Dowell Schlumberger Nigeria Limited V. Mr. Noah Aniekan (2012)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

PAUL ADAMU GALINJE, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

The Respondent in this appeal was an employee of the Appellant, a company registered in Nigeria and carries on the business of Oil servicing and other ancillary contracts.

On the 7th of July, 1999 the Respondent aforesaid was involved in a major industrial accident in which he sustained injuries on his left hand at the Appellant’s Eleme Grading Plaint. He was hospitalized for quite sometime.

On the 6th of July, 2002 the respondent was disengaged from the services of his employer through a letter dated the same date which declared him redundant. In reaction to the letter of disengagement, the respondent by a writ of summons filed on the 12th of May, 2004 at the Rivers State High Court, claimed against the appellant the following reliefs:-

“1. A declaration that the callous, unjust and inhuman disengagement from the employment of the plaintiff by the defendant is unjust, wrongful and therefore null and void.

2. A declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to reinstatement with full payment with effect from 6th December, 2002 when the plaintiff was served with the letter of redundancy by the Defendant until judgment in this suit in given.
3. The sum of N50,000,000 (Fifty Million Naira) as reasonable damages for the personal injuries suffered by the plaintiff while on duty on the 7th July, 1999 in the defendant’s premises and due to defendant’s negligence.”

Pleadings were filed, amended and exchanged and the case was set down for trial. The respondent herein, as plaintiff at the lower court, called only one witness who adopted his written testimony and the 24 exhibits in support. Thereafter he closed his case.

The appellant’s two witnesses that were listed for defence were called and they adopted their testimonies. Thereafter, the appellants brought a motion dated 7/11/2008 and filed on the 10/11/08 in which it sough for leave to file additional witness deposition of Tunde Adebayo. The Court heard that application and refused it. That refusal led to an appeal by the Appellant herein. However, the lower court allowed the appellant to file the additional witness deposition when the objection raised by the respondent against the filing of the witness deposition was withdrawn. Instead of calling the additional witness, the appellant decided to pursue the appeal which it filed. The appeal finally heard by this court and was accordingly dismissed on the 14/01/2010 on the ground that it was an abuse of court process.

In the interim, the appellant failed and/or refused to call its last witness, despite several adjournment and several warning by the lower court that it would close the appellant’s case if its last witness was not produced.

Finally on the 16th February, 2010 the appellant’s application for further adjournment was refused and the appellant’s case was foreclosed in accordance with Order 30 Rule 11 (2) of the High Court of Rivers State (Civil Procedure) Rules 2006. The present appeal is against the order of foreclosure. The notice of appeal dated 24/2/2010 and filed on the 25/2/2010 contains one ground of appeal.

Parties filed and exchanged briefs of argument. Two issues have been formulated on behalf of the Appellant for determination of this appeal. They read thus:-

“i. Whether the learned trial judge in pre-emptorily foreclosing the appellant from further giving evidence in the suit exercised his discretion judicially and judiciously and not to occasion a miscarriage of justice to the appellant.

ii. Whether having regard to the circumstances of this case, the foreclosure of the appellant from further giving evidence in the suit amounts to a denial of the appellant’s right to fair hearing.”

Mr. G. B. Ukiri learned counsel for the respondent issued a notice of preliminary objection to the competence of the appeal, which he argued at pages 4 – 10 of the respondent’s brief of argument. Thereafter, one issue only is formulated for determination of this appeal on behalf of the respondent. This issue, is hereunder reproduced as follows:-

“(i) whether the Learned trial judge execised its discretion to close the case of the appellant violated the appellant’s right to fair hearing”