Arab Chem Ltd V. Pharm Ralph Owoduenyi (2013)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

THERESA NGOLIKA ORJI-ABADUA, J.C.A.(Delivering the leading Judgment)

The Respondent, a former employee of the Appellant, who, during the period of his employment with the Appellant,was said to be stricken by stroke, and,whose employment was, presumably, terminated as a result of the debilitating illness, commenced a suit against the former employer, i.e. the Appellant, on the 8th December, 2006 in suit No. KDH/KAD/836/2006. He claimed against the Appellant as per paragraphs 28 and 29 of his Statement of Claim dated 23/1/2007 and filed on 24/1/07 as follows:

“28. Whereof the Plaintiff claimed from the Defendant,the sum of N6,259,832.20 made up as follows:-

(a) The sum of N1,259,832.20 as his accumulated emoluments and expenses.

(b) The sum of N5 million being compensation as a result of his incapacity caused in the and as a result of the Defendant’s work.

29. The Plaintiff further claims a right of lien on the Defendant’s bus with Registration No. BE743KTD which was packed in his premises.”

In challenging the suit, the Appellant filed a Statement of Defence and Counter-Claim dated 19/2/07. At paragraph 5 of the Counter-Claim, posited at page 9 of the record of appeal, the Appellant claimed against the Plaintiff thus:

“5. Whereof the defendant claims from the Plaintiff the sum of N1,100,600.00 (One million one hundred thousand six hundred naira) itemized as follows:

(a) The sum of N700,000.00 being value of bus wrongfully held by Plaintiff or return of same alternative.

(b) The sum of N300,000.00 being damages for loss of use of bus.

(c) The sum of N100,000; being float unaccounted for.

(d) The sum of N600,000; being cost of Glo lines wrongfully withheld by Plaintiff.”

Further, the Respondent filed a Reply to Statement of Defence and Counter-Claim dated the 1st March, 2007 on that same day. However, due to the averment made by the Appellant at paragraph 9 of it’s Statement of Defence and Counter-Claim with regard to the Respondent’s terminal benefit, it’s disputation with the computation done by the Respondent and its assertion of what it believed was its clear agreement with the Respondent, that only renders it liable for the sums stated in the said paragraph, the Respondent filed a Motion on Notice dated the 5th March, 2007 before the lower Court.

He prayed the lower Court for an order entering Judgment in the sum of N575,568.42 against the defendant in his favour, being an admission in paragraph 9 of the Statement of Defence and allowing him, the Plaintiff, to prove the rest. The application was contested by the Appellant which filed a counter-affidavit of four paragraphs deposed to by one Lukman Shittu, the litigation Secretary in the Law Firm of Lekan Oyerinde & Associates, the Appellant’s Counsel. The application was heard and considered by the trial Court, and, in its ruling delivered on the 25th June, 2007, the Court entered part-Judgment in favour of the Plaintiff, i.e., the Respondent, against the Defendant in the said admitted sum of N575,568.42 as prayed and per paragraph 9 of the Defendant’s Statement of Defence.

The Appellant was taken aback by the decision of the lower Court. Obviously disappointed with it, the Appellant, immediately, on that same 25/6/2007 lodged an appeal against the said decision by a Notice of Appeal dated the same 25th June, 2007. The appeal was hinged on just one ground of appeal, and he sought for an order setting aside the said ruling of the 25th June, 2007. As I have just remarked, there is only one ground of appeal in the Appellant’s Notice of Appeal, out, of which, he, naturally formulated one issue, which reads: