Geo Memorial Medical Centre & Anor V. National Directorate Of Employment (2013)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

CHINWE EUGENIA IYIZOBA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the Judgment of Nyako J of the Federal High Court delivered on the 3rd day of December, 2009 in Suit No FHC/ABJ/CS/622/2003.

The Appellants as Plaintiffs sued the Respondent and the Federal Ministry of Labour and Productivity as Defendants. By their final Amended Statement of Claim dated 15th November, 2005 the Appellants claimed the following 6 reliefs against the Respondents:- 1.

“A Declaration that by virtue of the renewal of consultancy services agreement letter dated 6th June, 1999 reference No Aa/Z/6011a/55 between the Plaintiffs and Defendants, the plaintiffs remain the medical consultant to the 1st Defendant under the benefits thereon.

2. A Declaration that the purported award of the same consultancy service contract to another organization while the service agreement is still existing and binding in so far as it seeks or purports to abridge the right of the Plaintiffs under the agreement is irregular, illegal, wrongful, unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect.
3. A Declaration that there is no infraction of provisions of Section 36 (1) and 42 (i) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 by the Defendants against the plaintiffs and violative of its inalienable Constitutional rights.
4. AN Order for the payment by Defendant of the sum of N16, 940, 000 (Sixteen Million Nine, Hundred and Forty Thousand Naira only), being outstanding arrears of fees on the consultancy services agreement with Defendants.
5. Interest therein at the rate of 10% per annum from April, 1998 until the said debt is liquidated.
6. Cost of this action.”

The Appellants’ case is that, they having been duly appointed by the Respondent as its sole accredited Medical Consultant, the Respondent wrongly terminated the said appointment without due recourse to the Consultancy Services Agreement between the Appellants and the Respondent. The Appellants further claim that by the Consultancy Services Agreement between the parties, they were entitled to the sum of N16, 940,000 from the Respondent being arrears of fees for services rendered.

By their amended statement of defence filed on 20/7/09 the Respondent’s defence to the claim was that the Consultancy Services Agreement between the parties had been terminated and that the arrears of the Consultancy Fees in the sum of N5, 985, 000, which had been verified by the National Economic Intelligence Commission (NEIC) and published in the THIS DAY Newspaper to the knowledge of the Appellants had been paid to the Appellants. The Appellant had in writing and during the pendency of the suit in accepting the payment also accepted the condition that payment is in full and final settlement of all claims arising from or otherwise related to the consultancy agreement.

On 11th April, 2006 the Federal Ministry of Labour and Productivity was struck out as the 2nd Defendant by the Trial Judge in response to a Preliminary Objection that the Ministry is not a juristic person that can sue and be sued.

On 3/12/09, the Trial Court delivered judgment dismissing the case on the ground that the Appellants’ claim had been extinguished by the acceptance of the amount paid to them as full and final settlement of the debt relating to the contract of medical consultancy between the parties.

The Appellants being dissatisfied with the Judgment filed a Notice of Appeal with 7 grounds of appeal out of which learned counsel for the appellant distilled 2 issues for determination as follows:-

1. Whether the Court below was right in holding, relying on Exhibit B1 alone, that the payment of the sum of N5, 985, 000.00 to the Appellants by the Budget office of the Federation had extinguished their claims, thereby waiving their further rights with regard to the Contract of Medical Consultancy between them and the Respondents and thereby came to a correct decision in the matter.
2. Whether the incorrect findings of facts as relates to when the suit was filed and the number of cassettes tendered as Exhibits and other cogent pieces of evidence led by the Appellants had not adversely affected the evaluation of evidence and findings of facts as well as the quality of the judgment in general and thereby occasioned the Appellants a miscarriage of justice.

The Respondent on the other hand identified the following two issues for determination:

1. Whether the Court below was right in holding, relying on all the credible evidence admitted that the payment of the sum of N5, 985, 000.00 to the Appellants by the Budget Office of the Federation had extinguished their claims with regard to the contract of Medical Consultancy Agreement between them and the Respondent and thereby came to a correct decision in the matter.
2. Whether the incorrect reference as to when the Suit was filed and the number of cassettes tendered in evidence as Exhibits but not played back to anybody during the course of trial affected the evaluation of evidence and findings of fact which thereby occasioned the Appellants a miscarriage of Justice.

In his Reply Brief, Appellants’ counsel argued that the two issues formulated by the Respondents did not arise from the grounds of appeal and are therefore incompetent. The Respondent’s issues in my view arise from the Grounds of Appeal and are basically the same as the two issues formulated by the Appellants except that the Respondent in formulating the issues introduced some fine distinctions which ought to be dealt with in counsel’s submissions. Since the appeal is that of the Appellant, I will adopt the appellants’ issues in the determination of the appeal notwithstanding its prolixity.

ISSUE ONE

Whether the Court below was right in holding, relying on Exhibit B1 alone, that the payment of the sum of N5, 985, 000.00 to the Appellants by the Budget Office of the Federation had extinguished their claims, thereby waiving their further rights with regard to the Contract of Medical Consultancy between them and the Respondents and thereby came to a correct decision in the matter.

APPELLANTS’ ARGUMENTS: