Adesoye Olanlege V. Afro Continental Nigeria Limited (1996)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

OGWUEGBU, J.S.C. 

The plaintiff who is the appellant in this court brought an action in the High Court of Lagos State against the respondent in this court claiming the sum of N1,353,878.00 being damages for breach of contract to provide employment for him up to retirement age of sixty years.

The basis of the claim is the plaintiff’s assumption that his contract of employment guaranteed him security of tenure up to retiring age of sixty years. The amount claimed covered salary, allowances and other benefits for the next ten years from the date of his termination until he attained the age of sixty years.

The learned trial Judge Olusola Thomas, J. dismissed the plaintiff’s claim for damages for breach of contract to be provided employment up to the age of sixty years. His appeal to the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division also failed and he has further appealed to this court.

Before I go into the issues for determination in the appeal, it is better I state the facts of the case. According to the plaintiff, the Chairman/Chief Executive of the defendant’s company (Mr. Gaon) agreed with him orally on the conditions of his employment as Chief Accountant of the defendant/company. He later received a letter from the Managing Director of the defendant embodying the oral agreement – (Exhibit “A”).

The plaintiff wrote a qualified letter of acceptance to the Managing Director of the defendant in reply to Exhibit “A”. The said reply was admitted in evidence as Exhibit “B”. It was endorsed to Mr. Gaon (Chairman of the defendant/company). The plaintiff in Exhibit “B” raised three points which were part of the oral agreement but were not contained in Exhibit “A”. He said that Mr. Gaon confirmed the three points and promised to reduce them to writing but the Managing Director at the time never did so before he left the country on 13:11:77.

He further testified that on 13:2:78 Mr. Gaon wrote an internal memo to Mr. Ventura the new Managing Director confirming the three points raised in Exhibit “B” and asked Mr. Ventura to regularise the situation. The memo, which was endorsed to him was admitted in evidence as Exhibit “C”. The plaintiff was later seconded to Niger Cafe and the letter to that effect addressed to the Board of Directors of Niger Cafe was also endorsed to him – Exhibit “D”. By Exhibit “E”, the plaintiff was recalled to the defendant’s company.

On his return to the defendant/company, his post had been offered to someone else. He complained to the Chairman who told him to wait until December 1980, when he hoped a new Shipping Company would be commenced. The plaintiff said he was given a small office, not given any work but his salaries and allowances were paid regularly, This situation according to the plaintiff continued until he left the defendant’s company. There were exchanges of correspondence between the plaintiff and Mr. Gaon between 1:4:81 and 9:9:81 when he received a letter of termination Exhibit “J”.

The plaintiff’s reply to Exhibit “J” is Exhibit “K” and this was followed by Exhibit “K” to “Q”. The plaintiff testified that he was born on 6:11:38 and would be sixty years on 6:11:98. He tendered a Statutory Declaration of Age – Exhibit “L”,

Mr. Gaon testified as D.W.1. He stated that he proposed to the plaintiff the conditions of employment as financial manager and that the conditions were spelt out in a letter written to the plaintiff offering him the appointment Exhibit “A” and that the plaintiff took up the post. The witness could not recall having seen Exhibit “B” as it was addressed to the Managing Director of the defendant’s company and that the latter must have received it. He testified that the plaintiff wrote Exhibit “C” and asked him to sign it and give it to the Managing Director for implementation. This letter was given to him just before his departure from Nigeria. He read it hurriedly, signed it and told the plaintiff to give it to the Managing Director. According to the witness:

“No action was taken by the Managing Director because since then and immediately thereafter, the Managing Director reported to me that Mr. Olanlege is an agitator, that he does not get along with the staff whether Nigerian or expatriate and that it was a question of removing him completely from the company.”

He further testified that even though he read and signed Exhibit “C” in a hurry, he did not see anything in it that varied from the normal terms of engagement of staff and it did not bring innovation to the normal conditions. He dismissed the claim of the plaintiff that their discussion on his conditions of service was for employment up to the age of sixty years and for payment of salary up to that age as ridiculous. He admitted that Exhibit “C” was an internal memo and was not implemented by the Managing Director.

The D.W.1. ended his examination-in-chief by saying:

“I have already said that we dispensed with the plaintiff’s employment because he was agitating in the company even though I sent him to Nigercafe with a higher post to manage the company, the Nigercafe Board of Directors felt they could not keep him because he was not productive.”