Francis C. Arinze Vs First Bank Of Nigeria (2004)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

BELGORE, J.S.C. 

The appellant, was the plaintiff at the High Court of former Anambra State sitting at Onitsha. He lost his action against the respondent bank that employed him, claiming wrongful dismissal. He claimed N250,000 as special and general damages. Among the reasons given at the trial for his dismissal were the various cases of insubordination, absenteeism and fraudulent claim for overtime while he was not even on duty. Various letters were sent to him on his misbehaviour and he chose not to reply to them and during trial he claimed not to have received any of the letters which are exhibits U, V,W, X and Y. At the end of the trial, trial Judge, Ononiba J. (as he then was) found the appellant failed to prove his case and thereby dismissed the suit. He therefore appealed to Court of Appeal which dismissed the appeal in upholding trial court’s judgment.

The appellant filed ten grounds of appeal and wrote a brief of argument to cover all the grounds. However, at the hearing in this court, the respondent bank raised preliminary objection that all of the grounds were of mixed law and facts with no leave having been sought and granted to file them. The appellant had no valid reply except to accept that only ground 2 out of the ten grounds was valid. Grounds 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 were therefore struck out as incompetent. Therefore the only valid ground sustaining the appeal is ground 2 covered by issue number 3 in the appellant’s brief. Ground 2 reads:

“The learned Justices of Court of Appeal erred in law when they held that in the particular circumstances of the appellant (who did not admit the allegation made against him) and who denied receiving exhibits U, V, W, X, Y, Z, A1 it was enough without prosecuting him that the respondent did afford the appellant the opportunity of defending himself through written answers to the queries before dismissing him and as such the case of the appellant came within the exception in the cases of:

Federal Civil Service Commission & 2 Ors. v. J. O. Laoye (1989) 2 NWLR (Pt. 106) 652 and Yusuf v. Union Bank of Nigeria Ltd. (1996) 6 NWLR (Pt. 457) 632; (1996) 6 SCNJ 203 when the case of the appellant did not fall within the said exception and he ought to have been prosecuted.

Particulars of error

(a) By the said Supreme Court authorities where an employee admits the allegation leveled against him, he need not be prosecuted and the employer could exercise disciplinary action against him.

(b) Where as in this case he denies the allegations of which allegations are of very serious criminal nature as per exhibits E, F, G, H, J, K, he must be prosecuted to establish his guilt in an appropriate forum.

(c) The employer cannot validly adjudge the serious issues of which had been denied and have the employee dismissed as was done in the instant case.

(d) The employer cannot prove by himself the offences as enumerated in paragraph 1 of Article 5(c).

(e) Such disciplinary action as may be taken without observance of the above principle is invalid, incompetent and void.

(f) The evidence was also that the appellant did not receive the exhibits U, V, W, X, V, Z, A1 tendered through DW1.

(g) Appellant’s denial ought to be applied in his favour.

(h) The offences listed under paragraph (1) of Articles 5(c) of the appendix ‘C’ of exhibit C cannot be said to have been proven unless admitted or successfully prosecuted in court.”