Stephen Lawson-jack V. The Shell Pet. Development Co. Of Nigeria Limited (2002)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

E. OGUNDARE, J.S.C.

The plaintiff who is appellant in this appeal was a former employee of the defendant company. There were allegations of misconduct made against him in consequence of which the company set up a panel to investigate the allegations. The panel had not finished its assignment when plaintiff went to court and on 13th August, 1997 sued the defendant claiming-

“1. An order of this honourable court quashing or setting aside in all entirety and declaring null and void any purported decision of the defendant to terminate or dismiss (him) from the service of the defendant as being irregular, illegal and a breach of the terms of plaintiff’s contract of service and with the defendant.

2. A declaration of this honourable court that the constitution, composition, procedure and the subsequent findings, decisions or recommendations of the disciplinary committee and the entire process, was fundamentally flawed and constituted a breach of the terms of the condition of service of the plaintiff and a gross violation of the right to fair hearing of the plaintiff.
3. An order of this honourable court perpetually restraining the defendant, through itself or its servants, agents or privies, from interfering in any way or manner with the normal course of the plaintiff’s contract of employment, and preserving the rights of the plaintiff to disengage or retire from the services/employment of the defendant in a way or manner consistent with the totality of his rights and benefits under defendant’s conditions of service.”

He filed along with the writ of summons an application ex parte for interim injunction praying for :

“(i) An interlocutory order of injunction of this honourable court restraining the defendant, its servants, agents or privies from interfering in any way or manner or doing any act detrimental or adverse to the normal course of the plaintiff’s employment with the defendant company pending the determination of the substantive suit.

(ii) An interlocutory order of injunction restraining the defendant from in any way or manner give effect, publish or act on any recommendation, decision or purported findings of the wrongfully constituted disciplinary panel, or any panel or composition of persons by the defendant pending the determination of the substantive suit.

(iii) An interlocutory order of injunction suspending any decision, recommendation by the defendant purported to in any way or manner hold any finding of culpability, terminate, dismiss, alter adversely or in any manner, interfere with the plaintiff’s employment, rights and obligations in the defendant’s employment pending the determination of the substantive suit.”

The ex-parte application was on 15th August, 1997 granted and the trial court ordered as follows:-

“It is ordered that the defendant/respondent, its servants, agents or privies be and are hereby restrained by this honourable court from interfering in any way or manner ordering any act detrimental or adverse to the normal course of the plaintiffs’ employment with the defendant company pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice. It is also ordered that the defendant/respondent be and are hereby restrained from in any way or manner give effect or act on any recommendation, decision or purported findings of wrongfully constituted disciplinary panel or any panel or composition of persons by the defendant pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice. It is further ordered that the defendant/respondent do suspend any decision, recommendation by the defendant company purported to in any way or manner hold any finding of culpability, terminate, dismiss, alter adversely or in any manner, interfere with the plaintiff’s employment, rights and obligation in the defendants employment pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice.

It is finally ordered that the plaintiff/applicant do enter into an undertaking to indemnify the defendant to the tune of N50,000.00 (fifty thousand naira) should at the end the motion on notice be found to be frivolous.

Return date shall be the 29th day of August, 1997 for the motion on notice for interlocutory injunction.”

The court heard arguments on the motion on notice on 29th August, 1997 and in a reserved ruling delivered on 3rd September granted plaintiff’s prayers and ordered-

“I accordingly hereby rule that prayers 1 and 3 as contained on the face of this motion paper, be and they are hereby granted as prayed. In the interest of justice, I shall order that prayer 2 in the motion paper be granted only as they relate to the plaintiff/applicant, that is to say that an order of interlocutory injunction is hereby ‘granted restraining the defendant from in any way or manner giving effect, publishing or acting on any recommendation, decision or purported findings of the wrongfully constituted disciplinary panel or any panel set up by the defendant, as they affect the plaintiff/applicant only, pending the determination of the substantive suit’ already filed.

Defendant/respondent is at liberty to publish or act on the findings of this panel at anytime but is expressly hereby restrained from acting on or taking any action on any aspect of it be it findings or recommendations that concern or affect the plaintiff/applicant in any way or manner whatsoever, till the determination of the substantive suit.”