Nigerian Telecommunications Plc V. Emmanuel O. Awala (2001)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

OMAGE, J.C.A.

The respondent was until 6/4/87, in the employment of the appellant known now as Nitel. Prior to this, the respondent was appointed into the service of the Ministry of Communication, and in the service of the federal public service, under the Ministry of Establishment. By the admission of the respondent, the entire staff in the public service, in the Ministry of Communication were in 1984, given an option to elect which of the existing three bodies will be its employer. The three bodies are: (1)(i) the Ministry of Establishment (ii) the Nitel, and (iii) Nipost. The evidence of the respondent in this appeal in the court below, show that he elected to go to the Nitel. Before the conversion in 1984, when the respondent elected to go to the Nitel, his status with the Ministry of Establishment was one of the Chief Engineer. Upon the election of the respondent to go to the Nitel he was designated as Senior Manager. The respondent was given a letter of appointment dated 17/6/85. At the inception of the Nitel, the appellant in this appeal, a new condition of service was created, and the respondent admits that the new condition of service governed his relationship with his new employer except that he averred that he remained a civil servant. In his claim before the court below, the respondent averred that:

(1) he remained a public servant,

(2) that even if his appointment was to be determined by dismissal by Nitel, it must be by a decision made by the Board of Nitel, and not the management. Sometime in the course of the respondent’s appointment with the Nitel, in a position of the principal of Nitel Training School in Kano, a report was made of the theft of 11 KVA Panel.

The Nitel instituted a panel of inquiry. The terms of reference of the panel of inquiry is contained in Exhibit 15 tendered at the hearing. Upon the recommendation of the panel which is proceeded by the suspension of the respondent, the respondent was subsequently dismissed from the service of Nitel when the report of the panel was submitted to the management of the Nitel. The above is the substance of the matter in the court below and the said court, gave judgment in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant was dissatisfied he filed this appeal.

I wish to consider the issues formulated by the parties in this appeal but, before then, it is worth while to start from the beginning, as contained in the plaintiff’s record.

In this appeal, the plaintiff sought in the Kano High Court the reliefs listed in his amended statement of claim. The reliefs are:

“(a) A declaration that the dismissal or purported dismissal of the plaintiff by the defendant as contained in the dismissal letter ref. No. DDIR/IND/2290/d3/BF of or dated 15/9/80, from the service of the Nigerian Telecommunication; Nitel, with effect from 16/9/86 is unconstitutional, unlawful, null, void and of no effect, in that:

(i) It is against the principle of natural justice, equity and good conscience.

(ii) The said dismissal is ultra vires the power of the 3rd and 2nd defendants, who purportedly effected same as such power of dismissal only reside in the Board of Nitel duly constituted.

(b) An order directing the defendants to reinstate the plaintiff to his status without prejudice to entitlement and promotion on which might have accrued to him during the period of his purported dismissal.

(c) A declaration that the plaintiff is still in the service of the Nigerian Telecommunication (Nitel) and is entitled to his full remuneration and leave bonus from the date of the purported dismissal.”

Thereafter the plaintiff supplied 26 items of particulars of his entitlement, up to March, 1993. These include annual salary from 1986-1989, leave allowance, transport allowance etc.

After filing the memorandum of appearance, the defendant now appellant denied in its amended statement of defence, the averments and claim in the plaintiffs statement of claim. The defendant admits that it is a limited liability company, owned by the Federal Government of Nigeria. That the condition of service of Nitel staff is as provided for in the Nitel’s condition of service only. The defendant admitted that it constituted an administrative enquiry to investigate generally the reported crisis impropriety and corruption at its training centre in Kano, where the respondent was a principal.