International Drilling Company Nig. Ltd v. Moses Eyeimofe Ajijala (1976)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

OBASEKI, Ag. J.S.C. 

This is an appeal against the judgment delivered by Ovie-Whiskey, J., sitting at Warri in the High Court of the Mid-Western State of Nigeria, on the 20th day of October 1972, wherein he awarded the Plaintiff, now Respondent, the sum of 535:6s:3d as special damages for wrongful dismissal against the Defendants now Appellants.  Against this decision, the Defendants/Appellants have brought this appeal on 5 grounds which read as follows:-

(1) The learned trial Judge erred in law when he held that the Plaintiff was wrongfully dismissed.
(2)The learned trial Judge erred in law when he construed exhibit A (The Service Agreement) by applying a general principle of law relating to a yearly contract having no provision for its termination during it tenure, whereas the parties to exhibit “A” have expressly provided that it could be terminated at any time during its currency.

Alternatively
The learned trial Judge erred in law and did not rightly construe clause 6 when he held that the 2 weeks pay in lieu of notice could not be given before the end of the period of a year service.
(3)The learned trial Judge erred in law when he held that the Plaintiff was entitled to more than 2 weeks pay in lieu of notice.
(4)The learned trial Judge erred in law when he awarded 535:6:3d special damages to the Plaintiff because the calculation was based on a wrong premise.
(5)The judgments is against the weight of evidence.
The facts of the case disclosed in the pleadings and the evidence may be stated as follows:

The Plaintiff/Respondent was employed by the Defendant/Appellant on the 16th day of January 1971 as a Camp Boss on a salary of 40:=N= a month under a service agreement  exhibit A, which provided, inter alia, in clause 6 that the agreement may be terminated at any time during its tenure by either party giving to the other 2 weeks notice of termination in writing or payment of 2 weeks wages in lieu of notice by the employers.

The Plaintiff/Respondent served till March 17, 1972 when the Defendant/Appellant served him with a letter of dismissal, exhibit C, effective from March 16, 1972. In the last paragraph of the letter, he was advised to report at the payroll department for his final settlement and documentation. He did report and was offered 2 weeks salary in lieu of notice without other accrued benefits. He rejected the offer and, however, took out a writ of summons claiming the sum of 2,385 whereof 2,350 was claimed special damages and 35:=N= as general damages.

The Defendants/Appellants on being served with the writ of summons in this case paid 44:12:3d into Court in satisfaction of the claim.

Of this 44:12:3d, 20 was for 2 weeks salary in lieu of notice, 44:12:3d was proportionate leave pay for 3 days at 1:10:9d per day and the balance of 20 to cover leaving gratuity calculated at 2 weeks salary on half basic monthly salary (after about 1 years service).

Earlier on the day he was served with the letter of dismissal; he had been given exhibit E, an antedated letter of posting to Tender III as camp boss with effect from 13th March 1972. The letter was dated 11th March 1972. It was while he was waiting to report to his boss about the new posting that the letter of dismissal was served on him.
The ground for the dismissal is apparent on the face of the letter which reads:

Dear Mr. Ajijala,

In view of your past actions and conduct on Rig 52, we have decided to dispense with your services and, therefore, effective March 16, 1972.  Your services are no longer required by the International Drilling Company (Nigeria) Limited.

But it has been decided that after a period of approximately 1 month, the Drilling Superintendent will review your case as to whether we can offer you another position with this Company. Upon receipt of this letter you should report to the payroll department for your final settlement and documentation.

But Mr. David Owivri, the Personnel Officer of the Defendants/Appellants, who was the only witness called to testify by them, gave a different ground for the Plaintiff/Respondents dismissal from their service which the learned
“Before proceeding further with this matter, I would like to put it on record that I do not believe the evidence of the only witness called on behalf of the defendant Company when he said that the appointment of the Plaintiff was terminated because he disobeyed the order of his employers by refusing to be transferred to an oil rig by the name “Tender III” stationed at Enerhen.  This piece of evidence is wholly untrue because exhibit C, the letter of termination, did not make mention of it.”
The learned trial Judge after a detailed review of the evidence, held that the Plaintiff/Respondent was entitled to be paid what he would have earned from 16th march 1972 to 15th January 1973 less any sum that he in fact earned between these dates and tabulated the entitlements s follows: –
S          D
(a)Basic salary at 40 per month from
16/3/72 to 31/3/72                          20           =          =

(b)Basic salary at 40 per month from April
1972 to December 1972                           60            =          =