OOU Defeats Retired Lecturer’s ₦2bn Promotion and Trauma Suit in Court

​An Industrial Court sitting in Ibadan, Oyo State, has dealt a decisive blow to a retired university don, dismissing his ₦2 billion damages lawsuit against Olabisi Onabanjo University (OOU), Ago-Iwoye.

​The claimant, Dr. Raymond Adegboyega, a former lecturer in the institution’s Banking and Finance Department, had dragged his former employer to court over allegations of stagnation, ethnic discrimination, and unremitted financial deductions. However, the court ruled that promotion is a privilege to be earned, not a fundamental right.

​Decades of Alleged Stagnation and “Harakiri”

​Dr. Adegboyega, who joined the university in 1982 and retired in 2022, approached the court through his counsel, Mr. Osuolale Asanike. He claimed that throughout his 40-year career, he was only promoted once—moving from Lecturer II to Lecturer I in 2001.

​The retired don painted a grim picture of his tenure, alleging that:

ADVERTISEMENT

• ​Institutional Bias: The university’s refusal to elevate him turned him into “an alien in his own country,” blaming his stagnant career on deep-seated nepotism and ethnic bias because he is not an indigene of Ogun State.
• ​Severe Trauma: He asserted the experience subjected him to severe psychological trauma and drove him to the brink of “harakiri” (suicide).

​Beyond the promotion dispute, the plaintiff sought court orders for:

• ​The payment of decades’ worth of accumulated leave allowances, claiming he never took annual leave.
• ​The refund of salary deductions meant for the OOU Cooperative Society and the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU).
• ​A mandate forcing OOU to recalculate his pensions, gratuity, and professional entitlements based on the promotions he felt he deserved.

​Promotion is Earned, Not Automatic: OOU Defense

​Defending the institution, OOU’s legal team, led by Messrs Felix Ogunmade and Daniel Ola, asked the court to throw out the case, branding the claims as “baseless, spurious, unproved, and entirely lacking in merit.”

​Ogunmade argued that academic promotions are never automatic or based solely on longevity. Instead, they rely on objective criteria, including:

1. ​The quality of a lecturer’s research publications.
2. ​Contributions to professional bodies.
3. ​Official recommendations from departmental and faculty levels.

​The defense further revealed that when Adegboyega was finally recommended for promotion to Senior Lecturer in 2019, the process was abruptly stalled due to a disciplinary petition written against him by a student.

​Addressing the financial claims, OOU’s counsel clarified:

• ​Pensions: Universities do not pay pensions directly; that responsibility falls on Pension Fund Administrators (PFAs).
• ​Leave Allowances: Adegboyega’s decision to skip annual leave was voluntary and could not be retroactively converted to cash.
• ​Lack of Evidence: The plaintiff failed to provide a single shred of documentary evidence, such as bank statements, to prove cooperative or union deductions were withheld.

​”You Cannot Put Something on Nothing” — Court Rules

​In his final judgment, Justice J.D. Peters unreservedly upheld OOU’s submissions, clarifying the legal boundaries of employer-employee relationships regarding career advancement.

​”Promotion is the exclusive preserve of an employer,” Justice Peters ruled. “It is up to an employer to determine if its employee will be promoted. An employee is not entitled to promotion simply because he believes in his competence, skills, and loyalty to his employer. After all, an employee cannot promote himself or herself.”

​Dismissing the multibillion-naira damages claim, the judge invoked a famous legal maxim established by British jurist Lord Denning in the landmark 1962 case UAC v. MacFoy.

​”The claim for Two Billion Naira is something. The foundation for the same, which is promotion, is nothing,” the judge stated. “You cannot put something on nothing and expect it to stay. It will collapse. Accordingly, this relief must collapse.”

​Justice Peters concluded by throwing out the remaining claims regarding unremitted funds and leave allowances, citing a total lack of empirical evidence. He ruled that the onus of proof lies squarely on the plaintiff, and since Adegboyega brought no cogent, credible, or admissible evidence to back his claims, the case was dismissed in its entirety.