Oladipo Maja V Leandro Stocco (1968)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

ADEMOLA, C.J.N. 

The appellant in this case has appealed against the award of £1,000 general damages against him in the High Court of Lagos as well as other various sums of special damages also awarded with 150 guineas costs. Seven grounds of appeal were filed and the five relevant grounds which were argued are as follows:-

“(1) The learned trial judge erred in law when he held that a written contract has only been varied by oral agreement when the terms of the oral agreement are repugnant to the terms of the written contract.

(2) The learned trial judge erred in law in giving judgement on the terms of a contract upon which no claim can be founded in view of the oral agreement which the learned trial judge admitted and accepted.

(3) The learned trial judge misdirected himself when he held that no ultimatum was given by the defendant to the plaintiff on the 11th June, 1964.

(6) The learned trial judge misdirected himself when he made no order as to the payment over to the defendant of the moneys which the plaintiff had admitted he held for the defendant.

(7) The verdict is unreasonable and cannot be supported by the evidence adduced”.

The appellant is a private medical practitioner. He engaged the services of the respondent, an Italian doctor, to work in his clinic on contractual basis. There was a service agreement (exhibit ‘C’) to which we will later refer. The appellant was responsible for the respondent’s entry and stay in this country in the sense that he was granted permission by the Immigration Authorities to bring the respondent into the country to work as a doctor and on the expiration of his duties here with the appellant, his entry permit expired and he would have to leave. From the evidence in the court below it would appear that the respondent commenced work with the appellant on the 15th February, 1964, and on the 25th June, 1964, his appointment was terminated. The respondent has complained that the termination was wrongful and thereby commenced the present proceedings against the appellant.

The action was for a claim for specific performance of an agreement dated 20th January, 1964, and for an account, or in the alternative, for a sum of £10,000 damages for breach of contract. During the hearing, the claim for specific performance was abandoned and it was dismissed.

The agreement on which the respondent relied is contained in a letter written by the appellant (exhibit ‘C’) and dated 20th January, 1964, the relevant terms of which are as follows-

“(1) Your salary will be £50 per month plus 75 per cent of the professional fees paid by any patient brought into the practice by you.

(2) You will give your full time services to this clinic and shall not engage in any other employment including the extra mural practice of the profession.

(3) On the determination of your services with this clinic you shall not engage in the practice of medicine in any form whatsoever within 50 miles radius of the Lagos General Post Office for a term of 3 (three) years”.

The plaintiff/respondent averred in his Statement of Claim and the learned Chief Justice who heard the case in the court below held that on the 15th February, 1964, the second clause of the Agreement exhibit ‘C’ was, by agreement of the parties, varied.