Mr. S. Anaja V. United Bank For Africa Plc (2010)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

ABUBAKAR DATTI YAHAYA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

The plaintiff, Mr. S. Anaja filed an action at the Plateau State High Court, Jos and in it prayed for-

“A. A DECLARATION that the summary Dismissal of the Plaintiff by the Defendant vide a letter dated 29th November, 1996 without any reason stated thereon is ultra vires, in bad faith, wrongful, unlawful, illegal, null and void and of no effect being a transgression of Plaintiff’s right to fair hearing inter alia as well as the Terms and conditions governing Plaintiff’s employment with Defendant hence should be set aside.

B. A MANDATORY ORDER compelling the defendant to reinstate the Plaintiff to his employment with the Defendant as Assistant Manager with full payment of salary and other emoluments with effect from the date of wrongful Summary Dismissal to wit 29th November, 1996.”

ALTERNATIVELY

N3,818,669.98 as Special Damages for wrongful dismissal.

The defendant, United Bank for Africa, denied the claims and in its further Amended Statement of Defence, pleaded that the plaintiff was dismissed for gross misconduct, the particulars of which, were stated.

After trial, the trial High Court gave judgment, dismissing the plaintiff’s claim and observing that

“…it is the employer’s prerogative to dismiss an employee for good or bad reason or for no reason at all so long as the conditions precedent to such dismissal are met.”

Being dissatisfied with the judgment, the plaintiff who will hereafter be referred to as the appellant, filed a Notice and Grounds of Appeal on 28th November 2007, on obtaining the leave of this Court to appeal out of time. On another application, the appellant sought for and obtained the leave of this Court, to amend the Notice and Grounds which were deemed filed and served on the 11th of December, 2002. From the 14 grounds of appeal, the appellant, through his counsel P. A. Akudo as he then was, identified in the appellant’s brief, six issues for determination which read –

1. Whether from a careful evaluation of evidence adduced before the lower court, the Appellant did not establish his claim and/or discharged the burden of proof upon him so as to entitle him to the reliefs sought (Grounds 1, 11 and 12).
2. Whether it is correct as common ground that the Appellant contributed to the losses suffered by the Respondent (if any) against the background of the allegation that the Appellant mis spelt the account’s name of “Transpoa” instead of “Transport” thereby warranting the recommendation of the panel for the dismissal of the Appellant (Grounds 2 and 5).
3. Whether the learned trial judge was correct in her conclusion while examining Exhibit W that the Agreement between the Appellant and the Respondent was at the dead end and that the contract agreements governing the relationship are silent on the issue of summary dismissal hence no evidence before the Court warranting the finding that the summary dismissal of the Appellant was a transgression of the Terms and conditions governing the Appellant’s employment (Grounds 3 and 4).
4. Whether having regard to the circumstances of the case, the learned trial judge properly directed himself in law and/or correct in law when she said there was no allusion or inference of a criminal allegation against the Appellant by the Respondent warranting the trial of the Appellant before a Court of law in order to first establish his guilt before taking disciplinary action against him (Grounds 6 and 7).
5. Whether having rightly stated the correct principles of law on fair hearing, the learned trial Judge rightly applied the principles vis a vis the facts of this case by coming to the conclusion that the Appellant was given every opportunity to be heard and/or given fair hearing by the Respondent (Grounds 8, 9 and 10).
6. Whether the learned trial Judge was in breach of section 36(1) of the Constitution of the Federation of Nigeria, 1999 by excluding and failing to advert to the contents of Exhibit VS’ and on the other hand admitting and utilizing inadmissible evidence to wit: Exhibits Z, Z1, Z2, Z3 and Z4 (Grounds 13 and 14).

On his part, the Respondent, through his counsel, Mr. G. Ofodile Okafor S.A.N., identified the following five issues for determination in the appeal –

1. Whether the Appellant proved his claim before the trial court (Grounds 1, 11 and 12).
2. Whether the plaintiff contributed to losses suffered by the Respondent and whether his summary dismissal was justified on that score (Grounds 2 and 5).
3. Whether the Respondent as employer could summarily dismiss the Appellant (Grounds 3 and 4) and if the answer is in the affirmative whether the summary dismissal of the Appellant can be justified.
4. Whether the commission of crime by the Appellant was an issue before the trial court. (Grounds 6 and 7).
5. Whether the Appellant was given fair hearing and whether exhibits Z, Z1, Z2, Z3 and Z4 are legally admissible in evidence (Grounds 8, 9, 10, 13, and 14).

The issues identified by the Respondent are more apt and they go straight to the point, without any embellishment. I shall therefore utilize them in resolving this appeal.

The facts of the case briefly, are that the appellant, was employed by the respondent back in 1968 as a clerk. Through dint of hard work, he was confirmed in his appointment and was also promoted a number of times, up to the position of an Assistant Manager. He won accolades for long service in-the bank. Whilst he was the sub-manager of operations in the foreign exchange department of the respondent at Jos, it came to light that he was responsible for duplication in the transfer of M14,556.25 on behalf of K. J. Krastev, the account he failed to debit. The situation arose because the appellant had neglected to correctly spell the name of the recipient bank in Bulgaria. Another incident the appellant was held responsible for, came about when he paid the Association of Evangelists of Africa and Madagascar, which maintained a foreign currency domiciliary account with the respondent bank at Jos branch, the sum of $4,000, without debiting the account. As a result, the account presented a false credit balance, which enabled the Association to make a further withdrawal of $5000 when in fact, it did not have sufficient funds to meet the demand. These incidents necessitated the appellant and other staff, to be queried by the respondent and their responses demanded. After they made their written submissions, they were invited to appear before the Senior Staff Disciplinary Committee. After the proceedings, the Appellant was summarily dismissed from the services of the respondent vide a letter dated the 29th of November, 1996 (Exhibit G). No reason was stated therein. In response to Exhibit 1, which was a letter from the appellant’s solicitors, the respondent wrote Exhibit P and gave the reason for the dismissal, to be gross misconduct. Hence this action.

ISSUE NO.1