Okon O. Idung & Ors V. University Of Caiabar Teaching Hospital & Ors (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

JOSEPH OLUBUNMI KAYODE OYEWOLE J.C.A, (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is in respect of an appeal from the judgment of the Federal High Court, Calabar Judicial Division delivered on the 4th of July, 2011 by Ademola J.

The appellants had on behalf of themselves and some other disengaged staff of the 1st respondent taken out a writ against the respondents at the trial Court for the following reliefs contained in their Amended Statement of Claim filed on 4th October, 2010 contained on pages 538-543 of the record of appeal as follows:

1. A declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled for retirement from their employment with the 1st defendant when they are due for retirement, as there is no provision for ‘Severance from Service’ as contained in 1st defendant’s letters dated the 9th November, 2007 and served on the affected staff (plaintiffs) whose employment with the 1st defendant has a statutory flavor.

?2. A declaration that the letters conveying the ‘Severance from Service’ of the plaintiffs by the 1st defendant not having complied with the plaintiffs’ conditions of service with the said 1st defendant is

null and void and of no effect whatsoever.

3. A declaration that any removal of the plaintiffs from the service of the 1st defendant when they have not attained retirement ages and who have not been found guilty of any misconduct are entitled to gratuity and pension paid to them up to when they attain retirement ages of 60 years or put in qualifying service years before retirement.
4. A declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to be paid their monthly salaries by the 1st to 3rd defendants until the suit is heard and determined.
5. An order for payment of the plaintiff s’ salaries until this suit is heard and determined.
6. An order for defendants to work each of the plaintiffs retirement benefits (gratuity and pension) and issue cheques in the like sums together with such cheques handed over to plaintiffs with their retirement from service letters in the event of insistence by defendants of the retirement of the plaintiffs from 1st defendant’s service.
7. An order compelling the 4th and 5th defendants to direct the the 1st to 3rd defendants to suspend the letter of ‘Severance from Service’ of the plaintiffs and to follow the

due process on which the plaintiffs employment is based. Alternatively. An order for re-instatement of the plaintiffs to their employment with 1st defendant and their salaries paid for the year 2008, 2009, and 2010 and there after until the plaintiffs attain retirement ages of 60 or put in the required qualifying service years of 35 for retirement.

8. N1 Million damages.

On being served, the defendants contested the action and joined issues on the pleadings. 1st appellant/plaintiff was the sole witness of the appellants/plaintiffs at the trial while the respondents/defendants called witnesses. At the end of the trial, counsel for the parties addressed the Court upon which the learned trial Judge in a considered judgment found no merit in the appellants/plaintiffs’ case and dismissed it.

Dissatisfied with this development, the appellants/plaintiffs invoked the appellate jurisdiction of this Court via a notice of appeal dated 13th September, 2011 but filed on 14th September, 2011 containing 7 grounds.

At the hearing of the appeal. Mr. Ekanem, the learned counsel for the appellants adopted the appellants brief filed on 9th October, 2012 as well as the

appellants’ reply brief filed on 18th September, 2015 but deemed properly filed on the 10th November, 2015 as the arguments of the appellants in this appeal.

For the 1st -3rd respondents, Mr. Ulaeto, their learned lead counsel adopted their brief filed on the 21st June, 2013 but deemed properly filed and served on the 10th November, 2015 as the arguments of the 1st -3rd respondents in this appeal.

The 4th and 5th respondents were not represented at the hearing of the appeal but their briefs of argument both filed on 15th April, 2013 and deemed properly filed and served on 10th November, 2015 were deemed adopted pursuant to Order 18 (9)(4) of the Court of Appeal Rules.

The appellants distilled and argued 4 issues for determination as follows:

?1. Whether the letter of severance from service issued by the 1st respondent dated on 9th November, 2007 and served on the appellants after the severance exercise of workers in Federal Government parastatals had ended in 2006 and the deadline for submission of list of affected staff given as Friday 9th February, 2007 and payment of their entitlements given as 31st March, 2007 was not null and void and of no effect.