Bernard E. Ngun V. Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited (2013)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

JOSEPH TINE TUR, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

The appellant was the plaintiff in the High Court of Justice, Eket, Akwa Ibom State. The Respondent was the defendant. In the writ and statement of claim filed on 26th day of July, 2000 the appellant sought in paragraph 76 of the statement of claim the following reliefs against the Respondent:

“(a) A declaration that the Plaintiff is a staff of the Defendant Company and is entitled to all rights and privileges enjoyed by the Defendant’s staff until duly determined by either party.

(b) A declaration that the suspension of the plaintiff by the Defendant by a letter dated 1st December, 1998 is wrongful, illegal, null and void.

(c) An order that the Defendant pays to the Plaintiff forthwith salary and allowances for the months of December, 1998 and thereafter until the Plaintiff is duly determined.

(d) N100,000,000.00 (One Hundred Million Naira) being general damages for malignment and libel.”

The statement of Defence was filed on 17th May, 2001 denying liability. On 30th November, 2005 the appellant sought and was granted leave to amend the statement of claim. The amendment did not however affect the reliefs claimed in paragraph 76(a)-(d) of the claim. On 15th June, 2007 the Respondent applied and was granted leave to deem as properly filed and served an Amended Statement of Defence which had been filed on the same 15th June, 2007. Hearing proceeded on the Amended Statement of claim and Amended statement of defence. Each party called oral and documentary evidence. Learned Counsel submitted written addresses. The learned trial Judge held at pages 181 to 182 of the printed record as follows:

“On the whole I make the following orders:

1. The claim for a declaration the plaintiff is a staff of the defendant company and is entitled to all rights and privileges enjoyed by the defendant’s staff fails and same is dismissed.
2. It is hereby declared that the suspension of the plaintiff by the defendant on the 1st December, 1999 is wrongful, illegal, null and void.
3. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff admitted allowances due to the plaintiff amounting to N1,845,000.00 (One Million, Eight Hundred and Forty Five Thousand Naira).
4. The claim for N100,000,000.00 general damages for malignment and libel having been abandoned is hereby struck out.”

Being aggrieved the appellant filed a Notice of Appeal on 24th July, 2008 the complaints being that the judgment was against the weight of evidence. On 19th April, 2012 the original Notice of Appeal was amended with leave of this Court. Five additional grounds of appeal were added. The appellant’s brief of argument filed on 28th May, 2012 identified four issues as arising for determination from the six grounds of appeal.

Before I delve into the issues I shall recapitulate the facts in controversy.

The appellant’s case is that on 24th May, 1996 the Respondent employed him as a Spy Police Constable in her Security Unit. The letter of appointment was signed by one B.O.B. Duke the Respondent’s Security Advisor. On the request of the Respondent the appellant underwent training at the Police Training School, Calabar, from 10th June, 1996 to August, 1996. Thereafter he was awarded a Certificate of participation. Appellant was deployed to the Respondent to work in their locations. The appellant assumed duty on 3rd June, 1996 as directed by the Respondent’s letter of appointment. The Respondent issued a staff identification paper to the appellant. In the course of time the appellant was suspended from duty on 1st December, 1998 without pay. In the letter of suspension dated 1st December, 1998 the Respondent stated that on 28th November, 1998 at about 2215 hours at QIT main gate, a carton containing 21 AUS automatic voltage switches and twelve connecting boxes were found in a security crew change bus registration No. BC970 LSR conveying afternoon duty men off duty. The Respondent suspected the appellant to have stolen them. The Respondent alleged that the appellant admitted this in a statement made on 2nd December, 1998. The appellant denied the allegation. Appellant denied signing the purported statement of 28th November, 1998 credited to him by the Respondent.

In January, 1999 the appellant appeared before a panel of the Respondent’s Security Department where he was advised to appeal to the Respondent. This the appellant declined, for doing so would amount to an admission of guilt, namely, that he stole those items. The appellant’s Solicitor exchanged correspondences with the Respondent’s solicitors in April, 1999 and 6th May, 1999 respectively. Eventually the Respondent disowned the appellant; that he was not their staff; that he was an employee of the Nigeria Police Force hence any inquiries by the solicitor concerning the appellant should be directed to the Inspector General, Nigeria Police Force and not the Respondent.

The appellant pleaded in paragraph 57 of the Amended statement of claim that he was not furnished with the conditions of service when he was employed by the Respondent. In paragraph 58(i)-(xvi) of the Amended Statement of Claim the appellant pleaded what he considered to be his allowances from 28th November, 1998 when the Respondent suspended him without pay until the determination of his employment. That he was entitled to allowances from 1st December, 1998 to the day of the delivery of judgment and from that day to when the Respondent finally pays. The appellant’s further complaints in paragraphs 60-64 of the Amended Statement of Claim were that the respondent’s letter of 1st December, 1998 published to S.A. Oluokun and B.O.B. Duke, damaged his credit, character and reputation by portraying him as a dubious criminal; a mean fellow; a dishonest man; a person not worthy of being trusted; and a scrupulous fellow.

Furthermore, that the libelous publications in the Nigeria Chronicle Newspaper of Friday, 15th October, 1999 at page 15 by one Victor Etim Akpan of Edet, Akwa Ibom State was sponsored by the Respondent or her agents. The appellant set out the defamatory words in paragraph 62 of the Amended Statement of Claim. That because of the libelous publication the appellant lost the opportunity to be employed by Messrs Ekojo Enterprises (Nig.) Ltd. It was also the case of the appellant that he was ejected by his landlord and compelled by dire financial circumstances to sell some of his property to make a living.