Johnson O. Esezoobo V. Dr. Mohammed Aba Aji & Ors (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

ABIMBOLA OSARUGUE OBASEKI-ADEJUMO, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the judgment of ALIYU, J. of the Federal High Court Lagos Division delivered on 6th day of February, 2007. The suit was originally commenced by an Originating Summons dated 19th day of December, 2001 filed on 13th March 2002. It was subsequently converted to a writ of summons following a successful Preliminary objection of Respondent’s counsel.

The Respondents filed a Joint Statement of Defense to which Appellant filed a Reply. During trial, the Appellant filed two separate motions on 26th April, 2005 and 25th July, 2006 respectively. Upon conclusion of trial, judgment was given in favour of the Respondent. Dissatisfied with the judgment the Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal of twelve (12) grounds.

The Appellant’s brief dated 20th November, 2015 was filed on 13th April, 2016, 5th May, 2016 and reply brief dated 29th April 2011 filed 5th May, 2011 deemed same was settled by Johnson O. Esezoobo, Esq. of J. Odion Esezoobo & Co. He settled nine (9) issues for determination this appeal as follows:

1. Whether the learned

1

trial judge appreciated the Appellant’s case and was not wrong when he held that there was no breach of contract or that the Appellant’s “case failed totally and accordingly” dismissed the case. This issue relates to ground 1, 5, and 8 of the grounds of appeal.

2. Whether the learned trial judge properly evaluated the evidence and was right when he relied on the oral evidence of DW1 who testified on behalf of the 3rd Respondent only in purported proof of averments of the 1st defendant who neither appeared nor gave evidence for himself. This relates to ground 2 of the grounds of appeal.
3. Whether the learned trial judge was right when he held that the Appellant’s employment with the 3rd Respondent was not protected by Statute or is not with statutory flavour but one of common law master and servant. This issue relates to ground 3 of the grounds of appeal.
4. Whether the learned trial judge was right when he relied on a portion of Exhibit A10 and concluded that the Plaintiff acted against the interest of his employers and in breach of his contract of employment. This relates to ground 4 of the grounds of appeal.
5. Whether the learned trial

2

judge was right in disallowing the Appellant from representing himself as well as in discountenancing his written address and if yes whether the learned trial judge was not biased as much as denied the Appellant a fair hearing in breach of his judicial oath. This issue relates to grounds 6 and 12 of the grounds of appeal.

6. Whether the learned trial judge did not misdirect himself and wrongly relied on and misapplied the authorities of IMOLOAME V. W.A.E.C. (1992) 9 NWLR (Pt. 265) 303, FAKUADE v. O.A.U.T.H.M.B. (1993) 5 NWLR (Pt. 290) 47, OKOMU OIL PLAM CO. LTD v. ISIERHIENHEN (2001) 6 NWLR (Pt. 710) 660 IDONIBOYE-OBU v. N.N.P.C. (2003) 2 NWLR (Pt. 805) 58 AT 62 AND IDERIMA v. R.S.C.S.C. (2005) 16 NWLR (Pt. 951) 379 in deciding the case against the Appellant. This issue relates to ground 7 of the grounds of appeal.
7. Whether the learned trial judge did not misdirect himself in law when he held that the 1st Respondent “is the supervisory authority of staff” of the 3rd Respondent and in presuming delegation of the 3rd Respondent’s power of discipline over the Appellant to the 1st Respondent. This relates to ground 9 of the grounds of Appeal.

8.

3

Whether the whole judgment is not perverse and against the weight of evidence, as such unreasonable and occasioned a miscarriage of justice. This relates to ground 10 of the grounds of Appeal.

9. Whether the learned trial judge did not misdirect himself in law and facts when he held that “it will lead to absurdity to interpret the pleasure president as meaning the president of Nigeria must personally terminate or authorize the determination of the plaintiffs appointment”. This relates to ground 11 of the grounds of Appeal.

The 1st to 3rd Respondents’ brief was dated 29th November, 2010 and filed on 17th January, 2011 but deemed 21st April, 2011. It was settled by Alade Babatunde Kasumu Esq., Prof. A. B. Kasumu’s Chambers wherein he nominated four (4) issues for determination as follows:

1. “Whether the trial judge was right in holding that the employment of the Appellant with the 3rd Respondent is not protected by Statute and not of statutory flavour (Distilled from Ground three)

?2. Whether the trial judge failed to properly evaluate the documentary evidence tendered by the Appellant in coming to the conclusion that the Appellant acted

4