Union Bank Of Nigeria Limited Vs Chukwuelo Charles Ogboh (1995)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

BELGORE, J.S.C.

The plaintiff/respondent was employed in 1957 as a clerk by the defendant/appellant. He rose after many courses organised by the bank to become an assistant manager. On 30th January 1984, he received a letter of dismissal with effect from 24th January, 1984. Respondent then sued and got judgment in default of appearance of the appellant, as defendant, whereby trial court took the evidence of the plaintiff only. An application to set aside the judgment was refused by trial court. However on appeal the Court of Appeal set aside the judgment and ordered a retrial by another Judge of Kaduna High Court.

At the first trial, the respondent’s claim (as plaintiff ) was for special damages as follows:

(a) Plaintiff’s gratuity for 26 years commencing from 1957 when he was employed by the defendant up to the date of dismissal………………….. N29 ,387 .00

(b) Plaintiff’s gratuity for 9 years commencing from the date of dismissal up to the date of retirement N10,172.00

(c) Plaintiff’s basic salaries for 9 years, commencing from the date of dismissal up to the date of retirement at N11 ,303.00 per annum …………… N10,727.00

Total N141,287.70

When the matter started de novo at the High Court the plaintiff changed his claim in an amended statement of claim. A party may amend his pleadings at any stage of trial before judgment. But the amendment of Statement of Claim in this matter was substantial. He abandoned all the claims in the original writ of statement of claim and made the following his ultimate claim:

“(a) A declaration that the dismissal of the plaintiff contained in a letter dated 30/1/84 from the services of the defendant Bank with effect from 24/1/84 is unlawful in that it is against the principles of natural justice, ultra vires, and of no effect.

(b) A declaration that the plaintiff is still in the service of the defendant Bank and that he is entitled to his full remunerations and leave bonus since his dismissal.

(c) A declaration that the plaintiff is also entitled to all his dues as an employee of the defendant Bank”.

(d) A declaration that the plaintiff who is an employee of the defendant Bank be immediately re-instated by the Bank.”

The new case before the High Court was therefore a complete departure from the previous one that the Court of Appeal ordered to be tried de novo. The trial court heard evidence and of most importance are three exhibits to wit. Exhibit 1 dismissing the respondent, Exhibit 3 being the collective agreement between the appellant’s employees and the appellant as terms of employments and Exhibit 5 the letter appointing the respondent as a manager. The respondent as plaintiff in his evidence claimed his summary dismissal violated Exhibit 3, terms of employment also known as Procedural Agreement, earlier referred to. Article 5 of Exhibit 3 lists instances that

will justify summary dismissal as in this case. Exhibit 1, the letter dismissing the respondent merely stated as follows: