Mr. Ujam Hillary Ujam V. Institute of Management & Technology & Ors. (2006)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

SULEIMAN GALADIMA, J.C.A.

This is an appeal by the appellant, as plaintiff against the judgment of Kingsley N. Ude (J.) sitting in an Enugu State High Court delivered on 17/10/2005. The plaintiff claimed against the defendants, now the respondents as follows:

“(a) A declaration that the letter ref: IMT/RG/11/XX/124 dated the 1st day of March, 2001, signed by S.N.P. NWANKWO, Ag. Registrar/Secretary to Council and addressed to the plaintiff and purportedly dispensing with his services with the first defendant with effect from 1st March, 2001 is ultra vires, unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect whatsoever in that it proceeded from an exercise done in total violation of the provisions of the Institute of Management and Technology, Enugu Edict No.2 1991, Institute of Management and Technology, Enugu Senior Staff Conditions of Service and the rights guaranteed the plaintiff under Chap. 4 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.

(b) A declaration that the plaintiff’s employment with the Institute of Management and Technology, Enugu is still subsisting and accordingly the plaintiff is still in the employment of the Institute notwithstanding the letter dated 1st March, 2001 purportedly dispensing with his services with the Institute.

(c) A declaration that the plaintiff, being still in the employment of the first defendant is entitled to his full and enhanced remuneration, entitlements, and perquisites of office as Lecturer II in the employment of the first defendant’s Institute.

(d) An order directing the defendants, their agents, servants, officers, privies or otherwise howsoever called to reinstate and restore the plaintiff to his employment with the first defendant and restore the plaintiff to his employment with the first defendant with his full and enhanced salaries, entitlements, allowances and all other rights and privileges appurtenant thereto.

(e) An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants by themselves their agents, servants, privies, officers and other such representatives howsoever called from further interfering with the plaintiffs performance of his duties or preventing him from the performance of his functions and duties of his office as an employee of the first defendant or in any other manner interfering with the plaintiffs enjoyment of the rights, privileges and benefits appurtenant to his office.

(f) Alternatively, the sum of N15 million being the plaintiff’s projected salaries and allowances for a period of thirty-one (31) years up to the age of retirement from the services of the first defendant institute had the services not been wrongfully dispensed with by the defendants.

(g) General damages for unlawful interference with the plaintiffs employment N50 million.”

Upon exchange of the parties’ pleadings, the matter proceeded to full trial. Appellant testified. He called no other witness. The respondents did not call any witness. At the close of hearing the learned trial Judge awarded the appellant three months salary in lieu of notice of termination and further the sum of N1,000,000. (one million) as damages.

Appellant being dissatisfied with the judgment now appeals to this court filing notice of appeal containing five grounds. It is needless for me to reproduce the grounds with their particulars. However in compliance with the rules and practice of this court parties filed and exchanged their briefs of argument with the appellant filing a reply brief.

The appellant in his brief formulated the following three issues for determination in this appeal.

“3.1 Whether the trial Judge was right in holding that the employment of the plaintiff has no statutory flavour or statutory protection.

3.2. Whether the trial Judge was right in holding that the letter dated March 1, 2001 signed by the 4th defendant and given to the plaintiff determined the plaintiff’s employment.