HRH Eze Okechi Jacob Ananaba V. Fri-el Aba Palm Nigeria Limited & Ors (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

PETER OLABISI IGE, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This appeal is against part of the decision of ABIA STATE HIGH COURT, UMUAHIA DIVISION, contained in the Judgment of Honourable Justice S. A. NWAKANMA delivered on the 22nd day of November, 2012.

The Appellant as Claimant had by his amended Statement of Claim claimed against the Respondents as Defendants at the trial Court the following reliefs:

1. A declaration of the Honourable Court that the Claimant is still a member of staff of the 1st Defendant company by reason of rejection by 1st Defendant of the Claimant’s voluntary withdrawal/retirement from the services of 1st Defendant on 27th March 1997.
2. An Order directing the 1st and 2nd Defendants to implement forthwith the directives of the Abia State Government in their respective memoranda to the 1st and 2nd Defendants on the status of the Claimant vis-a -vis the Claimant’s employment with the 1st Defendant Company.
3. An Order directing the 1st and 2nd Defendants to assess, ascertain and determine the Claimant’s present rank and status inclusive of his promotions in the employment and

1

service of the 1st Defendant up to the date of Judgment.

4. An Order directing the 1st and 2nd Defendants to pay to the Claimant forthwith all his arrears of salaries and other emolument accruing and are still accruing to the Claimant as an employee of the 1st Defendant with effect from and inclusive of the month of June 1996 till he is properly disengaged from service.
5. An Order quashing the ?indefinite suspension? clamped on the Claimant by the 1st and 2nd Defendants since 27th March 1997 for been a violation of known principles of equity, justice, and contrary to Public Service Rules of Abia State as well as Senior Staff conditions of Service of the 1st Defendant.
6. An Order directing the 1st and 2nd Defendants to release forthwith to the Claimant in good conditions all his original academic certificates and other documents seized and detained by the 1st and 2nd Defendants since 17th July 1992 after unlawfully breaking into the Claimant?s Official Quarters.
7. Ten Million (N10,000,000.00) general damages against the 1st and 2nd Defendants in favour of the Claimant for unlawful invasion of Claimant?s Official

2

Quarters on 17th July 1992, seizure and detention of his properties.

8. Four Hundred and Ninety-Nine Thousand, Seven Hundred Naira (N499,700.00) being special damages for the cost of Claimant?s personal properties lost as a result of 1st and 2nd Defendant?s unlawful invasion of his official quarters on 17th July 1992, seizure and detention of his properties without lawful orders of Court and refusal to release them upon demand by the Claimant.

The 3rd Defendant exchange pleadings with the Claimant now Appellant. The 1st and 2nd Respondent did not defend the action. The matter proceeded to trial at the end of which the learned trial Judge in a considered Judgment found for the Appellant as follows:

“Having exhaustively reviewed the evidence presented by the parties. I have come to the conclusion that Abia Palm Nigeria limited is now the 1st Defendant Company of which the Abia State Government has always played a part in a role. The Defendants must comply with conditions of service (Exhibit ?C?) entered into between them and the Claimant, particularly with respect to Discipline of Senior Staff. I therefore grant

3

Reliefs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. I refuse Reliefs 6 and 8 due to the inability of the Claimant and failure to prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt. Relief No. 7 which is a Claim for general damages cannot be granted because it relates to the unlawful invasion of the Claimant?s house seizure and detention of his properties. The Claimant as earlier stated did not produce sufficient evidence to show exactly what happened and those who were physically involved.

This Claim for general damages cannot be awarded as a matter of course. Since it is tied to the allegation of a crime, which has not met the standard of proof required.

There is no Order as to cost.?

Aggrieved by the refusal of the trial Judge to grant reliefs 6, 7 and 8 as contained in the Appellant?s prayer in his Amended Statement of Claim, the Appellant has now appeal to this Court vide his Notice and Grounds of Appeal dated the 12th day of February, 2013 filed on the same date containing three (3) as follows: