O. U. Iyase V. University of Benin Teaching Hospital Management Board (1999)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

IBIYEYE, J.C.A.

This appeal is against the decision of Idahosa J., of the Edo State High Court sitting in Benin in Suit No. B/371/94 wherein the appellant as plaintiff sued the respondent as defendant claiming reliefs which are particularised in his writ of summons and re-iterated as formulated in paragraph 23 of the Amended Statement of Claim. Paragraph 23 of the Amended Statement of Claim reads:-

“23. Whereof the Plaintiff claims as follows:-

1. A declaration that the termination of the appointment of the plaintiff by the Defendants (sic) from their employment before the retiring age of 55 years was unconstitutional, null and void.
2. A declaration that the Plaintiff is still in the service of the Defendants (sic) and entitled to be re-instated to the office of post (sic) or position he held before the purported termination of his appointment or to any other appropriate or comparative office or post or position.
3. An order directing the Defendants (sic) to re-instate the plaintiff to their employment with all full benefits and entitlements with effect from 15th July, 1992.
4. Any other reliefs:’

The case was tried on pleadings filed and exchanged by the parties. The pleadings were the eventual Amended Statement of Claim and the Statement of Defence. At the trial, the plaintiff was the only witness who testified in support of his claims as reflected in the Amended Statement of Claim. The defendant, at the close of the plaintiff’s case, did not call evidence in support of its defence. It instead rested its defence on the evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiff.

The plaintiff’s case at the trial was that he was employed as a security man on 15/10/75 by the defendant which is a Federal Government parastatal situate in Benin City. He rose progressively from the post of security man on probation being a junior cadre to the office of Assistant Security officer on 1/10/88 being a Senior Cadre. He remained in this position until his appointment was terminated on 15/7/92. He went on to testify and identify the several documents he pleaded in his paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 8 and 10 of the Amended Statement of Claim. The thirteen documents are in evidence as exhibits A to N. Exhibit A is a booklet on the conditions of Service while exhibit B is titled “Offer of Appointment” which apparently contains the conditions of service. Exhibit C is the letter confirming the appointment of the appellant while exhibits D,E,F,G,H,J and K dealt with promotions, regrading and attendant remunerations. Exhibits L, M and N were in respect of invitation to appear before a committee of inquiry. Exhibits P and Q are letters which related to the interdiction of the appellant while exhibits R and R1 are letters of protest to the respondent’s letter of termination (exhibit O) to the appellant’s appointment. It should be noted that exhibit O is a product of cross-examination. Learned counsel for both parties addressed the trial Court. In a considered judgment, the learned trial judge partly gave judgment to the appellant by allowing only relief No. 1 and dismissing reliefs No. 2 and 3 in the appellant’s claim in the following terms:

“In the result. Plaintiff’s action succeeds in part as follows:-

(a) It is hereby declared that the termination of Plaintiff’s appointment by Defendant before the retiring age of 55 years was null and void.

(b) The declaration and order sought in paragraphs 22(2) and (3) of the Statement of Claim (sic) are hereby refused and dismissed.

(c) The Defendant is hereby ordered to pay the plaintiff his terminal benefits in accordance with exhibit A for his years of service.

(d)… (nor relevant)…”

The plaintiff was aggrieved by that judgment and has appealed to this Court on just one ground of appeal. The only ground of appeal reads:-

“1. The learned trial Judge having declared the termination of the Plaintiff (sic) as null and void, erred in law in refusing to grant reliefs “2 and 3″.

Particulars of Error

1. The Court found that the Defendant did not follow the laid down procedure in terminating the appoint (sic) of the Plaintiff.
2. Having so found he would have upheld the re-instatement of the Plaintiff as claimed in reliefs 2 and 3.
3. Having found that the termination was null and void the Court was wrong in ordering the payment of one month’s salary in lieu of notice as at the time of termination.

Relief Sought From Court of Appeal