College of Medicine of University of Lagos v. Dr S. A Adegbite (1973)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

B. A. COKER, J.S.C. 

The appellants, that is to say, the College of Medicine of the University of Lagos are the first defendants to an action instituted in the High Court Lagos (Lagos State) by Dr S. A. Adegbite, as plaintiff (now respondent) for the following claims

“(a) A declaration that the plaintiff’s appointment by first defendant as a Junior Research Fellow in the Department of Pathology still subsists, and that the purported variation of the contract and subsequent lock -out of the plaintiff by the first defendant was illegal, void, ultra vires, not made in good faith and therefore constitute a wrongful breach of contract.

(b) 30,000 pounds general and special damages for breach of the plaintiff’s contract of appointment with the first defendant dated the 30th June, 1967.”

There were originally two defendants to the action, the other defendant being a Professor Thomas of the same University. As against him, the learned trial judge found that the action was misconceived and struck it out with costs. The plaintiff filed a statement of claim in which he set out with unmitigated prolixity the story of his association with and later dissociation from the appellants, who will hereinafter in this judgment be referred to as “defendants”. The pleadings of the plaintiff in short avers that he was employed as a Junior Research Fellow by the defendants by virtue of a letter dated the 30th June, 1967 addressed to him by the defendants and that the plaintiff’s contract was subject to the terms therein contained as well as the “terms and conditions enacted in the Regulations and Conditions of Service of the University of Lagos Medical School”, that the plaintiff performed the duties of his office satisfactorily and was indeed commended in writing by the head of the Department of Pathology, that because he wrote a letter dated the 7th June, 1968, protesting to the Secretary to the College about the unsatisfactory nature of his housing accommodation, his contract was not renewed when it should have been automatically renewed and that he was eventually locked out of the laboratory where he used to perform the duties of his office. On the other hand, the statement of defence denies all the principal averments in the statement of claim, charges the plaintiff with a number of acts of indiscipline and misconduct, avers that there was no legal duty on the defendants to renew the plaintiff’s contract on the expiration of it after the first year and, in particular, paragraph 16 of the statement of defence states as follows “The 1st defendant states that by reasons of the plaintiff’s misconduct, it became impracticable for the College of Medicine to continue to employ him. ”

The plaintiff gave evidence at the trial and testified that he was engaged by means of the letter dated the 30th June, 1967 (admitted in evidence as Exhibit A), that he took the view that the contract was to be automatically renewed in view of the written commendations he had received (put in evidence as Exhibit W) in the course of his duties and that although there was no complaint about his work and no warning addressed to him in that respect, the defendants have refused to renew his contract. The Secretary to the College of Medicine, Zacchaeus A. Alabi and the Acting Registrar of the University of Lagos, Samuel A. Oshinulu also gave evidence for the plaintiff. Two other witnesses Dr Odunjo and Professor Olusanya gave evidence on behalf of the plaintiff describing the lock-out of the plaintiff from his laboratory and pointing out that the case of the plaintiff was not referred to the University Council that “deals with the removal of staff’. Some documentary evidence were produced by the plaintiff and we shall refer to them later on in the course of this judgment. Professor Alexander Boyo gave evidence for the defence, described the performance of the plaintiff during the first year of his contract (Exhibit A) and emphasized the fact that the plaintiff refused to resume duty after his return from leave despite several requests to do so.

The learned trial judge in the course of his judgment acceded to the claims of the plaintiff and awarded him a total amount of damages in the sum of 5 pounds,070 (or #10,140) with costs. At the end of his judgment, the learned trial judge apparently dealing with the claim for declaration observed as follows

“I have already held that the termination of the plaintiff’s appointment was wrongful and constituted a breach of the contract entered into by the plaintiff and the 1st defendant in exhibit A. I have also held that this was not a case where a declaration should be made.”

The learned trial judge did not thereafter make any such declaration, and it is noteworthy that the plaintiff has not made this omission the subject of any appeal or indeed any complaint before us.

This appeal by the defendants is from the judgment of the learned trial judge and the gravamen of the complaint before us is that the learned trial judge was wrong to hold that the no renewal of the plaintiff’s contract by the defendants was a breach of contract for which the defendants are liable in damages. It was argued by learned counsel for the defendants that the terms and conditions of the plaintiff’s employment were contained in exhibit A, that the Regulations and Conditions applicable to the permanent staff of the College of Medicine (put in evidence at the trial) are not available to the plaintiff and that the defendants’ offer of a new contract to the plaintiff (put in evidence as exhibit K) which the plaintiff rejected, did not constitute a breach of the original contract. For the plaintiff, it was contended before us that in view of the way in which the plaintiff had performed his duties pursuant to exhibit A and for which he was commended in exhibit W, the renewal of his contract as postulated by exhibit A should be automatic.

The letter of offer of employment, exhibit A, dated the 30th June, 1967,so far as it is material, states as follows

“Dear Dr Adegbite,

I refer to your application dated 9th May, 1967 for the post of Junior Research Fellow in the Department of Pathology and your subsequent interview by the Appointments and Promotions Committee on 23rd June, 1967 and wish to inform you that the Medical School Council has decided to offer you the appointment of Junior Research Fellow on the salary of 2,000 pounds per annum in the salary scale 1,200 pounds x 100 = 2,100 pounds. This offer is subject to your being declared medically fit by the Schools Staff Medical Officer to take up the appointment.

The appointment is on contract for one year in the first instance and subject to renewal for a further period of 2 years provided that your services are regarded as satisfactory at the end of each year. The appointment also carries the following