Nigerian Telecommunications Plc (Nitel) & Anor V. Mr. L. D.akwa (2005)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

AMIRU SANUSI, J.C.A.

This is an appeal against the decision of the Federal High Court Yola (Coram Edet J.) delivered on 4th June, 1998, where the learned trial Judge decided as follows:

“Accordingly, I grant reliefs Nos. 12(a), 12(c) and 12(d). In other words, I declare that the termination of the plaintiff’s employment vide memo dated 28/4/89 is both wrong and unlawful, so null and void and of no effect whatsoever. I order that plaintiff’s salaries and allowances from May 1989 to June 1998 be worked out by the defendant together with any increases and the sum paid to the plaintiff immediately. I both declare and order that the plaintiff’s employment has never been terminated by the defendant and the same is still subsisting. Finally, reinstate the plaintiff into his former rank of Senior Officer II salary B and E level 9 to be deployed as Assistant Manager (LDC). I reject relief No. 12(a) entirely and the same is struck out for want of entitlement.

These shall remain the Judgment and orders of this Honourable Court for the time being.”

Dissatisfied with the above decision, the appellant appealed to this court on ten grounds of appeal which are reproduced below without their particulars:

(1) The learned trial Judge erred in law, in entertaining the plaintiff’s action and the reliefs sought by the plaintiff, when the action was statute barred.

(2) The learned trial Judge erred in law when after stating as follows:

“I, therefore reject exhibit ‘L’ not only because it is not a term of contract inter parties but also because it is further into the distance: 3 years post mortem exhibit ‘B’. Exhibit “L”. is accordingly expunged from the record.”

He proceeded to give judgment for the plaintiff declaring that “the termination of the plaintiff’s employment vide memo dated 28/4/89 is both wrongful and unlawful, so null and void and of no effect whatsoever….”

(3) The learned trial Judge erred in law, when after rejecting the case set up by the plaintiff which was that his appointment was terminated based on some criminal allegations without following laid down procedure as provided in exhibit “L”, proceeded afterwards to hold that;

“……… the unlawfulness of the defendant’s action of termination arises from many other sources, chiefly among which are (1) breach of contractual terms or staff regulations exhibit ‘M’ as mentioned before. (2) substitution of unapproved photocopied memo in place of original letter of termination of appointment and (3) lack of consent of appropriate authority, i.e. Management Board of the defendant.

(4) The learned trial Judge erred in law when he held that:

“………. Failure to pay the one month salary in lieu of notice within the month of April, 1989, coupled with non-payment at all, till the date of judgment which is nine years after, makes the purported termination unlawful for breach of a fundamental term see page 15 paragraph 5:3:4 exhibit M.

The danger of the defendant’s case is that they believe wholeheartedly that an employer has no duty to state the reason for terminating an employer’s appointment in every case and that it is not the business of the court to know the same … defendant in this case has failed to prove that he no longer required the services of the plaintiff as alleged by him in exhibit “B”.