Mr. Sule Obaje v. Nigerian Airspace Management Agency (2023)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report – SUPREME COURT

ADAMU JAURO, JSC (Delivering the leading judgment)

The appeal herein is against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Lagos Judicial Division, delivered on 18th January, 2013, wherein the court affirmed the judgment of the Federal High Court, Lagos Division which dismissed the appellant’s suit.

The facts leading to this appeal can be summarised thus: The appellant was an employee of the respondent until 10th May, 2005 when he was dismissed. Prior to that, he was initially employed by the Federal Ministry of Aviation from 21st February, 1983, and was transferred to the Federal Civil Aviation Authority on 19th September, 1991.

The appellant was then further transferred to the respondent on 27th January, 2000. On 29th July, 2004, he received a query, exhibit 5 from the respondent. The allegations levelled against the appellant are contained in the first two paragraphs of the query which stated thus:

“It has been reported that on the 6th of July, 2004 you were alleged to have absented yourself from duty without leave and travelling (sic) to Abuja to transact unofficial business on behalf of another organization by the name STOP-HERE Aviation Services Ltd.

Indeed, you were further alleged to admit being in business relationship with the said organization for purposes unconnected with the furtherance of the interest of the Agency.”

The query went further to state that the appellant’s actions were in contravention of the respondent’s Staff Conditions of Service (exhibit 9) and the Public Service Rules.

The appellant responded to the query via a reply dated 3rd August, 2004, exhibit 6. The reply was however deemed unsatisfactory and by a letter dated 17th August, 2004 (exhibit 7), he was suspended from work without pay and informed that a prima facie case of gross misconduct had been established against him and the matter referred to the respondent’s Disciplinary Committee. After appearing before the Disciplinary Committee, he was found culpable and he was therefore dismissed via a letter dated 10th May, 2005, exhibit 8.

Against this background, the appellant instituted a suit at the Federal High Court, Lagos Division, challenging his dismissal. Pleadings were filed and exchanged between the parties and the matter subsequently proceeded to trial where the parties called a witness each, with the appellant testifying for himself.

The appellant’s case as plaintiff was that he did not absent himself from work on 6th July, 2004, but only travelled to Abuja after the close of work on that day. He contended that he was entitled to three written warnings before disciplinary action could be taken against him, but he was not issued any such written warning. On its part, the respondent maintained that it followed due process in dismissing the appellant.

At the conclusion of trial and after the adoption of final addresses by counsel, the trial court reserved the matter for judgment. In its judgment, after summarizing the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the court held that the appellant was afforded fair hearing by the respondent and there was no likelihood of bias in the hearing. The court then dismissed the suit.

Dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial court, the appellant appealed to the lower court, contending that the trial court failed to evaluate the evidence led by the parties, that the court failed to consider the issues placed before it, that the court veered off course to consider issues not submitted to it and that the judgment of the trial court was against the weight of evidence.

In its judgment, the lower court held that the trial court could have done better with its evaluation of the evidence led at trial and agreed that the issue of fair hearing that the trial court focused on was not submitted to it by the parties. The court however held that the trial court pronounced on the main issue, that is, whether the appellant’s dismissal was in accordance with the respondent’s Conditions of Service, hence it was held that no miscarriage of justice was occasioned.

It was also held that the trial court was right not to have interfered with the decision of the respondent’s Disciplinary Committee. The court further held that since the allegations leveled against the appellant went beyond absenting himself from work, section 3.4.5 A(iii) of exhibit 9 which provides that he must have been absent for a week before disciplinary action can be taken against him, is not applicable.