Nigerian Produce Marketing Board v. A.O. Adewunmi (1972)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

FATAYI-WILLIAMS, J.S.C.

In the Lagos High Court in Suit No. LD/346/68, the respondent as plaintiff claimed from the defendants the sum of 330,000 pounds as damages for wrongful dismissal from the defendants employment as their sales officer on the 4th May, 1968. He also claimed, in the alternative, a declaration that the said dismissal by the defendants is “illegal, null and void, and of no effect. ”

Paragraphs 26–28 of the statement of claim filed by the plaintiff read:-

“26. The plaintiff has never at any time acted in breach of the terms, expressed or implied, of his employment with the defendants.

27. The plaintiff will contend at the trial of this action that his dismissal was against the principles of natural justice.
28. The plaintiff will further contend at the trial of this action that the review undertaken by the Board of Directors of the defendants is in excess of its power, and that the members who attended the meeting of the Board of Directors on the day this case was ‘reviewed’ acted maliciously.

WHEREUPON the plaintiff claims as follows:-

(a) Loss of gratuity and/or non-contributory fund 10,000.00

(b) Loss of salary withheld by the defendants during the period of suspension, i.e. 1st November, 1967 to 20th Nvember, 1967 …. 56pounds.3s.4dGeneral Damages

(c) Damages not already covered under (a) and (b) above , .. 19,943pounds.6s.8d”

After reviewing the evidence adduced by both parties, the learned trial judge, in a reserved judgment, found inter alia, as follows:-

“On the evidence before me I find that the directors of the company when dealing with the plaintiff’s case did not observe the principles of natural justice and that they acted ultra vires. The dismissal was therefore wrongful and I award the sum of 4,500pounds as damages in respect of the non-contributory provident fund which would be due to the plaintiff. I consider this amount to be reasonable as the plaintiff is comparatively young and could still get another suitable employment. I refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Electricity Corporation of Nigeria v. George Nicol, S.c. 591/1966 of 3/6/68 unreported. Also Manubens v. Leon [1919] 2 K.B. p. 208 and Salt v. Power Plant Co. Ltd. [1936] 2 All E.R. p. 322.

I award the sum of 56pounds.13s.4d. loss of salary, and 1,000punds as general damages in favour of the plaintiff, with 100 guineas costs.”

In the appeal now before us, Mr. Lardner who appeared for the defendants/appellants informed us, quite rightly we think, that he had no complaint against the finding of the learned trial judge that the defendants/appellants were liable for wrongful dismissal. His main complaint, and indeed the only complaint, was about the quantum of damages awarded. His main grounds of appeal in this respect, all of which he argued together, read:-

“1. On the question of award of damages the learned trial judge misdirected himself in law and on the evidence by failing to make certain essential and definite findings of fact, to wit,

(a) whether the contract of service of the plaintiff was determinable only on his attaining the age of 55;