Engr. Ndiuwem Benjamin Akpabot V. Power Holding Company Of Nigeria Plc & Ors (2013)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

JOSEPH TINE TUR, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

The appellant was employed as a pupil Engineer by the Respondents and rose through the ranks to become an Assistant General Manager. The appellant proceeded on his annual leave to the United States of America in the year 2004. While there, the respondents nominated him to attend a procurement course at the International Law Institute, Washington D.C. holding from 13th day of September, to 8th day of October, 2004. On return to Nigeria the appellant received a letter terminating his appointment. The letter read as follows:

“STAFF REVIEW

In the course of realigning the Authority’s structure and operations, your services have been reviewed.

Consequently, your appointment is hereby determined in accordance with Regulation 41.6 of NEPA’s Conditions of service (1998 Edition) with effect from 1st September, 2004.

The General Manager (Finance and Accounts), Corporate Headquarters, Abuja has been directed to make appropriate payment to you in lieu of notice. You are, however required to surrender your identity card and NEPA property in your care to your supervisor, who is required to your supervisor, who is required to attest to your compliance.

Your entitlement, as may be applicable, is being processed for payment.

Management wishes you the best in your future endeavours.

ENGR. J. O. MAKOJU

MANAGING DIRECTOR/CHIEF EXECUTIVE.”

The appellant alleged that he was not allowed access into his office to recover his properties. The appellant instituted this suit before the Federal High Court, Abuja. When the learned trial Judge was transferred to Akwa Ibom State, by fiat, the suit was heard and determined at Uyo. The reliefs claimed by the appellant are set out in the Amended Statement of claim as follows:

“50. WHEREOF THE PLAINTIFF CLAIMS against the Defendants jointly and severally as follows:

I. A DECLARATION that the purported “determination” of the appointment of the plaintiff by the 1st defendant is wrongful, unlawful, invalid, null and void and of no effect whatsoever.

II. A DECLARATION that the obstruction or prevention by the defendants or any of their agents, servants or privies from the performance by the plaintiff of his duties in the 1st defendant is unlawful, improper, invalid, illegal and of no effect whatsoever.