Obonganwan Mary Ntewo V. University Of Calabar Teaching Hospital & Anor. (2013)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

UZO I. NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A: (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal from the judgment of the Federal High Court sitting in Calabar Cross River State delivered on 2nd June, 2005. The Appellant in this appeal was the plaintiff in the court below. She filed an action in the Federal High Court for a declaration that her dismissal from services of the 1st Respondent was illegal, null and void as she was not accorded fair hearing and also for the failure of the Respondents to comply strictly with provisions of S.9 of the University Teaching Hospitals (Reconstitution of Boards) Act Cap 463 LFN 1990.

The Appellant claimed against the Respondents for the following:

i. A Declaration that the 1st Defendants letter Ref. No UCTH/112/399 dated 24th November, 1999, purporting to dismiss the plaintiff from the service of the 1st Defendant on the directive of the 2nd Defendant is unfair, irregular, unlawful and a breach of the terms of the Federal Civil Service Rules and the University Teaching Hospitals (Reconstitution of Board etc) Act Cap 463 Laws of the Federal, 1990 ad therefore null and void.

ii. An order of the court reinstating the plaintiff in the service of the 1st Defendant.

iii. An order of this court that the 1st Defendant pays to the plaintiff the accumulated half salaries, deducted during the period of the suspension from November 1998 to November 1999.

iv. An order of the court that the 1st Defendant pays to the plaintiff salaries, allowances and benefits from November 1999 until judgment is delivered.

v. The sum of N50,000.00 (One Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira) as legal fees.

The Respondents as defendant in the lower court filed their statement of defence. At the end if the trial, the learned trial Judge held as follows:

“It is my view that the acts complained of against the plaintiff are those which the Defendants are eminently competent to handle by virtue of section 9 of the Act and which they handled according. The contention of the plaintiff in that regard is therefore not maintainable.

Having thus said, I hold that the dismissal of the plaintiff by the Defendants is in consonance with section 9 of the Act and is therefore lawful. I hold that the plaintiff has not made out a case to warrant the grant of any of the reliefs sought by her. The case lacks merit and it is hereby dismissed.”

The Appellant was dissatisfied hence this appeal. The Appellant filed her notice and six grounds of appeal. She filed her Appellant’s brief on 10th May, 2010 but deemed properly filed and served on 24th November, 2010. In it she articulated two issues for determination as follows:

1. WHETHER THE INVESTIGATIVE PANEL AND THE SPECIAL DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE SET UP BY THE RESPONDENTS TO TRY THE APPELLANT ARE NOT BOUND TO OBSERVE THE RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE IN THEIR DELIBRATIONS AND PROCEEDINGS FOR THE FACT THAT IT WAS NOT THE APPELLANT WHO REQUESTED THAT THEY BE SET UP.
2. WHETHER THE RESPONDENTS COMPLIED STRICTLY WITH SECTION 9 OF THE UNIVERSITY TEACHING HOSPITALS (RECONSTITUTION OF BOARD) ACT CAP 463, LAWS OF THE FEDERATION, 1990 BEFORE DISMISSING THE APPELLANT FROM HER JOB.

The Appellant filed a reply to the 1st Respondent brief on 25th February, 2011 but deemed properly filed and served on 21st March, 2011. The Appellant also filed a reply to the 2nd Respondent’s brief on 8th June, 2011.

The 1st Respondent filed its 1st Respondent’s brief on 8th December, 2010. The 2nd Respondent filed its brief on 21st March, 2011 but deemed properly filed and served on the 22nd March, 2011.