Dr. Adeosun Oluseyi Olalekan V. Management Board, University Of Maiduguri Teachng Hospital (2012)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

OYEBISI FOLAYEMI OMOLEYE, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Federal High court, sitting at Maiduguri, delivered by Hon. Justice Adamu Hobon on the 9th day of December, 2009.

The action that gave rise to the present appeal was brought “vide” a writ of summons and statement of claim dated and filed on the 16th day of May, 2007, at the trial Court by the Appellant as the Plaintiff against the Respondent as the defendant. See pages 5 to 15 of the record of appeal. In the said statement of claim, the Appellant made eight (8) claims against the Respondent as follows:

1) An order declaring the purported letter of termination ref. No.SP/CON/626/Vol.1/48 Dated 31st October, 2003 served on the plaintiff by the defendant, its servants, and/or agents unconstitutional, null and void of no effect and unlawful by reason of gross irregularity, lack of reasonable cause, denial of natural justice and non-compliance with the enabling statutes establishing the defendant, and breach of section 36 of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.

2) An order of this Honourable court quashing the purported letter of termination REF. No.SP/CON626/VOL.1/48 dated 31st October, 2003.

3) A declaration that the plaintiff’s appointment with the defendant is not a temporary appointment but permanent and pensionable.

4) An order reinstating the plaintiff to the employment of the defendant and upgrading him to the post of a consultant surgeon in dental/maxillofacial surgery having passed the requisite examination, payment of arrears of salary, all entitlements, rights and privileges attached to that office from the month of November, 2003, including his right to continue in employment at the University of Maiduguri Teaching Hospital until he attains the age of retirement as prescribed by law.

5) A declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to remain and continue in employment at the University of Maiduguri Teaching Hospital, until he attains the retirement age as prescribed by law.

6) General damages for wrongful termination of appointment in the sum of one Million Naira (1,000,000.00) only.

7) An order restraining the defendant from further interfering with the plaintiff’s lawful execution of his duties.

8) 10% interest per annum on the judgment sum until final payment of same to the plaintiff.

In reaction to the Appellant’s claims, the Respondent filed its statement of defence, which is at pages 80 to 84 of the record of appeal. It is dated the 28th day of May, 2007 and was filed on the 12th day of June, 2007. In paragraph 26 of the said statement of defence, the Respondent raised a preliminary objection to the Appellant’s action against it that, the Appellant failed to fulfill a condition precedent to the said action. That is, according to the Respondent, the Appellant failed to avail himself of all internal procedure for seeking redress, inclusive of the filing of a petition to the Respondent as required by the regulation governing the University of Maiduguri Teaching Hospital Residency Programme pertaining to the termination of his residency training before commencing the action, the subject matter of this appeal.

The said point of objection to the Appellant’s action was argued in the Respondent’s written address, see page 177 of the record of appeal. However, apart from the fact that the Appellant never reacted to this issue, the learned trial Judge also failed to advert to it and did not find one way or another in respect thereof.

At the hearing before the trial court, the Appellant testified in person but called no additional witness and tendered exhibits in support of his claims. The Respondent also called one witness and tendered exhibits in its defence. Learned Counsel to both parties addressed the Court in writing in support of their respective positions. The learned trial Judge after considering the claims of the Appellant and the Respondent’s opposition to same came to the conclusion that the Appellant was not entitled to any of the reliefs sought by him and proceeded to dismiss all the claims.