Simon Ansambe V. Bank of the North Ltd (2004)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

ALOMA MARIAM MUKHTAR, J.C.A.

In his amended statement of claim, which supercedes the writ of summons (See Lahan v. Lajoyetan 1972, 6 S.C. 190) the appellant who was a plaintiff in the High Court of Justice of Plateau State claimed from the defendant the following reliefs, emanating from wrongful dismissal:

(a) The sum of N1,711,844:20k being entitlements both accrued and accruable.

(b) The sum of N288,155,80k being general damages for unlawful dismissal.

The appellant/plaintiff’s case as per his statement of claim is that he was summarily dismissed vide a letter dated 18th December, 1991, by the respondent bank, whom he had served in various capacities from January, 1974, when he was appointed. According to the appellant, the purported dismissal was null, void and of no effect, as it was contrary to the provisions of the senior staff collective agreement of 28th November, 1990. The appellant enumerated all monetary claims he was deprived of on his dismissal, and his entitlement to the claims in the statement of claim.

The respondent/defendant in its further amended statement of defence denied most of the allegations in the appellant’s pleadings, and alleged that the plaintiff adopted a deliberate carelessness towards his official duties towards the end of his career to the extent that it had to serve him with a letter of caution. The respondent stated the various acts of misconduct which led to the summary dismissal of the appellant from its service. The plaintiff gave evidence in proof of his claim and closed his case. The respondent/defendant adduced evidence, and both counsel for the parties addressed the court.

The learned trial Judge after evaluating the evidence found the plaintiff’s claim not proved, and dismissed it. Unhappy with the dismissal, the plaintiff appealed to this court originally on 3 grounds of appeal which were increased to 5 vide the order of this court of 26/11/2003. In compliance with Order 6 rules (2) and (4) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2002.

Learned Counsel for the parties exchanged briefs of argument which were adopted at the hearing of the appeal. The appellant in his brief of argument raised three issues for determination, which read:
(1) Whether the purported dismissal is in conformity with the collective agreement and if not what is the validity of such a dismissal.

(2) Whether the allegations against the appellant were criminal in nature and if the allegations were criminal in nature, was the appellant given a fair hearing as required by law before his purported dismissal.

(3) Whether the appellant is entitled to the claims put forward by him.

In its own brief of argument the respondent raised the following three issues for determination:
(1) Whether the appellant’s dismissal was valid.
(2) Whether the appellant was denied fair hearing.
(3) Whether the appellant is entitled to any damages at all.

I will adopt the issues in the appellant’s brief of argument for the treatment of this appeal, and will start with issue (1) supra. The argument under this issue revolves around exhibit ‘A’, which learned Counsel for the appellant, has argued is a collective agreement which the parties are signatories to. Both parties have agreed that exhibit ‘A’ is binding on them. I will look at the said exhibit ‘A’ particularly Part II Article 4, which provides for disciplinary procedure later in the judgment.

Learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that the allegation contained in exhibit A14 and paragraph 11 of the respondent’s further amended statement of defence, which were not even proved at the trial, are not specified in article 4 of part II of exhibit ‘A’, but the pertinent question I would like to ask at this juncture is, did the appellant prove his own case, to warrant the shifting of the onus of proof. To do justice to this discussion, I will reproduce the relevant averments in the appellant’s amended statement of claim, and look at the relevant evidence supporting them.

These averments read:
(6) The purported dismissal of the plaintiff is null, void and of no effect whatsoever being contrary to the provision of the senior staff collective agreement as contained in the main collective agreement of 28th day of November, 1990.