Nigerian Postal Service V. Mrs. Kehinde Adepoju (2002)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

AMAIZU, J.C.A. 

The plaintiff’s claims as set out in the writ of summons are as follows:

“1. A declaration that the defendant’s letter reference No. APM/KWT/14/3A/Vol. IV of 31st May, 1994, purporting to dismiss the plaintiff is illegal, unfair, wrongful, null and void.

2. An order re-instating the plaintiff to her position as a mail porter and payment of her salaries and entitlements from 1st June, 1994.”

Briefly, the facts which gave rise to the above claims are as follows –

The plaintiff who was in the employment of the defendant was dismissed from service, for misconduct. It was alleged that the plaintiff and other members of the staff tampered with the mails that were in their respective possession. Some of the affected staff admitted committing the offence alleged against them, and pleaded for leniency. The plaintiff denied the allegation in her reply to a query given to her. In the course of investigating the allegation, the defendant constituted a disciplinary committee. The plaintiff appeared before the said committee. Following the recommendation of the Committee, she was dismissed. She then instituted an action against the defendant in the Kwara State High Court, seeking the above reliefs.

Pleadings were duly filed and exchanged by the parties. At the trial, the plaintiff gave evidence, in support of her claims. She did not call any witness. The defendant, on the other hand, called three witnesses. At the end of the trial, the learned trial Judge, after considering the issues raised by the parties gave judgment as follows:

“I have considered the entire circumstances of this case, and in particular the fact that the defendant had not been able to prove the act culminating in the alleged misconduct against the plaintiff before this court, and having found that the dismissal of the plaintiff is wrongful, I am of the view that the justice of this case would be met if I order that the plaintiff be re-instated to her position as mail porter in the employment of the defendant immediately, and I so do. The plaintiff in addition shall be paid all her salaries and other entitlements with effect from the 1st day of June, 1994, till date.”

Dissatisfied with the above judgment, the defendant now the appellant, filed eight grounds of appeal from which it distilled three issues for determination. The issues are –

1. Whether the Kwara State High Court has jurisdiction to entertain and determine the respondent’s case against the appellant?.
2. Whether from the pleadings and the evidence before the lower court the dismissal of the plaintiff vide a letter dated 31st day of May, 1994, was wrongful and unconstitutional, illegal as found by the trial court?.
3. Whether the respondent is entitled to an order of re-instatement?.

The learned counsel for the plaintiff, now the respondent, adopted the above three issues distilled by the appellant for determination in its brief of argument.

Before us, Jacobs, Esq., of counsel, referred to a motion on notice dated 22nd day of May, 2001, filed by the appellant. The motion seeks five reliefs. Some of the reliefs are –

“(1) An order granting leave to the applicant to raise and argue as fresh points or issue of law contained in the proposed grounds of appeal numbers 5 & 6 in the additional grounds of appeal which were not raised or canvassed in the court below.

(2) An order granting leave to the appellant to amend the grounds of appeal by filing additional grounds of appeal as per Schedule One to this application.

(3) An order permitting the appellant to amend the notice of appeal to incorporate the amended grounds of appeal as stated in the schedule below.”

As Otaru, Esq., of counsel, did not oppose the application, it was granted. Thereafter, the learned counsel for the parties adopted their respective briefs of argument, including the reply brief. Both learned counsel in addition made additional submissions which I will refer to later.