Jos University Teaching Hospital & Anor. V. Dr. Chris O. Ajeh (2006)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

TSAMIYA, J.C.A.

This is an appeal against the ruling and judgment of the High Court of Justice, Plateau State, sitting in Jos, delivered by Naron, J., dated 27/7/98 in suit No. PLD/J/4/79. At the trial court the appellants were the defendants while the respondent herein was the plaintiff.

The facts that led to this appeal are briefly as follows:

The respondent, as plaintiff at the trial instituted an action against the defendants claiming.

“(a) A declaration that the decision of the appellant to dismiss/or terminate his appointment (vide letters marked exhibits 4 and 6 dated 31/1/94 and 9/8/94 respectively) from employment of the first defendant is unconstitutional, illegal, unlawful, null and void and is of no effect whatsoever,

(b) An order re-instating him into his post of Senior Registrar II with effect from 31/1/94 and payments of all his salaries and allowances as well as promotions,”

From the statement of claim, the plaintiff is a Senior Registrar II in Psychiattic Department in the employment of the first defendant.

The second defendant is the Chief Medical Director with the first defendant. During the course of his employment, the plaintiff became sick and was detected to have been alcoholic due to his excessive alcohol drinking habit. He waited for his employers to treat him, but surprisingly they did nothing. He continued working not knowing the full nature of the illness until he was summarily dismissed, after which his dismissal was turned to termination of appointment with the first defendant.

This action after completion with the pleadings, on 10/12/96 went on trial. The plaintiff testified for himself and did not call any other witness but tendered 8 documents and all were admitted in evidence as exhibits. The defendants filed their statement of defence out of time but with the leave of the trial court, which leave was granted on 23/9/96. (See page 28 of the printed record of appeal).

The defendants, though filed their statement of defence, they led no evidence in support of the averment contained therein.

At the close of the plaintiffs case, the case suffered some adjournments to enable the defendants open their case but non-was forth coming. Consequently, after the address of the plaintiff’s counsel, the case was on 2/3/98 adjourned to 5/5/98 for judgment, which could not be delivered. And on 8/5/98 a further adjournment to 9/6/98 for judgment was made.

Before the date of 9/6/98 and precisely on 21/5/98, the defendants filed a notice of preliminary objection challenging the jurisdiction of the trial court. Also on 22/5/98 the same defendants filed another motion on notice praying for:-

1. An order arresting the judgment and
2. An order allowing the defendants to enter their defence.

In the course of his submission on the preliminary objection before the trial court, learned counsel for the defendants/applicants contended that by virtue of section 230(1) (r) and (s) of the Constitution of Nigeria 1979 as amended by Decree 107 of 1993, the trial court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the plaintiffs suit on ground that the plaintiff’s claim is for a declaration against the first defendant which is an agency of the Federal Government.

On the motion on notice, learned counsel for the defendants/appellants argued that they are willing to testify to prove their defence. He said that the trial court by virtue of Order 10 rule 2 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules of Plateau State, ought to order for the issuance of hearing notice to them to attend the court whenever adjournment was made in their absence. He further stated that the failure to comply with the said rules by the trial court amounted to the denial of fair hearing guaranteed by the Constitution of Nigeria 1979. The learned counsel relied on a number of legal authorities to support his contentions.