The National Industrial Court sitting in Akure has voided the exclusion of a senior Osun State civil servant, Olabisi Abidemi, from promotion to Grade Level 17, holding that the decision was unfair, inconsistent, and contrary to the principles governing fair administrative discretion in the public service.
Delivering judgment, Justice Kiyersohot Damulak ordered the Osun State Governor, the Attorney General of the state, the Head of Service, and the Civil Service Commission to pay ₦500,000 as costs and to reconsider Abidemi’s candidature for promotion strictly in accordance with the Osun State Public Service Rules.
The court held that his exclusion was unlawful, having not been backed by any valid, disclosed, or verifiable policy, despite his inclusion on the list of eligible candidates and his invitation to participate in the promotion interview exercise.
The court found that the defendants acted inconsistently and unfairly by first declaring Abidemi eligible for consideration, placing him on the promotion interview list, and allowing him to take part in the August 2025 exercise, only to later deny him promotion without providing any clear, documented, or legally justifiable reason.
Justice Damulak stressed that while promotion in the public service is not automatic, the exercise of administrative discretion must be guided strictly by existing rules, transparency, and consistency with previous official actions.
The dispute arose after Abidemi, who was appointed into the Osun State Civil Service in May 2004, rose through the ranks to become Deputy Director on Grade Level 16 with effect from July 2021.
He told the court that despite being on an approved leave of absence, he was still shortlisted among officers eligible for promotion to Grade Level 17 and was subsequently invited to the promotion interview held in August 2025, which he attended.
However, after the exercise, he was not elevated, prompting him to lodge formal complaints and appeals to the Office of the Head of Service, which were reportedly left unanswered.
In their defence, the Governor of Osun State, the Attorney General, the Head of Service, and the Civil Service Commission maintained that Abidemi was not denied promotion because of his leave status but because he allegedly failed to meet the mandatory requirements for promotion under the Public Service Rules.
They argued that he did not satisfy the conditions relating to continuous supervision under a reporting officer and the submission of annual performance evaluation reports spanning four years.
According to them, Abidemi had only been in active service for about eight months within the last eight years due to his prolonged leave, adding that officers on leave do not undergo supervision or generate performance appraisal reports required for promotion consideration.
Abidemi’s counsel, I. A. Mikaheel, however, countered that neither the Osun State Public Service Rules nor the approval granting his client leave of absence contained any provision making such leave a ground for denial of promotion.
He submitted that the alleged policy introduced by the defendants regarding supervision and performance appraisal requirements was never produced before the court and therefore could not be relied upon as a basis for the decision against the claimant.
In its analysis, the court held that the defendants failed to place before it any written policy mandating four years of continuous supervision or performance evaluation as a prerequisite for promotion.
Justice Damulak also noted that no promotion committee report, recommendation, or any credible documentary justification was presented to explain why Abidemi was excluded from consideration.
The court further held that the Osun State Public Service Rules did not contain any provision stating that an officer on approved leave of absence automatically forfeits the right to be considered for promotion.
It observed that Abidemi had previously been promoted to Grade Level 16 in 2021 while still on leave of absence and was again shortlisted and invited for promotion interview in 2025, circumstances which, in the court’s view, created a legitimate expectation that his leave status would not be used as a disqualifying factor.
Justice Damulak concluded that the defendants acted in a manner inconsistent with fair administrative practice by departing from earlier treatment of the claimant without lawful justification.
The court therefore held: “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,” and ordered that his candidature be reconsidered in line with the applicable rules.