Raphael Ogumka V. Corporate Affairs Commission (2010)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA, J.C.A.(Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the Judgment of the Federal High Court sitting at Abuja in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/355/2003 which was delivered on 18/2/05.

By paragraph 17 of the Statement of Claim dated 25/7/03 and filed on 28/7/03 the Plaintiff claimed against the Defendant as follows:-

“(1) The sum of Seven Million, One Hundred and Fifty Eight Thousand, Six Hundred and Forty-Six Naira Eight Kobo (N7,158,646.08) only being the terminal benefit of the Plaintiff calculated in accordance with the employee’s handbook which governed the employment of the Plaintiff with the Defendant

(2) Cost of this Suit”.

The Respondent filed a Statement of Defence dated 7th June, 2004 wherein it denied all the claims of the Appellant.

At the conclusion of hearing the learned trial Judge in a considered Judgment dismissed the Plaintiff/Appellant’s Claims.

The Appellant dissatisfied with the said Judgment now appealed to this Court.

The learned Counsel for the Appellant formulated two issues for determination as follows:-

“(1) Whether the trial Court was right in holding that facts relating to annual salary, leave bonus, House Rent Allowance, Transport Allowance and Medical Treatment etc of the Appellant was not pleaded when the Appellant pleaded the conditions of service of the Respondent which contained those facts.

(2) Whether the trial Judge was right in treating the suit as a case of wrongful termination of appointment when the Appellant made it clear that he was only asking for his terminal benefits”.

The learned Counsel for the Respondent also formulated two issues for determination as follows:-

“(1) Whether by merely pleading the condition of service without particularizing and proving under which head therein the facts of the Appellant’s case entitles him to the sum claimed, the trial Court ought to have entered Judgment in his favour.

(2) Whether the reference to ‘wrongful termination’ of appointment by the trial Court led to any miscarriage of Justice against the Appellant”.