment, Justice Yelwa held that the evidence before the court showed that Oluwabunmi was afforded the opportunity to be heard regarding the circumstances leading to the invalidation of her employment.
He held that Oluwabunmi’s prolonged absence from duty without approved leave amounted to a breach of the terms of her employment and that the failure of LUTH to respond to her application for leave without pay could not be construed as approval of the request.
The judge further held that Oluwabunmi failed to demonstrate that the action taken by the hospital was inconsistent with the terms of her employment, particularly having regard to the provisions of her letter of appointment which permitted termination where an employee was found unsuitable for efficient and effective service.
Justice Yelwa stated that the evidence revealed that management considered her repeated absences, the recommendations of the Medical Board, and her failure to comply with directives issued to her before deciding to invalidate her appointment.
The case was accordingly dismissed in its entirety, with parties ordered to bear their respective costs.
