Chief Funso Ologunde V. Carnaudmetal Box Toyo Glass Nigeia Plc (2002)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

OLUFUNLOLA O. ADEKEYE, J. C. A. 

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Ogun State High Court of Justice Ota Judicial Division delivered on the 4th of February 2000. The suit No FCH/154/94 before the lower court relates to a contract of employment whereupon the plaintiff Chief Funso Ologunde complained about the wrongful and premature termination of his employment by the defendant – Carnaudmetal Box Toyo Glass Nigeria PLC after serving the company for a period of fourteen years. In the Writ of Summons before the High Court the plaintiff claimed as follow: –

1) On account of the unlawful termination of his employment by the defendant, the plaintiff claimed special damages of thirteen million four hundred and sixty-four thousand, eight hundred and seventy-eight Naira, forty-nine Kobo (N13,464,878.49) being his emoluments up to the year 2012.

2) On account or the wrongful and sudden termination of his employment, the plaintiff claimed an additional sum of Eleven million, Five hundred and thirty-five thousand, One hundred and twenty-one Naira, Fifty-one kobo (N11,535,121.51) being exemplary damages.

Parties filed and exchanged pleadings. The matter was set down for hearing after parties had filed Amended Statement of Claim, Amended Reply to Amended Statement of Defence, Defence to counterclaim, Further Amended Statement of Defence and Counterclaim. Parties adduced evidence oral and documentary in support of the pleadings. In a well considered judgment of the trial court delivered on the 4th of February 2000 – it was held that:-
a) The defendant pays to the plaintiff the sum of two hundred and seventeen thousand, seven hundred and fifty-one Naira nine kobo (N217, 751.09) being the amount admitted by the defendant in its statement of defence as the plaintiff’s entitlements up to and including Friday 25th March 1994.

b) The defendant pays also to the plaintiff an additional sum of his salary and allowances to cover the period not calculated from 25th March 1994 to 11th April 1994 being the date indicated on the letter of the plaintiff’s termination (Exhibit 7) that the plaintiff should return to the factory to see the Personnel Controller.

c) The counter-claim of the defendant, “for the value of its car in the plaintiff’s possession and also for the loss of ‘use of the car” failed and was accordingly dismissed.

Being aggrieved by this judgment – the plaintiff – now appellant before this court filed Notice and four grounds of appeal. Parties settled records and exchanged briefs. At the time of the hearing of the appeal, the appellant formulated six issues for determination. The appellant did not at any time file motion to increase the number of the grounds of appeal which at the time of filing the briefs and arguing same stood at four. In short appellant distilled six issues out of his four grounds of appeal which read:-

1) Whether the learned trial judge properly evaluated the evidence before him in arriving at his decision.

2) Whether it was right for the learned trial judge to apply the provisions for termination of employment as contained in Chapter 13 (f) pages 26-28 in Exhibit B in place of the provisions contained in paragraph 5 on page 2 of Exhibit A which guides the ordinary termination of the contract of employment by either party.

3) Whether it was right for the learned trial judge to hold that a party of the complete conditions of service of the plaintiff/appellant as contained in Exhibits A and B are not expressly agreed ” after plaintiff/appellant had formally accepted the condition in the manner prescribed on page 2 of Exhibit A.

4) Whether it was right for the learned trial judge to later apply a provision of Exhibit B which he had earlier found not to be expressly agreed” in dismissing the claims of the plaintiff/appellant in a part of the judgment.

5) Whether the damages awarded in favour of the plaintiff/appellant are adequate in view of the totality of evidence before the learned trial judge.

6) Whether it is right for the learned trial judge to hold that it is the duty of the plaintiff to establish the truth of the Defendant’s defence that its (Defendant) action was based on a consultancy report.