P.C. Imoloame V. West African Examinations Council (1992)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

A. G. KARIBI-WHYTE, J.S.C

The main argument in this appeal was based on the contention that the Appellant as Acting Principal Assistant Registrar and the Branch Controller of the Respondent Council is an officer with statutory flavour; accordingly his dismissal without compliance with the relevant enabling statutory provisions was ineffectual; and therefore void. Appellant therefore asked for reinstatement or in the alternative damages for breach for wrongful dismissal in an action against the Respondent.

Respondent Council had dismissed the appellant from the employment relying on the adverse findings on his conduct in his employment made in three Commissions of Inquiry set up to inquire into the conduct and activities of members of staff of the Respondent. Appellant then caused to issue a writ of summons against the respondent, claiming as follows –

“(1) Libel contained in the Defendant’s letter dated 9th August, 1978, in which the Defendant falsely and maliciously typed and published of and concerning the plaintiff the words following that is to say:’

The charge against you was that as the Officer in charge of the Enugu Office of the Council in Nigeria, you adopted fraudulent means in hiring taxis and other vehicles for conveying question papers sometime before the leakage.’

(2) Wrongful dismissal of the plaintiff from the employment of the Defendant.”

The action was tried on pleadings. Parties filed and served their pleadings. Oral and documentary evidence was led at the trial. It is important to refer to paragraphs 1, 2, 11 and 14 of the plaintiff’s amended statement of claim, admitted by the defendant. They are as follows-

“1.’ The Plaintiff was at all times relevant to this action an employee of the Defendants and as at the time of the purported dismissal of the plaintiff he held the position of an acting Principal Assistant Registrar.

2. At all material times relevant to this action the defendants were and still are responsible for the conduct and marking of examinations papers, engaged the plaintiff on the 1st April, 1961.
3. The Plaintiff contend that it is against the principles of Natural Justice to allow the said Mr. M.O. Ekperokun to participate on any of panels set up by the Defendants for the purpose of investigating the same issue and also to give evidence against the plaintiff on the issues on Examination Leakages Tribunal set up by the Federal Military Government of Nigeria.
4. The Plaintiff shall contend at the trial of this action that to allow the same man Mr. M.O. Ekperokun to sit as a Judge at the International Administrative and Finance Committee of Justice, oppressive, vindictive and against the Principle of Natural Justice.”

These averments are admissions that appellant is an employee of the respondent and that in 1974 and 1975 he was the Branch Controller of the respondent in Enugu.

Paragraph 15 is an admission of the publication claimed to be defamatory. Paragraph 11 is an admission that respondent purported to have dismissed appellant from his employment. All the other averments were denied. Respondents still contend that there were irregularities in the hiring of vehicles, and joined issues with the appellant in respect of the averments in paragraphs 4-19 of the Statement of Claim.

The learned Chief Judge considered the evidence before him and in his judgment, held that appellant having failed to lead evidence on the question of defamation on which issue was joined, that claim failed and was accordingly dismissed. He then considered the issue of wrongful dismissal of the appellant from the employment of the respondent. The learned Chief Judge referred to the admission by defendants of paragraphs 1 and 3 of the amended statement of claim and to Exhibit M, the condition of service of the respondent binding on the parties. He then referred to paragraph 9.10 of “Exhibit M” relating to the dismissal of employees in “Exhibit M”, and held that the evidence before him did not disclose that defendant complied with the provision, particularly (a) -(d), he then held.

“The defendant merely proceeded to implement the accepted recommendation of the Examination Leakages Tribunal communicated to it by the Federal Government as if it was a command. There to my mind was where the defendant went off the rail and committed itself in breach of contract of service with the plaintiff.”

In considering whether appellant was entitled to the declaration sought, the learned Chief Judge held that he was. He cited for his authority, Bankole v. NBC (1968) 1 All NLR 372. He then went on to consider Adedeji v. Police Service Commission (1968) NMLR. 103 and held that the facts of the case were identical where the court declared the letter dismissing the applicant as inoperative, void and of no effect. He distinguished Dr. Sofekun v. Civil Service Commission (1980) 5-7 S.C. 1.

The learned Chief Judge then claimed to be exercising, his discretion to grant the declaration for wrongful dismissal, and said;