Electricity Corporation Of Nigeria V George Nicol (1968)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

ADEMOLA, C.J.N.

This Is an appeal by the Electricity Corporation of Nigeria against the judgment of Ikpeazu J., in the High Court of Lagos, in an action where the learned judge awarded the sum of £3,100 in favour of the respondent for wrongful dismissal and also the sum of £1,550 being half of the salary of the respondent unpaid for a period of one year when he was suspended from work A counter-claim filed by the appellant was dismissed but there is no appeal against this dismissal.

The respondent also filed a cross-appeal for various sums of money claimed by him in his amended Statement of Claim which sums were not awarded him by the learned judge, namely:

(a) a sum of £8,100 being loss of rent he would have collected in his own personal house less £2,028 payable as rent in respect of the corporation”s house – £6,072.

(b) Loss of Pension £15,000.

(c) Loss of Gratuity £3,100.

The plaintiff was employed as Secretary to the Corporation on the 14th day of December 1960, and worked in that capacity until October 1963, when he was suspended. Earlier, and indeed from November 1958 until December 1960, he was on acting appointment as Secretary to the Corporation having been seconded from the Government service where he had worked for two years. A year after his suspension from the services of the Corporation, and indeed in October 1964, he was dismissed. He brought an action for wrongful dismissal and was awarded damages.

The Electricity Corporation has appealed against these awards and five grounds of appeal were originally filed. Later, a motion was filed to argue additional grounds of appeal, and nine additional grounds of appeal were filed shortly before the hearing, but three grounds, namely grounds 5, 6 and 9 were objected to by counsel for the respondent. During the arguments which ensued the appellants’ counsel withdrew ground No. 9 as it was never pleaded in the court below that the decision of the Chairman of the Board when he dismissed the respondent was later ratified by the Board. After hearing arguments on both sides, we decided we would not hear arguments on grounds 5 (b) and 6 (a) and in regard to ground 5 (a) the court ruled that the appellants counsel will be restricted in his argument to the ground that the regulations governing appointments generally into the services of the Corporation expressly did not apply to the office of the respondent. It was ruled that counsel could not go beyond this ambit.

It is appropriate at this stage to give a resume of the facts. The respondent a legal practitioner was employed in the Government service in November 1956. Two years later, and indeed in November 1958, he was transferred on secondment from the public service to the service of the Corporation as its legal adviser.

In December, 1960, in response to his application for the advertised post of the Secretary to the Corporation he was accepted and appointed to that post and commenced his work as Secretary to the Corporation as from the 14th December 1960. By virtue of that office he was the head of his department. The plain-tiff/respondent claims that by the terms of his appointment he was subject to the regulations and conditions of service of the corporation which came into force on 1st January 1960, a copy of which was put in evidence and marked exhibit A. On the 28th October 1963, he was suspended from carrying out his normal duties by the Chairman of the Corporation without specifying his offence, but a letter later received by him dated 28th October 1963, and signed by the Chairman alleged he was being suspended on account of series of irregularities. It was stated in the letter that “a full and proper investigation of the circumstances surrounding the irregularities will be carried out,” and until such time he was to cease discharging his duties as Secretary; he was to desist from coming to the office and was to deliver up all the keys and files of the Corporation. His pay or salary would be halved, and this would be paid to him regularly on demand.

On the 26th October 1964, the Chairman served him with a letter of dismissal (exhibit J) the contents of which are as follows:-

Electricity Headquarters,

24-25 Marina, Lagos.

26th October, 1964