National Electric Power Authority V. Joseph Ango (2001)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

SALAMI, J.C.A.

In the Federal High Court of Justice sitting in Kaduna, the plaintiff instituted an action against the defendant claiming as follows:-

“(1) A declaration that the dismissal of the plaintiff by the defendant as contained in the letter reference No. 00227/ 2. 1/56/96 and dated 6/11/96 is null and void, ultra vires and of no effect.

(2) A declaration that the plaintiff was not given a fair hearing before his purported dismissal.

(3) A declaration that the plaintiff is still in the services of the defendant.

(4) An order directing the defendant to pay to the plaintiff all his arrears of salaries and allowances.

(5) An order directing the defendant to reinstate the plaintiff in its employment.

(6) A perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from dismissing, terminating or in any way tampering with the plaintiffs right to work with the defendant until he attains his retirement age.

(7) In the alternative to paragraphs 5 and 6 above:

(a) A declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to his pension and gratuity calculated up to the time the plaintiff shall have been due for retirement.

(b) A declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to his housing allowance and leave grant until he attains the age of retirement.

(c) The sum of N1,629,020.00 being special and general damages for unlawful dismissal.”

Pleadings were filed and exchanged. The plaintiff testified as the only witness in support of his claim. The defendant also called one witness in support of his defence. Thereafter, counsel addressed the court, before the learned trial Judge, in his reserved and considered judgment, acceded to the plaintiff’s claims. The defendant was unhappy with the decision and has appealed to this court on four original, and with leave of this court, five additional grounds of appeal.

Learned counsel, on behalf of the respective parties prepared, filed and served briefs of argument. At the hearing of the appeal, brief of argument prepared for the defendant (hereinafter referred to as appellant) by Oguneso was adopted and relied upon by A. Oyeyipo representing the appellant. Also at the hearing, the brief of argument of the plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as respondent) written by Asogwa was adopted on behalf of the respondent by Mr. Egwueme. Neither counsel elucidated on the briefs. Mr. Oyeyipo for appellant refused to be drawn into discussion of the purported notice of preliminary objection contained in the respondent’s brief. Mr. Egwueme also told the court that his instruction to hold Mr. Asogwa’s brief is limited to merely adopting the respondent’s brief and nothing more.