The Applicant alleged that by a letter and memoranda dated 14th April, 2017, 4th May, 2017 and 23rd May, 2017 respectively, he wrote to the Board of Directors of the Respondent protesting of the fraudulent acts and irregularities that marred the recruitment exercise. That the Respondent in response expressed its satisfaction with the way and manner the said recruitment exercise was conducted. The Applicant avers that in a bid to seek amicable redress in respect of the said recruitment exercise and injustice meted on him, he requested the Respondent to invoke a mediation mechanism for the settlement in accordance with Article 76 and 77 of its staff rules and regulations. That rather than addressing the Applicant’s complaints, the Respondent summarily and capriciously terminated his appointment without due process and without affording him any opportunity to defend himself. That the said termination of the Applicant’s appointment is an oppressive retaliation from the management of the Respondent against him for exposing the fraudulent activities during the recruitment exercise. That the Respondent having received the letters from his solicitors, is yet to redress his complaint and reinstate him. The Applicant therefore claims the following reliefs: 1. A DECLARATION that the Respondent acted arbitrarily, capriciously and in breach of the Applicant’s right to fair hearing when the Respondent terminated the Applicant’s appointment with the Respondent in May, 2017 without having given the Applicant notice of allegations of any wrong doing and the opportunity of defending himself before the Applicant’s appointment was terminated. 5 | P a g e