Federal Medical Centre Ido-ekiti & Ors. V. Akindele Taofeek O. (2013)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

UCHECHUKWU ONYEMENAM, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

By writ of Summons and statement of claim filed 16th June, 2006, the Respondent claimed against the Appellants jointly and severally as follows:

1. “A declaration that the termination of the plaintiff’s appointment vide letter reference FHC/10/EK/P of 17th March 2006 is wrongful, unconstitutional, null and void.

AND

2. An order reinstating the plaintiff.”

The case was later consolidated with Suit No:FHC/AK/CS/57/2006/20O6 between Omidiora Kolawole v. Federal Medical Centre & 3 Ors. Briefs were duely filed and exchanged. After hearing and trial of the case, the learned trial Judge in a considered judgment found for the plaintiffs.

Dissatisfied with the judgment of the lower court, the Appellants filed a Notice of Appeal on 9th of October, 2007 with an omnibus ground of appeal. Additional grounds of appeal containing 5 grounds was subsequently filed on 6th October, 2008.

The facts of the case at the lower court is that the Respondent, a senior nursing superintendent was appointed by the 1st Appellant and posted to the theatre unit in the Department of Anesthesia in July, 2004.

On 13th June, 2005, the Respondent left for Usi Ekiti to draw his salary. Before leaving, he sought and obtained the permission of Heads of Theatre and Anesthesia units. Upon his return to the office, he was informed that a ward round visit was conducted by the medical director of the hospital. He was thereafter issued with a query for his absence during the visit.

The respondent answered the query which was endorsed by the Acting Head of Nursing services stating that he obtained permission before leaving his duty post on said day. Also, the two unit heads wrote in separate letters indicating that they granted the Respondent permission to go to Usi Ekiti for his salary.

Notwithstanding his explanations, the endorsement on the answer to his query and the two letters from the Heads of Units, the 2nd Appellant was not satisfied with the Respondent’s answer. His appointment was accordingly terminated on 17th March, 2006.

After record of appeal had been transmitted to this court and additional grounds of appeal filed, the parties sought leave of the court to settle out of court. Leave was so granted. After settlement, parties filed their terms of settlement. On 14th February, 2013 when the appeal came up, parties urged the court to enter their terms of settlement dated and filed 13th February, 2013 as judgment of the court.

By Order 16 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2011, parties are encouraged to settle disputes out of court. The parties herein having settled and desirous of making their terms of settlement the judgment of the court. I hereby make Order that the TERMS OF SETTLEMENT dated and filed 13th February, 2013 in Appeal No:CA/EK/49/2011 be and is hereby made the judgment of this court.

For the avoidance of doubt and in accordance with the terms of settlement so filed, I make the following Orders: