Agbolade Babatunde Osiyemi V. Societe Generale Bank Limited (2000)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

PIUS OLAYIWOLA ADEREMI, J.C.A. 

 In the court below, High Court of Lagos State (Coram Adeyinka J.) the plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as appellant) had brought an action against the defendant (hereinafter referred to as respondent) claiming the following reliefs:

(1) An order that the purported termination is wrongful, illegal, null and void and of no effect whatsoever.
(2) An order that the plaintiff is still the Deputy General Manager (Administration).
(3) An order restraining the defendants their servants, agents, and/or privies from preventing the plaintiff from continuing his job as Deputy General Manager (Administration).
(4) An order of specific performance of the Housing Loan Agreement i.e. that the defendants be ordered to complete all their obligations under the term of the contract, or return to the plaintiff his title document to enable him find another mortgage.
(5) ALTERNATIVELY, N1,100,000.00 (One Million, One Hundred Thousand Naira) damages for wrongful termination of the plaintiff’s appointment.

The defendant/respondent filed a counter-claim wherein it counter-claimed against the plaintiff/appellant as follows:

(a) Payment of the sum of N142,716.59 being the sum received by the plaintiff as an unsecured housing loan from the defendant.
(b) Return of the Peugeot 504 SR motor car, registration No. LA 357 AM, the property of the defendant which is in the possession of the plaintiff or in the alternative N10,000.00 damages for detinue.
(c) Possession of premises situate at and known as No. Twins Obasa Street, Gbagada, Lagos, leased to the defendant on 13th March, 1984; and
(d) Payment for the use and occupation of the said premises at the rate of N45,000.00 per annum from 19th April, 1984 until possession is delivered up.
(e) Return of the amenities set out in paragraph 16 above or in the alternative N57,100.00 damages for detinue.

Suffice it to say that in paragraph 16 of the amended statement of defence and counter-claim, the defendant/respondents had averred that it expended a total sum of N57,100.00 in the provision of amenities for the premises occupied by the plaintiff as its employee. Such amenities included Air-conditioning units, Electric Fans and a Generating set which according to the defendant/respondent, the plaintiff/appellant was holding unto.

Pleadings were filed and exchanged between the parties. At the conclusion of evidence on both sides and after taking the addresses of counsel, the trial Judge, in a reserved judgment, found that the appointment of the plaintiff/appellant was lawfully terminated but entered judgment for the defendant/respondent in respect of his counter-claim for the sum of N248,966.00, with an order that upon the payment of that sum of N248,966.00 by the plaintiff/appellant, the defendant/respondent shall return to the plaintiff/appellant his title documents.

Dissatisfied with the said judgment, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with five grounds of appeal and one additional ground of appeal. The plaintiff/appellant identified five issues for determination and they are in the following terms:-

(i) Whether the plaintiff/appellant’s appointment was terminated in accordance with the agreements binding the parties.
(ii) Whether the trial court was right to hold the plaintiff liable for payment for use and occupation of the official residence on the basis that the right to use the premises automatically came to an end from the date of the termination of his appointment.
(iii) Whether the trial Judge was right in holding that upon the termination of plaintiff’s employment, the housing loan which was expressly agreed payable over 15 years automatically became repayable in one lump sum.
(iv) Whether the plaintiff was liable in detinue for the sum of N10,000.00 being the cost of the car alleged to be in the plaintiff’s possession at the time his appointment was terminated.
(v) Whether the trial Judge was right not to have awarded damages to the plaintiff in line with the authorities on the issue particularly the cited case of NWAGBANEBI v. NIGERIA PALM PRODUCE BOARD.

The respondent, for its part, raised three issues for the consideration of this court and they are as follows:

1. what were the terms and conditions governing the appellant’s employment?
2. whether or not there has been a breach of the said conditions of employment.
3. Is the appellant liable to the respondent as per the latter’s counterclaim and judgment of the trial court?

When this appeal came before us on the 3rd of May, 2000, Mr. Osiyemi, a legal practitioner, who appeared in person adopted his (appellant) brief filed on 11/2/98 and urged that the appeal be allowed. Mr. Nweze, learned counsel for the respondent adopted the respondent’s brief deemed to have been filed on 18/5/99 and urged that the appeal be dismissed.

Briefly, the case of the appellant is that upon his employment as Deputy General Manager (Administration) by the respondent with effect from 1st February, 1983, he was given a handbook which contains terms and conditions binding the parties. The handbook was tendered in evidence as Exhibit P5. It was also his case that his employment was permanent and pensionable as confirmed by his employer’s letter dated 10th November, 1983 tendered as (Exhibit P6). Sometimes in 1984 whilst he was attending an Advance Management Workshop at Ibadan the defendant requested him to return to Lagos immediately. He obeyed the directive only to be confronted with an allegation of improper behaviour in the matter of his housing loan consequently he was requested to tender his letter of resignation failing which a report would be forwarded to the meeting of the Board slated for 18th April, 1984. He was suspended and his appointment was later terminated by a letter dated 18th April, 1984 tendered as Exhibit P9. He further averred that the termination of his appointment was wrongful. In consequence of the wrongful termination it was his further case that he was entitled to be paid his salary and all his entitlements until he reached the age of 60 which was 14 years away from the time his appointment was terminated. In meeting the case formulated by the appellant, the respondent who was the defendant in the court below averred that the termination of the plaintiff’s employment was in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract of service. It also counter- claimed against the plaintiff/appellant for re-payment of the housing loan granted to him (plaintiff), the return of the Peugeot 504 SR motor car assigned to the plaintiff or in the alternative the sum of N10,000.00 damages for detinue, possession of the premises assigned to him as the official residence and mesne profit at the rate of N45,000.00 per annum from 19th April, 1984 until possession is delivered up. In his viva voce evidence, the appellant has further said that his date of birth being 3rd December, 1937 he was supposed to retire from his employment at 60 which was 3rd December, 1997, he claimed his salary at N27,070.00 per annum for the period, his housing allowance for the period, at N45,000.00 per annum, his furniture allowance of 5% of his basic salary; yearly entertainment allowance of N3,000.00. Security guard’s yearly salary at N10,000.00. He said he got a loan of N30,000.00 to buy a parcel of land. He claimed that the housing loan was disbursed to him partially. He did not complete the house as his employers withdrew further disbursement of loan to him. He denied being in possession of the respondent’s official car. In its defence and counter-claim the respondent through its Legal Adviser tendered as Exhibit D5 the Minutes of the Committee of Directors on Staff Matters Item 11 page 8 thereof deals with Staff Housing known to the appellant. Evidence was led as to the equipment installed by the respondent in the premises occupied by the appellant; such equipment are a generator set, costing N39,000.00,three split air conditioners; one costing N2,150.00 while the remaining two cost N4,900.00; six ceiling fans each at N125.00. Evidence was further given that the appellant was still in possession of the said premises with the afore-mentioned equipment being intact. The official car which was yet to be returned was valued at N10,000.00 but the total disbursement to the appellant was N142,000.00.

I have said some where in this judgment that the trial Judge in a considered judgment held that the plaintiff’s employment was lawfully terminated. In addition to this finding, the trial Judge in the concluding part of his judgment said:-