Charles Ejimofor & Ors. V. Nigerian Telecommunications Ltd. & Ors. (2006)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

NZEAKO, J.C.A.

In the Federal High Court sitting in Yola, Adamawa State of Nigeria, each of the seven appellants in this appeal, as plaintiffs and employees of the 1st respondents/defendants took out a writ of summons against them, and the other respondents in this appeal. Their claims arose out of the same events in the course of their employment with the respondents.

Each one sought the following reliefs:-

1. A declaration that the letter of dismissal issued by the respondents was null and void and of no effect.
2. Payment of unpaid salaries and allowances.
3. Special damages
4. General damages.

Each plaintiff set out the particulars of his claim as constituted in his pleadings. By order of the trial court, the suits were consolidated and heard together. After some delay, which looked as if the defendants were intent on obstructing the trial of the suits, the defendants filed their statement of defence. This was after the trial court had refused two applications filed in the course of time by them seeking to strike out the suits on the grounds that they were statute-barred. It was the contention of the defendants either, that the actions were not brought within 3 months after the cause of action arose or that the court had no jurisdiction over the matter by virtue of Decree 17 of 1984. The first of such motion filed on 30/8/99 to strike out the suit for being statute-barred, had the ruling delivered on 13/11/2000. The court held that the provision of Order 25 rule 1 of the Federal High Court Rules must be complied with – This requires that before such an issue as lack of jurisdiction will be entertained, pleadings must have been filed. The rule is mandatory and the application was declared premature. On the second motion by the respondents, the ruling of the trial Judge was delivered on 14/3/2001. The court below held that the action of the appellants had not been caught by Decree 17 of 1984 and that the court had jurisdiction to entertain it. That the respondent had not shown that Anurukem had authority to sign the letters of dismissal or act on behalf of the President and that the letters were null and void. He dismissed the application.

The consolidated suit later went to trial, and all the plaintiffs/appellants led copious evidence in support of their claims. The defence did not call any evidence. Rather, on 8/10/2001, learned counsel for the defendants/respondents once more, and a third time, applied for an order dismissing the suit on the ground that it was statute-barred. In his ruling, the learned trial Judge, Shakarho J., in a considered ruling, struck out the suits as prayed.

Dissatisfied, the plaintiffs have appealed to this court on 6 grounds.

Learned counsel for the appellants, Eyitayo Jegede, Esq and, for the respondents, M.S. Abubakar, Esq has filed briefs of argument in which they distilled issues for determination from the 6 grounds of appeal. The appellants’ 3 issues married to their grounds of appeal are: –

1. Whether the application of the respondents seeking to strike out the appellant’s suit was not itself an abuse of court’s processes having regard to the earlier pronouncement that the letter of dismissal was void.

(Ground 4).

2. Whether having regard to the facts disclosed in the pleadings and at the hearing, can it be said that the suit of the appellants are statute-barred (Grounds 1, 3, 5 and 6).
3. Whether the learned trial Judge’s refusal to consider the authorities cited by counsel for the appellants in his ruling did not occasion a miscarriage of justice (ground 2).

The respondents’ 2 issues are:

1. Whether the issuance of the dismissal letter by the respondents alone, a cause of action had accrued to the appellants (said to cover grounds 1,2,3,5 and 6).
2. Whether the trial Federal High Court has (sic) rightly directed himself in law in his consideration of the respondents’ application dated 5th October, 2001 and finally struck out the appellants’ suits. Before addressing the issues, I would set out some background facts concerning the suits filed in the court below on 2nd June, 1999 leading to its ruling on 6th November, 2001 and the appeal herein.

The appellants were permanent and pensionable employees of the 1st respondents and of various standing and years of service in its employment. Sometime and about the same time in 1996, they were rounded up and arrested by security agents. The averment in paragraph 5 of the statement of claim and the evidence of the appellants on record which were not controverted are that their arrest was in connection with alleged telecommunications offences. They were, over time, kept in detention at various detention centres, first at the State Security Service Detention Centre in Yola, Adamawa State, then, Criminal Investigation Department (C.LD) detention center, Yola, later C.I.D. Detention Centre, Bauchi, and Federal Prisons Bauchi. This was from February – November, 1996 when the Police and Task Force on Telecommunication Offences claimed that they were investigating some offences. The appellants were questioned about telephone installations and services which they handled in the course of their employment as employees of the first respondent – NITEL Plc. They were later arraigned before the Miscellaneous Offences Tribunal sitting at Jos, later in Lafia and then in Yola. All this was going on till 7th May, 1999 when, pursuant to an apphcation made on their behalf by their counsel, they were discharged for want of prosecution, over 3 years after their arrest. Sometime in October 1996 while in detention, the respondents, by an internal memo, placed the appellants on suspension from duty without pay. While the arraignment of the appellants was proceeding, by a letter of 10/3/97 signed by a Deputy General Manager of the respondents Dr. OJ. Anurukem, and one by Mr. Omeata, the appellants were, to their surprise, informed that they had been dismissed from the service of the respondents under Decree 17 of 1984.

In respect of this suit the appellants pleaded in their statement of claim and gave evidence of wrong deprivation of their liberty, humiliation, mental and physical torture and stress. They complained of denial of their salaries, entitlements, pension and other emoluments and that the purported dismissal was irregular, unlawful and null and void as they had never been queried for any offence by the 1st respondent. They were not yet due for retirement.

As the model of the reliefs sought by each appellant, let me set out the claim in paragraph 15 of the amended statement of claim of Charles Ejimofor, sometimes referred to in the records as the 1st appellant and at others, as 2nd appellant for reason I am unable to find.

Paragraph 15 –

“Wherefore the plaintiff claims against the defendants jointly and severally as follows: –