Benson Agbule V. Warri Refinery & Petrochemical Co. Ltd (2012)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

CLARA BATA OGUNBIYI, J.S.C.

This is an appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal, Benin Division, delivered on the 29th day of June, 2004 which allowed the Appeal of the Respondent solely on the issue of jurisdiction and struck out the Appellant’s claims. The appellant was the plaintiff in the Trial court while the Respondent was the Defendant. The Respondent is a limited Liability Company, one of the subsidiary companies owned by the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC), a Federal Government owned Corporation established by the NNPC Act Cap 320 Laws of Federation 1990. The Appellant at all material time is a staff of the Respondent at Ekpan, Warri before the events leading to this suit.

The plaintiff by Writ of summons dated and filed on 24th March, 1994 as reflected in paragraph 18 of the statement of claim dated on 20th April, 1994, but filed on 21st April, 1994 claimed among others, the following reliefs:-

(a) An order that the plaintiff is a staff of the Defendant.

(b) A Declaration that the purported termination of the plaintiff as per letter dated 8th April, 1993 is unconstitutional, unlawful, ultra vires, capricious, wrongful, invalid, null and void.

(c) An order for the Defendant to pay the plaintiff all emoluments and entitlements including promotions due and payable to him as from April, 1993 and to be so calculated until final determination of this suit.

(d) An order reinstating the plaintiff with all his promotions and entitlements to his office.

(e) And in the alternative to (c) & (d), an order for the payment of his entitlement, gratuity and pension at his retirement age of 2008.

The plaintiff’s statement of claim was filed on the 21st April, 1994 at pages 4 – 12 of the record of appeal. The Defendant, in their response also filed their statement of Defence on 24th May, 2004 as evidenced at pages 12 – 19 of the record. The plaintiff commenced evidence on 14th May, 1996 and closed his case on 31st July, 1996. This is evidenced at pages 27 – 43 of the record. After the close of evidence of the plaintiff, the Defendant by a motion dated 13th September, 2006 filed an Amended statement of Defence dated 13th September, 1996 at pages 43 – 45 in which they raised for the first time, the issue of jurisdiction in paragraph 17(a) at pages 52 – 53 of the record thus:-

“17(a) The Defendant shall also raise as a preliminary point of law or at the trial of this case that by virtue of section 230 of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1979 as amended by the constitution (suspension and modification) Decree (Decree No. 107) of 1993, this Honourable court lacks jurisdiction to entertain or try this case in that the plaintiff hereby seeks a declaration affecting and/or challenging the validity of the executive and/or administrative action of the Defendant, an agency of the Federal Government of Nigeria, in terminating the plaintiff appointment, the said Decree No. 107 having vested only the Federal High court with jurisdiction to try the case to the exclusion of any other court.”

The plaintiff testified at pages 27 – 43 of the record while the defendant’s only witness also testified at pages 58 – 62 of the record with the address of the defend ant contained at pages 63 – 69. The address on behalf of the plaintiff is also contained at pages 63 – 72 of the record and the reply on points of law at pages 73 – 74.

By his considered judgment delivered on the 27th September, 1996 and at pages 74 – 90 of the record, the trial court found in favour of plaintiff/appellant as follows:-

1. That Delta State High court has jurisdiction to entertain this suit because this case is based on master and servant relationship and that being so, it is not a matter against the Federal Government order, which is precluded by section 230 (1) of the 1979 constitution as amended by Decree 107 of 1993.
2. That the Termination of the plaintiff as per the letter dated 8/04/93 is invalid, ultra vires and hence null and void as the appropriate authority that is, the Managing Director of NNPC who ought to issue the letter did not do so.
3. That the plaintiff is therefore considered as still in the employment of the Defendant since there is no body known as management given power to terminate the appointment of the staff.
4. The court ordered the reinstatement of the plaintiff and payment of all his entitlements due to him up till the date of judgment forthwith.
5. The court in the alternative awarded the sum of N1.5 million (one Million, Five Hundred Thousand Naira), to the plaintiff as damages.

The Defendant/Respondent was dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial court and hence the appeal lodged to the Court of Appeal on various grounds including the ground of jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the case based on section 230(1) of the 1979 Constitution as amended by Decree 107 of 1993. The plaintiff/appellant also cross-appealed on the award of N1.5 million as general damages and challenged same on the ground that the trial court having granted re-instatement cannot again grant N1.5 million which was not claimed by the plaintiff/appellant. Briefs were filed and exchanged at the lower court. The Defendant/Respondent (appellant) Brief in that court is at pages 122-136 of the record while that of the Plaintiff/Appellant (Respondent) at the court below is at page 183 – 212 of the record.

The Court of Appeal in its findings narrowed the judgment on the interpretation of section 230(1) of the 1979 Constitution as amended by Decree 107 of 1993. In other words the court held that since the plaintiff pleaded that the Defendant is a subsidiary of NNPC it follows that it is an agency of the Federal Government within the decision in Edegbero V. NEPA and that Decree 107 of 1993 robs the state High Court of its jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal also held that the award of the N1.5 million which was not claimed by the appellant was made in error. The court in the result therefore struck out the appellant’s claim. The judgment of the Court of Appeal is at pages 225 – 240 of the records.