Ilemobayo Ehinmosan V. Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation & Anor (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

HAMMA AKAWU BARKA, J.C.A.(Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This appeal is against the decision of the Federal High Court No. 2 Benin City Presided over by Hon. Justice A.A. Okeke in Suit No.FHC/B/CS/10086/2007, between Ilemobayo Ehinmosan and the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation and the Integrated Data Services Ltd, delivered on the 23rd day of March 2012; wherein the Plaintiff€™s claims were dismissed as contained in his amended statement of claim.

The claim is at pages 58 €“ 67 of the records, while the judgment of the court is at pages 418 to 429 of the records.

The Appellant being dissatisfied with the decision of the trial court filed a notice of appeal to this court, bearing seven grounds of appeal. This too is at pages 430 €“ 433 of the records of appeal.

The facts crucial to this appeal according to the Appellant arose from the relationship between the Appellant and the two Respondents. The Appellant was prior to sometimes in August 2006, when he was compulsorily retired, a staff of the 2nd Respondent. He was employed by the Respondents on the 25th of July 1979, by the 1st Respondent and rose to the position of Deputy Manager with effect from the 1st of January, 2000. The 1st Respondent, the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation is a body Corporate, while the 2nd Respondent is a subsidiary of the 1st Respondent.

The Appellant claims that as at the 1st of January 2000, he became a beneficiary of the monetization scheme, which also applies to the 2nd Respondent.

Upon his compulsory retirement in August 2006, and after having put in 27 years of service, the Appellant was cleared of all indebtedness to the Respondents and issued clearance certificates accordingly. The sum of N32,539,736.96 kobo was then due to the Appellant as his gratuity but much to the chagrin of the Appellant, the sums of N5,205,755.52 kobo was deducted from the said gratuity on the ground that same represented his indebtedness to the Respondents.

That the deduction represented monetized benefits paid to the Appellant before his retirement. The 1st Respondents further on the 20th of February 2007, wrote a letter to the 2nd Respondent urging it not to make such deduction from the entitlements of any staff retiring. The said letter is referred to as Exhibit P8.

The Respondents do not dispute the facts enumerated by the Appellant, but rather contended that the Appellant as a staff of the Respondents was entitled to certain monetized allowances paid to staff at the beginning of the year or periodically, as the case may be. It states that the Respondents maintained a policy by which it would prorate, and deduct any unexhausted allowances if the staff left the service of the Corporation earlier than the 31st of December of the year. It was further contended that when the staff (Appellant) left and or was retired on the 1/8/2006, the Respondents prorated and deducted the unexhausted monetized allowances from his terminal benefits. The outstanding balance of a car loan outstanding against the Appellant was also deducted.

At the close of pleadings, the appellant gave evidence in support of his claim and tendered several Exhibits. The Respondents also testified through a single witness and also tendered several exhibits/documents. At the close of hearing and addresses, the trial court dismissed the Appellant€™s case, holding that the Appellant failed to prove that the deductions were wrongful.

The appeal having been entered before this court on the 13//7/12, parties filed and served their respective briefs of argument.

The Appellant€™s brief settled by R.O. Isenalumhe was filed on the 16/5/13. The Respondents brief settled by P.D. Abalaka was settled on the 14/10/14.

On the 22/10/15 being the scheduled hearing date, parties adopted their respective briefs. Whereas the Appellants prayed that the appeal be allowed, the Respondents urged upon the court to dismiss the appeal.

From the seven grounds of appeal put forward by the Appellants, four issues were proposed for the resolution of the appeal. They are as follows:-