O. Ilodibia V. Nigerian Cement Company Limited (1997)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

B. WALI, J.S.C.

The plaintiff’s claim in the High Court of Enugu Judicial Division of Anambra State contained in paragraph 27 of the Further Amended Statement of Claim is as follows:-

“(a) A declaration that the 1st defendant’s letter dated 11th March, 1980 sending the plaintiff on compulsory indefinite leave is ultra vires, wrongful, null and void and of no effect and was in breach of the principles of natural justice and of his Conditions of service.

(b) A declaration that the purported indefinite suspension of the plaintiff on half-pay as contained in the letter of 15th May, 1980 was not an act of the 2nd defendant and was in breach of the principles of natural justice and of his Conditions of Service and therefore is wrongful, illegal invalid null and void and of no effect whatsoever.

(c) A declaration that the plaintiff is still the General Manager of the 2nd defendant Company and is entitled to his full salary all benefits, allowances, privileges and emoluments attaching to his Office as General Manager.

(e) N30,000.00being special damages for expenses incurred by the plaintiff as a result of deprivation of some of his entitlements and privileges.

(f) N100,000.00 General Damages.

OR

In the alternative N500,000.00 general and special damages for wrongful dismissal.”

The action was originally filed before the Abakaliki High Court but later transferred to Enugu for hearing before P. K. Nwokedi J (as he then was). Pleadings were filed and exchanged. With the leave of the court, they were amended and further amended.

The plaintiff gave evidence during the trial in the course of which a number of documents were put in evidence. At the conclusion of the plaintiff’s testimony, his case was closed. The defendants did not call any witness and rested their case on that of the plaintiff.

Both learned Senior Advocate, Mr. P. Umeadi and Mr. J. C. Njelita presented their final addresses for the plaintiff and the defendants respectively. At the tail end of his address Mr. Umeadi SAN, applied for and was granted leave to drop the alternative claim and limit the plaintiff’s claim to paragraph 27(c) of the Further Amended Statement of Claim.

The learned trial judge after a painstaking review of the evidence and the submissions of learned counsel on both issues on law and fact, concluded thus in his judgment:-

“The second consideration that bedevils the plaintiffs predicament is his reaction to Ex. 4, which suspended him from duty indefinitely, and on half pay. He waited for about six weeks and not hearing from defendants, he instituted this action, claiming among other reliefs. General damages for wrongful dismissal. This amounted to an acceptance of the Company’s repudiation of his contract of service by way of constructive dismissal, as above stated. The learned Senior Advocate having accepted that the relationship between the parties was one of master and servant, and having accepted in his address, that the Ex. 4 “amounts to wrongful termination of the plaintiff’s employment before his retiring age” it seems contradictory that the Court should be required to declare that the plaintiff is still in the employ of the Company.