Federal Medical Centre, Ido Ekiti & Ors. V. Omidiora Kolawole O. (2011)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This appeal arose from the judgment of the Federal High Court, Akure, Ondo State presided over by Lambo J. Akanbi, J delivered on the 2nd day of October, 2007, the suit was subsequently transferred to the Ado-Ekiti Judicial Division of the Federal High Court on creation of same.

The respondent herein was the plaintiff in the High Court, a nursing officer employed by the 1st appellant herein (then defendant) on the 24th day of September, 1999 as a Nursing Officer I. The letter of appointment is dated 24th September 1999, with reference NO FMC/ID |EK/ADM/678. By a letter reference No. FMC/ID/EK/232 dated 14th November, 2002 the respondent was confirmed. He was by a letter dated 13th July, 2004, Ref. No. FMC/ID/EK/P.158 /41 promoted to Principal Nursing Superintendent Grade II, a Senior Staff.

The appellants found the respondent culpable for his role in refusing to allow a Medical Doctor perform an operation in the theatre, which resulted in the death of a mother and child and his appointment was terminated by the 1st appellant. The respondent as plaintiff originally filed his action at the Federal High Court, Akure. The learned trial judge on 2nd October, 2007 gave judgment in favour of the respondent and ordered the reinstatement of the respondent among other reliefs. The appellants were dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial court, appealed to this court.

The appellants originally filed a sole ground in their original notice of appeal dated 8/10/07 filed on 9/10/07, later amended on application on 14/10/09 when the amended Notice dated 17/7/08, filed on 18/7/08 was deemed as properly filed and served. The amended Notice of appeal had additional grounds 2 – 6. From the six (6) grounds of appeal, the appellant distilled four (4) issues for determination. They are:-

1. “Whether the trial court was justified in holding that the Plaintiff/Respondent’s employment is one with statutory flavour.

2. Whether the trial judge was justified in ordering reinstatement of the plaintiff/Respondent.

3. Whether the procedure adopted in terminating the appointment of the Plaintiff/Respondent violate the rules of natural justice.

4. Whether from the issues arising, the trial court was justified in ordering payment of all salaries and allowances to the Plaintiff/Respondent.”

The respondent on his part adopted the issues formulated by the appellant even though he was of the opinion they are not apt and pungent, thus:

(i) “Whether the trial judge was not justified in holding that the plaintiff-respondent’s employment is one with statutory flavour.

(ii) Whether the trial judge was not justified in ordering reinstatement of the plaintiff-respondent.

(iii) Whether the procedure adopted by the appellant in terminating the appointment of the respondent did not violate the rules of natural justice.

(iv) Whether from the issues arising before the trial court, the court was not right in ordering the payment of all salaries and allowances to the respondent.”