Mrs. C.O.A. Fakuade Vs Obafemi Awolowo University Teaching Hospital Complex Management Board (1993)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

KUTIGI, J.S.C. 

At the Ilesha High Court the plaintiff claimed against the defendant:-

“(a) A declaration that the purported termination of the plaintiff’s appointment in the service of the defendant as contained in the letter of termination of appointment is null, void and of no effect whatsoever and that the plaintiff is still a Nursing sister in the defendant’s service.

(b) An order of mandatory injunction restraining the defendant, his servants and or agents privies or otherwise from preventing the plaintiff from performing any of the functions and duties of her offices or interfering with the enjoyment or rights, privileges and benefits attached thereto.

After the filing and exchange of pleadings, the case proceeded for trial. At the trial the plaintiff testified for herself and called one witness. Only one witness testified on behalf of the defendant.

The plaintiff’s case was simply that at all material times she was a Nursing Sister in the employment of the defendant. She was employed in November 1976. Her letter of appointment was tendered as Exhibit H. The appointment was later confirmed in January, 1979 vide Exhibit A. She said in September 1987 she received a query from the defendant accusing her of a missing stainless steel bowl. She was asked to say all she knew about the missing bowl. The query and her explanation thereof were respectively tendered in evidence as Exhibits B & C. All of a sudden on 13th November, 1987 she received a letter of termination of her appointment. This was also tendered as Exhibit D. She said she was shocked to have received Exhibit D because she felt she had not committed any offence. She later wrote to the defendant appealing for a reconsideration of her termination. Her appeal was turned down (see Exhibits E. F & G). She said she had spent 10 years and 11 months with the defendant at the time her appointment was terminated. That she was only 41 years old and had expected to retire at the age of 60 years. She said she was the only nurse retrenched at the time by the defendant although she was neither the last nor the most junior nursing staff to be employed by the defendant.

The defendant on the other hand admitted terminating the appointment of the plaintiff but said it was not as a result of the query concerning the missing stainless steel bowl, nor for any misconduct on the part of the plaintiff. Rather it was as a result of a retrenchment exercise it found necessary to carry out in 1987 in order to cut down overhead costs. Two hospitals in the group of hospitals under the defendant had to be returned to their original owners for the same reason. That a committee was set up which looked into the records of individual staff and made recommendations to it. About one hundred members of staff were affected by the exercise including the plaintiff. The committee’s report and recommendations were tendered in evidence as Exhibits J &.J.1 The Staff Regulations and Conditions of Service of the Ife University Teaching Hospital Complex, lIe-Ife, Nigeria was tendered as Exhibit K.

In a well considered judgment the learned trial Judge Adekola J., dismissed the plaintiff’s claims with N150.00 costs.

Dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial court the plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeal, Ibadan. The appeal was also dismissed with N300.00 costs.

The plaintiff still not satisfied with the judgment of the Court of Appeal has further appealed to this Court.

Briefs of argument were filed and exchanged by the parties. They were adopted at the hearing and additional oral submissions were also made.

Mr. Ayoola Ajayi learned counsel for the appellant in paragraph 2.06 of page 3 of his brief formulated the issue for determination thus:

“Whether or not the termination of the appellant’E2’80’99s appointment vide the letter of 13/11/87 was valid, legal and proper in all the circumstances of the case.”

This same issue was one of the four issues considered by the High Court in its judgment. On pages 33-34 the learned trial Judge stated: