Koomlong I. Miaphen V. University Of Jos Consultancy Limited (2013)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

IBRAHIM SHATA BDLIYA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

Before the Plateau State High Court presided over by Hon. Justice Y.G. Dakwak (hereinafter referred to as the trial court), the appellant who was then the plaintiff claimed as follows against the respondent, who was then the defendant.

1. A declaration that the purported suspension of the plaintiff is unlawful, null and void; and of no effect whatsoever.
2. The sum of N218, 100.00 (Two Hundred and Eighteen Thousand, One Hundred Naira only) being balance of the plaintiff half salary unpaid during the period of the said suspension.
3. The sum of one Million Five Hundred Thousand Naira Only (N1.5M) being general damages for the psychological trauma, depression and pain suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the suspension.
4. A declaration that the purported termination of the plaintiff’s appointment is wrongful as same violates the regulations guiding the Plaintiff’s appointment.
5. An order re-instating the plaintiff and directing the restoration of the plaintiff’s benefits and entitlements.
6. IN THE ALTERNATIVE, the sum of Two Hundred and Fourteen Thousand, Five Hundred Naira only (N214,500.00) being the plaintiff’s gratuity and one month’s salary in lieu of notice.

The background facts and or events culminating into the institution of the case before the trial court could be summarized thus: sometime in 1991 the appellant applied for employment with consultancy services Division of the University of Jos. He was employed as Project Manager and was issued a letter of appointment. He rose to the rank of Acting Director in 1996. The Respondent was incorporated in 1997 by the name of University of Jos Consultancy Services Limited with its registered office at Murtala Mohammed Way, Jos. In 1998, the Appellant was suspended based on the recommendation of the Board of Directors of the Respondent.

The Appellant was served with a letter requesting him to account for certain sums of money he allegedly misappropriated, He responded by replying the letter giving an account of how the said sums of money was utilized. After receiving the response of the appellant, the respondent issued a letter terminating his appointment. The appellant did not agree with the termination of his appointment. He instituted a legal action against the Respondent before the Plateau State High Court. After hearing of the case, the trial court dismissed all the claims of the appellant, save that of payment of salary in lieu of notice. The appellant was not satisfied with the judgment of the trial court, hence his appeal to this court vide a notice of appeal dated and filed on 22nd of April, 2002.

The notice of appeal filed on 22nd April, 2002, consisted of five (5) grounds of appeal, without their particulars, they are as follows:

GROUND ONE

The Judgment is against the weight of evidence.

GROUND TWO

The learned trial judge erred in law when he relied on Exhibit “E” as amounting to a query and the basis upon which the Plaintiff was suspended, and proceeded thereafter to hold that “… the Defendant is therefore a separate and distinct legal entity from the University of Jos… The University of Jos Act, the rules and regulations which is the Exhibit “H” does not therefore apply in the affairs of the Defendant”, and by so holding occasioned a serious miscarriage of justice.

GROUND THREE

The learned trial judge misdirected himself in law when he held that the plaintiff was not entitled to the monetary claims in respect of the suspension, on the ground that the “Plaintiff was not only suspended but his appointment was eventually terminated”, and thereby occasioned a miscarriage of justice.

GROUND FOUR

The learned trial judge erred in law when he suo motu held that the Defendant “… is not an agent of University of Jos or University of Jos Consultancy Service Division. The University of Jos Act, the rules and regulations which is Exhibit “H” do not therefore apply in the affairs of the Defendant, and thereby occasioned miscarriage of justice.

GROUND FIVE