Gyang V. National Steel Council (Metalurgical Research Tests Division) Jos & Anor (2002)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

T.MUHAMMAD, J.C.A.

The plaintiff was an employee of the 1st respondent which was a body corporate. Plaintiff claimed to have been employed by the Nigerian Steel Development Authority as a driver/mechanic in July, 1973. His appointment was confirmed vide letter Ref. No. SP/642/23 of 26th August, 1977, with effect from 1st day of July, 1974. He was therefore entitled to all rights conferred on him as a permanent employee of the 1st defendant. Such rights included security against wanton termination, dismissal or retirement from service. The last position held by the plaintiff was that of a Chief Motor Driver/Mechanic. Plaintiff’s appointment was determined by the 1st defendant by retiring him compulsorily for malingering, unproductiveness and redundancy. Plaintiff averred further that such allegations were never formally brought to his notice and was never afforded any chance to answer same.

Aggrieved by the 1st defendant’s action, plaintiff took a writ of summons from the Plateau State High Court holden at Jos (lower court) and endorsed the following claims:

“13. Wherefore the plaintiff claims from the defendants jointly and severally, the sum of:

(a) N13,334.20 as specific damages.

(b) N36,000.00 general damages for wrongful compulsory retirement.

(c) to be reinstated.

(d) all arrears of salary and entitlements until the date of judgment and posts.”

Pleadings were settled by the parties. In their amended statement of defence, the defendants denied plaintiff’s claim. Defendants raised a preliminary objection in their amended statement of defence. A counter-affidavit to the preliminary objection was filed by the plaintiff. The preliminary objection was heard and determined by the trial court. The learned trial Judge upheld the preliminary objection and dismissed the plaintiff’s claim.

Dissatisfied, the plaintiff filed his notice and a lone ground of appeal to the Court of Appeal.

In this court briefs were filed and exchanged by the parties after each had an order from the court extending time to do so. In his brief, learned counsel for the appellant formulated two issues:

“(i) Whether or not the provision of section 2(a) of Public Officers Protection Act (Cap. 168, Vol. V) Laws of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1958 (as amended) protects a public institution.

(ii) Whether or not the provision of section 2(a) of Public Officers Protection Act, Cap. 168, Vol. V. Laws of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1958 (as amended) is applicable to contractual relationship between an individual and an institution.”

In their joint briefs, the respondents adopted the issues formulated by appellant. Let me observe that the notice of appeal filed contained only one ground of appeal. There is no evidence in the record that additional ground(s) were later filed. This ground, without its particulars reads as follows: