Mr. Sule Obaje V. Nigeria Airspace Management Agency (2013)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

CHINWE EUGENIA IYIZOBA, J.C.A.(Delivering the Leading Judgment)

At the Lagos Division of the Federal High Court, the plaintiff (now appellant) took out a writ of summons against the defendant (now respondent) claiming the following reliefs:-

i. A Declaration that the purported dismissal of the Plaintiff from employment of the Defendant on 10th of May 2005 via a letter bearing reference number NAMA/HQ/P.204/1/83 is unlawful, invalid, null, void and of no effect whatsoever and howsoever.

ii. An Order of this Honourable Court setting aside the said letter bearing reference number NAMA/HQ/P.204/1/83 by which the Defendant purported to dismiss the Plaintiff from employment.

iii. An Order compelling/directing the Defendant to recall and reinstate the Plaintiff to work/duty forthwith or in the alternative an order of this Honourable Court reinstating the Plaintiff to work/duty.

iv. N1, 000,000.00 (One Million Naira) only being damages for unlawful termination of employment.

v. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant, its servants, agents, privies from dismissing the Plaintiff from employment save in accordance with the law.

vi. Further and other reliefs.

Pleadings were filed and duly exchanged. At the hearing, the plaintiff testified as PW1 and called no other witness. The defendant also called one witness. At the close of hearing, their respective counsel filed and exchanged written addresses which were duly adopted. In a reserved judgment delivered on the 15th day of December 2009, the learned trial Judge Archibong J. dismissed the Appellant’s claim concluding thus:-

“I see no reason to set aside the findings of fact in relation to the enquiries and proceedings conducted by the Defendant following upon the report of the Plaintiff’s misconduct.

The Courts are more interested in the procedure by which staff are disciplined and the availing or lack of the staff’s opportunity to be heard.

Plaintiff has not established the likelihood of bias and therefore I do not view as decisive the absence of a record of proceedings of the disciplinary committee to review or assess in the hearing of this suit.

I agree that the letter and spirit of the staff handbook, Exhibit 9 was not violated; and the grievousness of an offence may occasion an abridgment of proceedings or procedure. What is of overriding importance is the opportunity of an accused staff to be heard on the allegations made against him or her.

“I find the Plaintiff was certainly not denied an opportunity to be heard.