M. Kwajafah v.United Nigerian Textiles Plc (2009)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

AMINA ADAMU AUGIE, J.C.A.

The Appellant worked with the Respondent for thirty four years. He was found with company property i.e. aluminum electrodes in his clothes when closing for the day and was summarily dismissed. Aggrieved by the fact that he was dismissed without investigation, he filed an action at the Kaduna State High Court, and claimed for-

1. A Declaration that his dismissal by the Respondent was wrong and therefore null, void and of no effect having not been investigated;

ii. An Order directing the Respondent to pay him the sum of N1.5m being monies accrued to him while in the Respondent’s services;

iii. N500,000.00 being general damages and loss of earnings; and

iv. The cost of the action.

Upon being served, and without filing a Statement of Defence, the Respondent filed a Motion on Notice praying the lower Court for-

“An Order striking out the Statement of Claim and dismissing the Suit, no cause of action having been shown by the Plaintiff.

The Grounds for the Application are as follows –

1. The Statement of Claim admits in paragraph 3 that property of the Defendant was found on the Plaintiff at the point of exiting from the factory of the Defendant.
2. The plaintiff has not explained how he came into possession of the Defendants property without lawful authority.
3. Paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 on the Statement of Claim are either embarrassing or scandalous or vexatious or an abuse of the process of the Court.

The Application was supported by a 9-paragraph Affidavit, wherein it was averred as follows in paragraphs 3 to 6 of the said Affidavit –

3. That on 2nd March 2003 the Plaintiff was found with a quantity of aluminum electrodes property of the Defendant, on his way out of the Factory after closing for the day.
4. That during investigation the Plaintiff made a statement in writing admitting that he was caught with electrodes in his possession. The said written statement is now produced, shown to me and marked Exhibit AT/1.
5. that by a circular Ref. 31/95 dated 12th September 1995 all employees of the Defendant had been warned of the consequences of taking away company property without lawful authority. Now produced, shown to me is the said circular marked Exhibit AT/2.
6. That the conduct of the Plaintiff was considered a breach of his fundamental obligation to his employer and he was disciplined accordingly.

The Appellant opposed the Application with a 7-paragraph Counter- Affidavit wherein it was averred in paragraph 3 (a) to (g)-

a. That the motion on Notice filed by the Defendant was filed in bad faith.

b. That paragraph (3) of the Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim is not an admission as opined by Ground (1) of the Motion on Notice.

c. That comprehensive facts leading to how Exhibit AT/1 was planted in the Plaintiff’s property and this could clearly be seen in paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim. (Sic)

d. That Exhibit AT/2 is beyond the comprehension and decision of the Defendant and or its agents or privy.