First Bank Of Nigeria Plc V. Mr. Efobi Effiong Bam (2010)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

ISAIAH OLUFEMI AKEJU, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

The appellant in this appeal was the defendant in Suit No. HT/20/2007 commenced by the respondent at the Ikot Ekpene Division of the High Court of Akwa Ibom State, for the following reliefs as endorsed on the writ of summons filed on 27th April, 2007 and averred in paragraph 24 of the Statement of Claim filed on the same date:

“1. Claims N20,000.00, (Twenty Million Naira) being general damages for wrongful dismissal,

2. Reinstatement to the service of the defendant and payment of his basis (sic) salary of N209,000 per annum and other entitlements form the 18th of May, 2004, to the date of judgment.
3. In the alternative, entitled to be promoted to the next step retired with full benefits of N8,000.00 (Eight Million Naira) in view of his commendable track record and years of service in the defendant bank.”

The appellant did not file any defence and did not appear at the hearing of the suit. The learned trial judge after listening to the Respondent as the only witness, gave judgment on 27th November, 2008 in his favour and ordered the Appellant to:

“1. Reinstate the plaintiff in his status of Manager as at 18th May, 2004 when he was dismissed.

2. Pay him his salaries and allowance and other entitlement from May, 2004.
3. Grant him all promotions due.
4. Pay the plaintiff N3,000 (Three Thousand Naira) cost.”

Dissatisfied with the judgment and orders of the lower court, the appellant has appealed to this court on four grounds.

Learned counsel to the Appellant, E.O.E. Ekong Esq. formulated three issues in his Brief of Argument as distilled from the grounds of appeal:

(i) whether having regard to the peculiar facts of this case, the learned trial Judge was right when he ordered the reinstatement of the Respondent to his status as Manager in the appellant’s employment as at 18th May, 2004 when he was dismissed.

(ii) Whether having regard to the peculiar facts of this case the learned trial judge was right when he ordered the Appellant to pay the Respondent’s “salaries and allowances and other entitlement from May, 2004.”

(iii) Whether the Judgment of the Lower Court delivered on 27th November, 2008 demonstrates in full a dispassionate consideration of all issues of fact and law arising in the substantive suit leading to the present Appeal.

On issue (1), the learned counsel argued that the learned trial judge was wrong to have ordered the reinstatement of the respondent to the position of Manager which he occupied as at 18th May, 2004 when he was dismissed. Appellant’s counsel contended that the respondent did not tender the contract of employment or terms he had with the bank and so no credible evidence existed to show that the respondent was entitled to reinstatement. The learned counsel submitted also that in law, the relief of reinstatement in master and servant case is available only to employee who by the terms of their contract of employment can establish circumstances showing that they are entitled to be reinstated. According to the learned counsel the respondent did not give evidence that warranted the order of the lower court reinstating him. He cited Okocha vs. Civil Service Commission, Edo State (2004) FWLR (Pt. 190) 1304 at 1307; Nigeria Telecommunications Plc vs. Emmanuel Awala (2004) 1 NLLR 82 at 87.

On issue No. 2, the learned counsel contended that the Court below was wrong in law when it ordered the appellant to pay to the respondent all his salaries and allowances as well as other entitlements. The basis for this contention was that the respondent did not place any credible evidence before the court to entitle him to such relief as the respondent did not produce any contract of employment with the appellant from were the court could have ascertained the terms and conditions of that employment.

The learned counsel submitted also that the evidence of the Respondent on the issue of his salary varied with the facts pleaded thereon in the statement of claim wherein he had put his salary at N209,000 while he produced exhibit 2 during his oral testimony and the salary was N165,000, a contradiction the learned trial judge failed to resolve but made an order for payment of salary without any specific figure. On issue No. 3, appellant’s counsel argued that the learned trial judge did not dispassionately consider all the issues that arose in the suit by failing to review and evaluate the documentary evidence tendered in support of the respondent’s claim. He contended that the order reinstating the respondent was not in line with the law as in decisions of Supreme Court of Nigeria on that relief as the respondent showed no special circumstances that entitled him to relief of reinstatement while the findings of the lower court were perverse and based on legally inadmissible evidence. He submitted that the other or further reliefs granted by the learned trial judge were unlawful. He cited the cases Trade Bank Plc vs. K. B. Chami (2004) FWLR (Pt.235) Page 118 at 123-124; Stephen Okedion & Ors vs. Federal Airport Authority of Nigeria & Another (2008).

The learned counsel submitted that after granting the respondent’s principal relief for reinstatement, the lower court was in error by making an order directing the appellant to “grant him all promotions due.” He cited Trade Bank Plc vs. K. B. Chami 2004 ALL FWLR (Pt. 235) Page 118; Stephen Okedion & ors vs. Federal Airports Authority of Nigeria & Anor; Aji vs. Chad Basin Development Authority (2004) All FWLR (Pt.237) Page 424.