Alhaji Mohammed Bala Audu V. Petroleum Equalisation Fund (Management) Board & Anor. (2010)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

MARY U. PETER-ODILI, J.C.A

The appeal stems from the decision of the Federal High Court of Nigeria Abuja, Coram, Honourable Justice S.J, Adah which decision was delivered on the 17th November, 2006 against the Plaintiff who being dissatisfied has appealed to this court upon a Notice of Appeal filed on 16/2/07 and the Notice of Appeal had five grounds which I shall state hereunder without its particulars namely:-

GROUND 1:

The Honourable Trial Court erred in law when it held that the employment of the Appellant (Plaintiff) did not have statutory flavour but purely a simple contracted master servant relationship.

GROUND 2:

The Honourable Trial Court erred in law when it held the employment of the appellant (Plaintiff) was not governed by the Federal Civil Service Rules.

GROUND 3:

The Honourable Trial Court erred in law when it held that the termination of the Plaintiffs (six) employment with the 1st Defendant was proper legitimate and lawful, despite its earlier finding of fact that the 1st Defendant by relying on the rules had intended that it shall govern the employment of the Plaintiff.

GROUND 4:

The Honourable Trial Court erred in law when it held that though the allegation against the Plaintiff which is leaking official servant is a crime, in a contract of employment situation, such as this, the employer has the option either to prosecute the staff in a court order with the staff administratively.

GROUNDS:

The Honourable Trial Court erred in law when it held that the ingredient of fair hearing abound in the dealing (sic) with the Plaintiff was given fair hearing in this matter before he was terminated.

FACTS RELEVANT TO THIS APPEAL:

The Plaintiff/Appellant in this case took out a Writ of summons dated the 9th day of May, 2001 and filed it on the same day, against the Defendants/respondents. See page 3 of Record dated 17/3/2004 and filed on the 25/5/2005 claimed against the Defendants/Respondents jointly and severally as follows: