University of Calabar Teaching Hospital & Anor. V. Juliet Koko Bassey (2008)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

JEAN OMOKRI, J.C.A.

This is an appeal against the judgment of Ajakaiye, J., sitting in the Federal High Court, Calabar, delivered in Suit No. FHC/CA/CS/102/2004 on 27/9/07.

The brief facts of the instant case on appeal are that the respondent, who was the plaintiff at the court below, joined the employment of the 1st appellant on the 26/9/97. After her probationary period of 2 years she was confirmed on the 10/1/2000 and later promoted to the rank of Accountant 1 on the 1/1/2001. She thus became a pensionable staff in the Federal Civil Service of Nigeria thereafter.

On the 1/7/2002, she was suspended from work without pay on the ground of alleged case of financial impropriety involving the sum of N2 million. On 10/7/02, a panel of enquiry was appointed after having already punished her with a suspension without pay. Following a complaint lodged by the appellants to the Police, the respondent was arrested on 28/8/02 and later released. She subsequently resigned her appointment in March 2004. Apparently, the appellants did not accept the resignation of the respondent and on the 3/5/04, she was given a letter of dismissal for alleged act of financial impropriety involving the sum of N11 million. The respondent, unhappy with the turn of events instituted proceedings against the appellants in the court below claiming in paragraph 23 of her statement of claim as follows:

“(a) A DECLARATION that the purported dismissal of the Plaintiff as Accountant 1 in the 1st defendant’s employ by the 2nd defendant vide letter with reference No. UCTH/PF/1710/40 of 3rd May, 2004, ultra vires, illegal, unconstitutional, null and void and contrary to the plaintiff (sic) conditions of service and rules of natural justice;

(b) A DECLARATION that the plaintiff is still in the employ of the 1st defendant;

(c) An Order directing the defendants to reinstate the plaintiff to her post of Accountant without prejudice to her entitlements, salaries, allowances, claims, benefits and promotions which accrued to her.”

To prove her case, the respondent testified in person but called no other witness. The appellants called two witnesses after which written address were filed and adopted by counsel for the parties. After a review of the evidence of witnesses, documentary exhibits and of course, the written addresses of counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge entered judgment in favour of the respondent and declared at page 20 of the record as follows:

“(a) that the purported dismissal of the plaintiff as Accountant 1, in the 1st defendant’s employ by the 2nd defendant vide letter with reference No. UCTH/PF/1710/40 of 3rd May, 2004, is ultra vires, illegal, unconstitutional, null and void and contrary to the plaintiff (sic) conditions of service and rules of natural justice;

(b) That the plaintiff is still in the employ of the 1st defendant;

(c) I THEREFORE Order that the defendants shall reinstate the plaintiff to her post of Account Grade 1 and that she shall be paid all her salaries and allowances as from the date of her purported dismissal up to date.”

Being dissatisfied with the judgment, the appellants appealed to this court on five grounds from which the appellants distilled 3 issues for determination in their brief of argument dated 19/6/08 and filed the same day. The three issues for determination are:

“(1) Whether the respondent’s action was competent and maintainable as held by the learned trial Judge even though the respondent had earlier resigned her appointment and the suit was filed outside the statutory period allowed for actions against public officer?

(2) Whether on the face of the gamut of evidence before the lower court, the respondent was not given fair hearing and her dismissal not in conformity with the relevant statutes governing her employment.