Nigerian Gas Company Ltd. V. Mr. G. O. Dudusola (2005)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

M. ABBA AJI, J.C.A

The Respondent in this appeal was the plaintiff in an action filed by him at the High Court Effurun, Delta State, against the Appellant who was the Defendant before the Lower Court.

The Plaintiff/Respondent had claimed from the defendant/Appellant the following reliefs: –

(i) A declaration that the letter of termination dated 26th day of September, 1990, issued to the plaintiff by the defendant is wrongful, void and no effect whatsoever.

(ii) A declaration that the letter of termination dated 26th September, 1990 is contrary to the rules of Natural Justice and therefore void and of no effect.

(iii) A declaration that the Plaintiff is till an employee of the Defendant, and is entitled to all the benefits of his office from 26th September, 1990.

(iv) An order of court directing the Defendant to reinstate the Plaintiff to his office of employment and to pay him all his outstanding salaries, emoluments and benefits from the date of the purported termination.

The Respondent was employed by the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) as an Administrative Officer in October, 1983, and was subsequently transferred to and absorbed by the Appellant in 1989, where he rose to the rank of a Senior Administrative Officer.

By its letter dated 26th September, 1990, the Appellant terminated the Respondent’s Appointment with immediate effect “for Services No Longer Required” and offered him a month’s salary in lieu of notice.

At the trial, the Respondent testified on his own behalf, called no other witness and tendered Exhibits A to D, being his letter of termination of appointment, his letter of appointment, and two letters of promotions respectively. The Appellant called one witness and tendered no exhibits. At the conclusion of hearing, the learned trial judge, Bozimo J. (as she then was) granted all the declaratory reliefs sought and ordered that the Respondent be reinstated by the Appellant. Being dissatisfied with the judgment of the Lower court, the appellant appealed to this court on five grounds of appeal.

The grounds of appeal without their particulars reads:-

1. The learned trial judge erred in law, in holding that the Termination of the plaintiffs employment was actuated by an allegation of crime to wit:-
2. The learned trial judge erred in law, in refusing to allow the Defendant’s motion to amend its statement of defence so as to restrict the defence to paragraphs 1 – 5 of the statement of defence.
3. The learned trial judge erred in law, in ordering the re-instatement of the plaintiff when by his pleading and legal evidence adduced the plaintiff had tacitly accepted the termination by claiming damages and compensation.
4. The learned trial judge erred in law, in entering judgment for the plaintiff when the plaintiff was unable to prove the contract.

The parties in compliance with the rules of this court, filed and exchanged briefs of argument. The Appellant in his brief of argument deemed filed on the 14th September, 2000, formulated four issues for the determination of the appeal, viz:-

1. Was the learned trial judge right in law, when she held that the termination of the Respondent’s appointment was actuated by an allegation of crime?
2. Was the learned trial judge right in law, in ordering the reinstatement of the Respondent, bearing in mind that his appointment was one without a statutory flavour?
3. In view of the fact that no evidence in support of the averments in paragraphs 6 – 9 of the statement of defence, was the learned trial judge right in law, in placing any premium on the said paragraphs in her judgment?
4. Does the evidence adduced support the judgment of the court?

The Respondent identified two issues for determination of the appeal namely:-

1. Whether the learned trial judge was right, when she held that the appellant did not act reasonably, in terminating the Respondent’s appointment based on allegation of crime which was yet to be proved.
2. Whether the learned trial judge was right in ordering the Appellant to reinstate the Respondent.

The Respondents two issues formulated are the same in form and content with the Appellants issue one and two and the Appellants issues three and four can be adequately considered in the determination of the first and second issues. I will in the circumstances adopt the Respondent issues of determination in resolving the issues raised in this appeal.