Mobil Oil (Nig.) Ltd. & Anor V. S. T.assan (2002)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

ADEREMI, J.C.A. 

In the court below, (High Court of Lagos State), the respondent as plaintiff claimed against the appellants as defendants in that court as follows:

(1) A declaration that the plaintiff being a grade 17 officer within the 1st defendant’s establishment and having been enjoying the benefits and prerequisites attached thereto is entitled to retain the salary status and fringe benefits of that grade.

(2) A declaration that the circular issued by the 2nd defendant on 6th June 1990 in so far as it relates to the plaintiff is penal in nature, is a violation of the plaintiff’s vested right and is therefore illegal and unconstitutional.

(3) An injunction restraining the defendants from carrying out the instruction of the 2nd defendant contained in an INTER-OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE (CIRCULAR) dated 6th June, 1990 as it affects the plaintiff in his present position in E.R. DEPARTMENT.

(4) An order directing the 1st and 2nd defendants to reinstate the plaintiff to his status of a Grade 17 Officer with liberty to enjoy all the fringe benefits attached thereto.

The writ of summons and the statement of claim were served on the defendants/appellants who only entered an appearance but did not file a statement of defence. While the suit was still pending, the defendants/appellants by a letter dated August 1, 1990 terminated the employment of the plaintiff. An application dated 22nd August, 1990 was thereafter brought by the plaintiff praying the court to set aside the letter of termination for the reason of being contemptuous.

The application was opposed by a 9 paragraph counter-affidavit filed by the defendants/appellants. In his ruling delivered on 13th September, 1990 the trial Judge granted the application. It is against the ruling that the defendants/appellants have appealed to this court, upon five grounds, 5 issues are identified by the appellants for determination and as set out on their brief of argument, they are as follows:

(1) Whether it is in accordance with the settled practice of the court to, entertain the plaintiffs’ claims for prohibitory and mandatory injunctions i.e. the 3rd and 4th claims in this action.

(2) If the answer to question (1) is in the negative whether there is any basis whatsoever for the interlocutory orders granted by the High Court.

(3) Whether it was proper for the High Court to have granted the order setting aside the letter of termination of appointment dated 1/8/90.

(4) Whether the order of interlocutory injunction ought to be allowed to stand in the absence of an undertaking as to damages by the plaintiff?

(5) Whether the fact that an employee has sued his employer for the type of reliefs claimed by the plaintiff in this action renders it illegal or unlawful for the employer to exercise his right to terminate the employment by notice.

On the other hand, the respondent raised only one issue for determination; it is in the following terms: