Friday U. Abalogu V. The Shell Petroleum Development Company Of Nigeria Limited (2003)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

I. IGUH, J.S.C.

By a writ of summons issued on the 12th day of September, 1995, the plaintiff, who is the appellant herein, instituted an action against the defendant, who is now the respondent, at the Warri Judicial Division of the High Court of Justice, Delta State, claiming as per paragraph 26 of his statement of claim as follows:-

“1. A declaration that the defendant’s letter dated 31st January, 1995 addressed to the plaintiff purporting to terminate his employment with the defendant is null and void and/or ineffective to terminate the plaintiff’s said employment in view of the special circumstances pleaded herein, including the defendant’s earlier letter dated 25th January, 1995, entitling the plaintiff to his normal retirement and end of service benefits and/or consequential vested rights.

2. A declaration that the plaintiff’s employment with the defendant does not terminate and/or come to an end until 3rd August, 1996.
3. A declaration that plaintiff is entitled to:-

(a) Normal salaries/allowances from 2nd February, 1995 to 3rd August, 1996, when he will have effectively retired from the service of the defendant, the total sum being N1,903,672.10 (One million, nine hundred and three thousand, six hundred and seventy-two naira, ten kobo).

(b) Gratuity of N972,663.82 (nine hundred and seventy-two thousand, six hundred and sixty-three naira, eighty-two kobo).

(c) Normal pension lump sum of N1,438,326.50 (One million, four hundred and thirty-eight thousand, three hundred and twenty-six naira, fifty kobo).

(d) Monthly pension of N36,474.90 (thirty-six thousand, four hundred and seventy-four thousand, ninety kobo) being N437,698.08 (four, hundred and thirty seven thousand, six hundred and ninety-eight naira eight kobo) per annum with effect from 4th August, 1996.

4. An order directing the defendant to pay to the plaintiff the sums and/or entitlements claimed, as specified and particularised in reliefs 3(a) – (d) above.
5. Any further relief and/or other order as this Honourable Court may deem fit to grant and/or make in the circumstances.”

Pleadings were ordered in the suit and were duly settled, filed and exchanged.

At the subsequent trial, the plaintiff testified on his own behalf and tendered several documents in support of his case.

The defendant, for its own part, called no evidence but rested its case on the evidence led on behalf of the plaintiff.

The plaintiff’s case, put shortly, is that on the 3rd day of May, 1971, he was employed by the defendant as an assistant supervisor as indicated in his letter of employment, exhibit A. Under his contract of employment, the plaintiff was placed on probation for one year, at the end of which his appointment was subsequently confirmed by the defendant with effect from the 3rd day of May, 1972. Thereafter be became a permanent and pensionable staff of the defendant.

The plaintiff claimed that he rendered diligent and satisfactory services to the defendant as a result of which he was promoted to job group level 7 in 1974 as per exhibit C. However, a formal written contract of employment between the defendant and himself was not executed until the 1st day of May, 1974. This contract of service which was duly executed by the parties was tendered in evidence as exhibit D. The defendant’s “Information Hand Book” and “End of Service Benefits” issued for the information of its staff were also tendered as exhibits E and F respectively.

The plaintiff, on the completion of his 20 years’ service with the defendant in 1991 was issued with a “Certificate of Long Service”, exhibit H, and a “Long Service Award”, exhibit J. He also explained that the defendant by a letter to him dated the 25th January, 1995, exhibit N, intimated him that he was due to retire from service on the attainment of his 55th birthday on the 3rd August, 1996.

However, by another letter dated the 31st January, 1995, exhibit O, the defendant purportedly terminated his employment. When all efforts by the plaintiff through his solicitor to prevail on the defendant to withdraw the letter of termination, exhibit O, failed, the plaintiff instituted the present action against the defendant claiming as above stated.