Captain E.C.C. Amadi V.nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (2000)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

UWAIS, C.J.N.

This is an interlocutory appeal. The appellant was plaintiff in the High Court of Lagos State, where he instituted a suit against the respondent as defendant claiming as follows:-

“(i) A declaration that his purported suspension and subsequent dismissal are wrongful, illegal, null, void and of no effect.

(ii) An order that the plaintiff is still the Head of Operations/Technical Department.

(iii) An order restraining the defendant, their servants, agents and/or privies from preventing the plaintiff from continuing his job as Head of Operations/Technical Department.

(iv) N18,700.00 (Eighteen Thousand, Seven Hundred Naira) being arrears of salaries from July, 1985 to April, 1987 at the rate of N850.00 (Eight Hundred and fifty Naira) per month and thereafter at the same rate of N850.00 (Eight hundred and fifty Naira) until judgment.

ALTERNATIVELY

(v) N1,000,000.00 (One Million Naira) being special and general damages for unlawful, irregular and malicious determination of the plaintiff’s employment and/or breach of plaintiff’s contract of service with the defendants.”

Pleadings were filed and exchanged. As part of its defence, the defendant averred as follows in paragraphs 33 and 34 of its Statement of Defence:-

“33. The defendant would at the hearing of this suit raise the issue of law that the court has no jurisdiction to hear this matter in view of the provisions of section 3(3) of the Civil Service Commissions and Other Statutory Bodies (Removal of Certain Persons from Office) Decree No. 16 of 1984.

34. The defendant would also at the hearing of this suit raise the issue of law that the suit is incompetent for the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the provisions of sec. 11(2) of the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation Act 1977 in that no written notice of his Intention to commence this suit wherein the cause of action, particulars of claim, relief claimed and place of abode of the plaintiff should have been stated was served by the plaintiff on the defendant. Whereupon the defendant contends that the plaintiff’s claim is frivolous and misconceived and should be dismissed with cost.”

This was followed by a motion on notice by the defendant praying the High Court to strike out the suit for want of jurisdiction. The motion was heard by Silva, J. on the 15th day of April, 1988. In a considered ruling delivered on the 20th day of June, 1988, the learned judge upheld the preliminary objection raised by the defendant and struck out the suit for lack of jurisdiction.

Dissatisfied with the ruling, the plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeal. His appeal was dismissed by the Court (Ademola, J.C.A., Babalakin, J.C.A., as he then was, and Awogu, J.C.A.). In doing so, the court stated thus, Per Awogu, J.C.A. who wrote the lead judgment – which was supported by other members of the panel)

” … in the instant appeal, the wording of section 11(2) (of the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation Act) is clear enough on the form of the Notice. Exhibit B falls short of the requirement. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed …”

The plaintiff has appealed further to this court challenging the decision of the Court of Appeal. Briefs of argument were filed and exchanged by the parties. In the appellant’s brief, four issues have been postulated for our determination. The issues read thus –