Ibrahim Geidam V. National Electric Power Authority (2000)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

MUHAMMAD, J.C.A. 

: The plaintiff at the Borno State High Court (Court below) sitting at Maiduguri, took a specially indorsed writ of summons with the following claims against the defendant, that is to say:

“(i) A declaration that the purported dismissal of the plaintiff by the defendant from its employment vide the letter with reference No.0221/2.1/035/90 of 24/1/90 is wrongful, null and void;

(ii) N500,000 damages;

(iii) N692.58k per month as arrears of salary and allowances from March 1990 until judgment.

(iv) Interest at 10% on the judgment sum from date of judgment until final payment; and

(v) The cost of the suit.”

The background facts giving rise to the above claims are that the plaintiff was employed as a store man by the defendant in October, 1973 with the plaintiff’s service deemed to be continuous from the 28th day of July, 1969, being the date of plaintiff’s original employment with the Electricity Corporation of Nigeria which was reconstituted as NEPA in 1972. The plaintiff rose to the post of Executive Officer in the employment of the defendant at a salary of N3,586.00k per annum. On the 19th day of September, 1989, the plaintiff was given a query regarding theft of 1009 Meters of 500mm single core under ground cable, which were defendant’s properties. The plaintiff replied the query denying involvement in the theft alleged. The defendant set up an Ad-hoc Disciplinary Committee in October 1989 to investigate the allegation. The plaintiff appeared before the Committee. He testified. He denied any involvement in the theft alleged. Earlier to the setting up of the Ad-hoc Committee, the plaintiff was arrested and detained for five days by the Nigeria Police Sokoto. There was an attempt to prosecute the plaintiff along with others before a Sokoto Chief Magistrate Court. Plaintiff was later cleared by the Police of the offences alleged. After having considered the Adhoc Committees’g report the defendant dismissed the plaintiff from its employment as per defendant’s letter Ref. No. 00221/2.1/035/90 of 24th January 1990, received by the plaintiff on the 2nd of March, 1990.

Aggrieved with the action taken by the defendant, the plaintiff resorted to taking the writ of summons referred to above.

Pleadings were earlier on filed and exchanged. Issues were joined and hearing commenced. The plaintiff testified on his own behalf and closed his case. Two witnesses testified in favour of the defendant. Opportunity was given to learned counsel for the defendant to address the court. There was no address from the defence. Learned counsel for the plaintiff however, addressed the court below later. The learned trial Chief Judge, Kolo, J. after having evaluated the evidence adduced before him and counsel’s submission, entered judgment for the plaintiff by awarding N40,000.00 (forty thousand Naira) as general damages for the wrongful dismissal of the plaintiff and N1,000.00 (one thousand Naira) costs, all against the defendant. Two sets of appeals were filed by the parties: The plaintiff as appellant in the main appeal, filed his Notice and grounds of appeal against the judgment on 22/4/94. That Notice of Appeal contained five grounds of appeal. A notice of cross-appeal was filed by the defendant as cross-appellant. The Notice of cross-appeal contained four grounds of appeal.

Briefs were filed and exchanged in respect of the main appeal. Briefs in respect of the cross-appeal were as well filed by the respective parties.

The appeals were heard by this court simultaneously. Learned counsel for the appellant/cross-respondent adopted and relied on his briefs; had nothing more to add and urged the court to allow the appeal and dismiss the cross-appeal. Learned counsel for the respondent/cross-appellant adopted and relied on his briefs. He urged us to dismiss the appeal and allow the cross-appeal.

I think I should take the arguments on the appeal one after the other. In the brief filed, learned counsel for the appellant formulated an issue for determination:

“Whether the Hon. Chief Judge was right in not ordering the reinstatement of the appellant to his job instead of granting monetary award only in view of the pleadings, evidence and the direct findings made in the case”. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, formulated two issues: