The National Industrial Court sitting in Akure has ordered Osun State Government to reconsider the promotion of Mr Olabisi Abidemi to the position of Director on Grade Level 17.
The court also ruled that the decision not to consider him for promotion was unfair and inconsistent with principles guiding public service administration.
In a judgment delivered by Justice Kiyersohot Damulak, the court directed the Governor of Osun State, the Attorney General, the Head of Service and the State Civil Service Commission to reassess Abidemi’s candidature in line with the Osun State Public Service Rules.
The court ordered that any promotion arising from the reconsideration should take effect from the date it ought to have been implemented and awarded N500,000 as the cost of the action in favour of the claimant.
According to court records, “Abidemi joined the Osun State Civil Service in May 2004 and rose through the ranks to become a Deputy Director on Grade Level 16 in July 2021.”
The claimant told the court that despite being on an approved leave of absence, his name appeared on the list of officers eligible for a promotion interview to Grade Level 17 conducted in August 2025, and that he duly participated in the exercise.
Abidemi also stated that after the interview he waited for the outcome but received no communication regarding his promotion status, prompting him to write complaint and appeal letters to the Head of Service.
In their defence, the Governor of Osun State and the other defendants argued that “Abidemi was not denied promotion because of his leave of absence but because he did not satisfy requirements under the Osun State Public Service Rules, particularly those relating to continuous supervision by a reporting officer and annual performance evaluation reports covering four years.”
They further maintained that “Abidemi had rendered service to the Osun State Civil Service for only about eight months during the previous eight years and that officers on leave of absence are not under the supervision of reporting officers during such periods.”
Counsel to the claimant, I. A. Mikaheel, argued that neither the Public Service Rules nor the approval granted for his client’s leave of absence provided that such leave could be used as a basis for denying promotion.
Delivering judgment, Justice Damulak held that “although promotion is not an automatic right, the discretion exercised by public authorities in statutory employment matters must be fair, transparent, consistent and in accordance with established rules.”
The court noted that “the defendants failed to produce any written policy requiring an officer to remain under the supervision of a reporting officer for four years before promotion could be considered.”
It also observed that no report of the promotion committee, recommendation or documentary explanation for the claimant’s exclusion was presented before the court.
Justice Damulak said, “I therefore find that the defendants acted inconsistently and unfairly in refusing to consider the claimant for promotion after listing him as eligible for promotion.”
The court added that Abidemi had earlier been promoted to Grade Level 16 while on leave of absence and that his subsequent shortlisting for the 2025 interview created a legitimate expectation that the leave would not automatically disqualify him from promotion consideration.
