Matthew Iwuoha V. Mobil Producing Nig. Unltd. (2011)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

KUMAI BAYANG AKAAHS, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

By letter dated June 28th, 1979 and received in evidence as Exh. ‘B’, the plaintiff now Appellant was offered employment as Expeditor II- Traffic on a basic salary of N3,600.00 per annum in Mobil producing Nigeria. He was entitled to a rental subsidy of N1,080.00 per annum; Christmas Bonus of N150.00 and N270.00 annual leave allowance bringing the total of his emoluments to N5, 100.00 per annum. His appointment was confirmed in a letter dated 2nd January, 1988 tendered as Exh. ‘C’. On 27th December, 1989 he received Exh. ‘A’ is terminating his appointment with effect from 31st December, 1989. He took out a Writ of summons on 5th April, 1990 claiming N1,000,000.00 as special and general damages for wrongful dismissal. The Writ and Statement of Claim were later amended raising the damages to N8,000,000.00. The defendant denied the claim. Pleadings were filed and exchanged.

Thereafter the plaintiff testified and tendered several exhibit and was cross-examined. The defence also called a witness, namely, Mr. Steve Michael Asuquo, the Human Resource Co-Coordinator for Mobil Producing Unlimited who testified and tendered the Mobil Producing Nigeria Employee Handbook and was admitted as Exh. ‘W’. After the Defence witness was cross-examined, learned counsel addresses the court. In a reserved judgment delivered on 15th January, 2004, the learned trial Judge held that the plaintiff was entitled to be following:

i) Salary up to and including 31/12/89

ii) One month’s salary in lieu of notice

iii) Proportionate leave pay and allowance

iv) Overtime pay if any

v) Severance benefit

vi) All other benefit and entitlement due to the plaintiff.

Despite this finding the learned trial Judge proceed to hold that it is not possible to quantify in cash the actual entitlements of the plaintiff or even all the items of entitlement until the plaintiff gets to the defendant Senior Staff accountant payroll as indicated in Exhibit ‘A’. he according non-suited the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff felt dissatisfied with the judgment and appealed against it in his Notice of Appeal dated 8th April, 2004 which Contained four ground of appeal. On 12/9/2006, the Appellant brought an application for leave to amend the Grounds of appeal and file two additional grounds. The application was moved and granted on 29/3/2007. From a total of six ground of appeal the following six issues were formulated for determination:-

1. Whether the learned trial Judge was right when he held that the Respondent did not make any imputation of crime against the Appellant thus the Appellant was on a frolic of his when he went outside Exh. ‘A’ to search for reasons for termination of his appointment in Exh. ‘E’ that was not proved?
2. Whether the learned trial Judge was right when he held that the Respondent having abandoned its pleadings the issues raised by the abandoned facts must be disregarded when other material facts including Exh. ‘E’ were properly before the court?
3. Whether the court below was right in ignoring the provisions of Exh. ‘H’ and raising suo motu the issue of its legal status, declaring same to be a non-binding gentleman’s agreement?
4. Whether the learned trial Judge had the jurisdiction to non-suit the Plaintiff and if he had, whether this was a proper case for an order of non-suit?
5. Whether the trial court right when it raised suo motu the issue of non-suit and ruled therein without calling on the counsel for the parties to address it on the issue?
6. Whether in the circumstance of this case, the Appellant was not entitled to restatement and eventual retirement benefits from Exxon Mobil which took over the Respondent?

The Respondent adopted the issue formulated by the Appellant.

I intend to dispose of issue No. 6 before dealing with the other issues raised in the appeal. In the Statement of Claim dated 9th July, 1990 there was an alternative claim for reinstatement in paragraph 23 of the Statement of Claim which reads:

“23. Wherefore, the Plaintiff’s claim is for Two Million Naira (2,000,000.00) being special and general damages for wrongful dismissal of the plaintiff in that the plaintiff who was a Senior Staff in the Aviation Department of the Defendant’s Branch Office at Eket, was summarily dismissed by a letter dated 27th December, 1989 contrary to the conditions of service and in breach of the Rules of Natural Justice, or in the ALTERNATIVE, to re-instate the Plaintiff.”