The West African Examination Council V. Muritala Oyewusi Obisesan (2008)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, J.C.A.

This is an appeal against the judgment of B.A. Ogunlesi-Adio, J of 7th March 1996, at the High Court Of Ogun State, Ota. The respondent as plaintiff by his Amended Statement of Claim dated 26th day of October, 1994 claimed against the defendant now appellant as follows:

”(i) A declaration that the purported termination of the appointment of the plaintiff vides the letter of 15th August, 1990 is in substance a dismissal from employment of the defendant.

(ii) That the plaintiff’s dismissal is unlawful illegal null and void

(iii) An order setting the said dismissal of the plaintiff aside.

(iv) An order compelling the defendant to reinstate the plaintiff.

(v) A sum of Twelve Thousand, Nine Hundred And Seventy Five Naira Sixty Eight Kobo (N12,975:68) being the salary and Allowances from the 15th day of August, to November, 1991.

(vi) Sum due to the plaintiff from the beginning of December 1991 to the final determination of this suit.

(vii) IN THEALTERNATIVE the plaintiff claims the sum of N12,975:68 as special damages being salaries and allowances due to the plaintiff from the defendant from 15th August to 30th November, 1991 and N150,000:00 general damages against the defendant for wrongful termination of employment. ”

In the trial court the plaintiff/respondent’s case was that he was the employee of the defendant/appellant between 1983 and 1990 when his appointment was terminated. He contended that his termination amounted to a dismissal in law and therefore illegal, null and void. The appellant had accused him of examination malpractices, for which he and two others were charged to court and later discharged on 19/4/91. He was later queried, vide Exhibit ‘E’. An administrative panel was set up in respect of the allegation. He contended that the defendant/appellant should have waited for the outcome of the case before taking further steps against him.

On the other hand the defendant/appellant’s case is that the plaintiff/respondent was under a contract of service with the appellant and the latter could terminate his appointment at any time with or without reason provided the terms of the contract in Exhibits ‘A’ and ‘H’ were complied with. The appellant contended that the respondent was paid one month’s salary in lieu of notice and that he was terminated because his services were no longer needed as shown in the letter of termination, Exhibit ‘F’, and payment of one month’s salary in lieu of notice and other emoluments. The appellant by its evidence denied liability as to the claims brought by the respondent and insisted that the termination of the appointment per Exhibit ‘F’ was proper as it did not offend the terms in Exhibit ‘H’.

At the end of the trial, the learned trial judge entered judgment in favour of the respondent in the following terms:

“Declarations sought in his Amended Statement of Claim as per paragraphs 39 (i)-(vi) thereof.”

Dissatisfied with the judgment the appellant appealed to this court and filed seven (7) grounds of appeal, out of which seven (7) issues were formulated for determination by this court. They are: