Paul Uhunmwangho Simeon V. College Of Education Ekiadolor Benin (2014)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Edo State, Coram: Itua, J., sitting at the Iguobazuwa Judicial Division, in Suit No. HIGU/35/2000, which was delivered on 19th April, 2005.

The Appellant herein, who was the Plaintiff, at the lower court sued the Respondent as Defendant at the lower court challenging the termination of his appointment. The brief facts of the matter which precipitated the action show that the Appellant was offered a temporary appointment by the Respondent by a letter dated 10th September, 1996, which letter was admitted in evidence as Exhibit 3.

Subsequently by another letter dated 20th November, 1996, Exhibit 4 herein, the Respondent appointed the Appellant as a Part-Time Lecturer. This appointment as a Part-Time Lecturer was later converted to Temporary Appointment by the Respondent’s letter dated 19th January, 1998. The said letter is Exhibit 5 in this matter.

The Appellant’s case is that the Temporary Appointment which was expressed to be on a month-to-month basis was never renewed and therefore the Respondent treated him, no more as a temporary staff, but as a permanent staff and that he indeed acted as the Assistant Head of Department of his Department, a position that was not open to a staff on temporary appointment.

It is the Appellant’s case that the parties agreed or were deemed to have agreed that he was a full staff of the Respondent and the Respondent was obliged to formalize his appointment after his successful interview for that purpose but that the letter in that regard was never released. The Appellant therefore made the case that his appointment was wrongfully terminated.

In the Writ of Summons which was filed on the 19th day of June, 2000, the Appellant claimed the following reliefs:

1. A declaration that the purported termination of Plaintiff’s employment with the Defendant vide letter dated 21/10/99 is unlawful, wrongful, unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect whatever.
2. An order setting aside the purported termination of Plaintiff’s employment with the Defendant.
3. A declaration that the Plaintiff is still in the service of the Defendant and is therefore entitled to be re-instated to the position he held in the service of the Defendant.
4. An order re-instating the Plaintiff to the position occupied by him in the Defendant’s employment (including enjoyment of promotion as his colleagues unaffected by the said termination of employment)
5. An order of payment of arrears of salary and other emoluments from 21/10/99 till re-instatement, including payment of money in lieu of annual leave due from 1999 till re-instatement.

(See page 2 of. the Records).

Subsequently by the order of court made on 25th October, 2001, the Appellant further amended his statement of claim. In paragraph 29 of the Further Amended Statement of Claim which is at pages 23 – 29 of the Records. The Appellant claimed the following reliefs:

i. A declaration that the purported termination of Plaintiff’s employment with the Defendant vide letter dated 21/10/99 is unlawful, wrongful, null and void and of no effect whatsoever in that the termination was done by the Provost who has no power under the law to do so.

ii. An order setting aside the purported termination of Plaintiff’s employment with the Defendant.

iii. A declaration that the Plaintiff is still in the service of the Defendant and is therefore entitled to be re-instated to the position he held in the service of the Defendant.

iv. An order re-instating the Plaintiff to the position occupied by him in the Defendant’s employment (including enjoyment of promotion as his colleagues unaffected by the said termination of employment).

v. An order of payment of arrears of salary and other emoluments from 21/10/99 till re-instatement, including payment of money in lieu of annual leave due from 1999 till re-instatement.