Augustine F.i. Ibama V.shell Petroleum Development Company Of Nigeria Limited (2005)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

MOHAMMED, J.S.C.

The plaintiff, now the appellant in this court was employed by the defendant now respondent on 22-11-1969. After serving the required number of years, his appointment was confirmed. As a confirmed officer, he continued to earn regular promotions until he attained the rank of a senior staff on 1-2-1980. Being a senior pensionable staff of the defendant’s company, the plaintiff was due to retire on 25-9-1992 on reaching the retiring age of 55 years as was duly communicated to him by the defendant’s letter dated 27-11-1990. As part of the preparation for the retirement, the plaintiff attended a pre-retirement seminar arranged by the defendant for its officers between 22-9-1991 at Benin City. The plaintiff who served the defendant for over 22 years diligently was expecting to retire on 25-9-1992 on attaining the age of 55 years.

However, barely just over a month after attending the pre-retirement seminar, by a letter dated 13-11-1991, the defendant terminated the plaintiff’s employment with an offer of 3 months basic salary in lieu of notice. In pursuance of the termination of employment, the defendant paid into the plaintiff’s bank account the sum of N105,385.30 being his total terminal benefits due from the defendant. The plaintiffs efforts to have the action taken against him on the termination of his employment reversed by the defendant through his learned counsel having failed, he headed to the High Court of Justice of Rivers State at Port-Harcourt for redress.

In his amended statement of claim dated 10-6-1992, the plaintiff claimed against the defendant in paragraph 19 thereof, the following reliefs –

“19(i) A declaration that the purported termination or release of the plaintiff from the defendant’s service without proof of any misconduct against the plaintiff is null and void and of no effect.

(ii) A declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to continue his employment in the defendant’s service until he attains the retirement age of 55 years on 25th September, 1992, and to all retirement benefits and pension for life.

(iii) An injunction restraining the defendant or any person acting on its behalf from annulling the employment of the plaintiff with the defendant until he retires on 25-9-1992.

(iv) Alternatively the plaintiff claim from the defendant the sum of N2,135,545.27 (two million, one hundred and thirty-five thousand, five hundred and forty five naira twenty seven kobo) being the balance of the plaintiff’s claim against the defendant as summarized in paragraph 17 herein after deducting of plaintiff’s indebtedness to the defendant in the sum of N 18,653.30 (eighteen thousand six hundred and fifty three naira thirty kobo) for wrongful termination of employment.

(v) The defendant pays between 20% and 23% interest on plaintiff’s money in its keeping. The plaintiff claims interest on N2,135,545.27 (two million one hundred and thirty-five thousand, five hundred and forty-five naira, twenty seven kobo) at the rate of 20% until the said amount or any part found due to plaintiff is paid.”

In its defence, the defendant filed a statement of defence in which it maintained that the termination of the defendant’s appointment was in order. The case proceeded to trial before Akere, J. where the plaintiff alone testified in support of his claims while the defendant also called only one witness who testified in support of its case. At the end of the hearing, the learned trial Judge in his judgment delivered on 11-10-1993, found that the plaintiff’s employment was wrongfully terminated and awarded him three months salary and other usual monthly allowances for three months including bonus and leave allowance. All other claims of the plaintiff were however dismissed.

Dissatisfied with this decision of the trial High Court, the plaintiff, who shall now continue to refer to as the appellant in this judgment, appealed against the decision to the Court of Appeal, Port-Harcourt Division which after hearing the appeal, in its judgment delivered on 19-2-1998, dismissed the appeal.

Aggrieved by this decision of the Court of Appeal, the appellant has further appealed to this court upon 5 grounds of appeal contained in his notice of appeal dated 11-5-1998 and filed on 14-5-1998. Pursuant to the rules of this court, the pat1ies through their respective learned counsel duly filed and exchanged briefs of argument comprising the appellant’s brief, the respondent’s brief and the appellant’s reply brief respectively.

In the appellant’s brief of argument, 3 issues for determination were formulated from the 5 grounds of appeal filed by the appellant.

The issues are –