Swiss-nigerian Wood V. Bogo (1970)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

COKER, J.S.C.

The plaintiff, now the respondent, instituted an action against the defendants who are the present appellants claiming a total amount of 20,000 pounds described by him as special and general damages for breach of contract occasioned by his wrongful dismissal from the employment of the defendants.

Originally, there were two defendants to the action, the first being Swiss-Nigerian Wood Industries Ltd., and the second a Mr. Solomon Fried who was the Managing Director of the first defendant company.

The second defendant was, in the course of the judgment in the court below, dismissed from the action with costs, the learned trial Judge holding that he “had only acted as their (i.e., the first defendants’) agent throughout this transaction.” In this judgment the references to “defendants” imply only the first defendants.

The plaintiff’s statement of claim avers that he is a Swiss national holding a diploma in business administration and that pursuant to an advertisement by the defendants in a Swiss national newspaper he applied for and later secured a job with the defendants as their Deputy Managing Director “at a salary of 3,600 (Three Thousand Six Hundred Pounds) per annum plus other benefits and entitlements.” The plaintiff’s statement of claim also avers that a written contract of employment was executed by the parties on July 22nd, 1968. Paragraph 10 of the statement of claim reads as follows:

“10. By the terms of the said agreement the plaintiff was entitled:
(a) To have the said employment continue until the expiration of two years from the date of employment unless otherwise determined.
(b) To receive two years’ salary if for any reason whatsoever the employment is otherwise terminated.
(c) To receive thirty days’ notice of intention to terminate the said employment within the first three months’ probationary period only and to have the said employment continues until the expiration of such notice.
(d) To receive two months’ leave with full pay at the expiration of the two years’ employment.
(e) That the period of the three months’ probation would commence on the date the plaintiff arrived in Nigeria.
(f) To receive free air passage tickets tourist class for himself and his family from Lagos to Zurich (g) To receive a free furnished house, free steward, free car and a chauffeur and free medical treatment.”

The plaintiff further avers by his statement of claim that by letter dated April 29th, 1969 the defendants wrongfully determined the plaintiff’s employment and neither gave him the requisite notice nor paid him the salaries and prerequisites to which he was entitled. The statement of defence filed by the defendants denies the averment of wrongful dismissal and states that the summary dismissal of the plaintiff was proper as he had been guilty of wilful and persistent disobedience of instructions from the Managing Director of the defendant company.

Evidence was given at the trial by both sides and a number of documentary exhibits were tendered and produced. The contract of employment between the parties was produced and admitted as Exhibit J3, and the letter by which the plaintiff’s appointment was determined was produced and admitted as Exhibit J13. In the course of his judgment the learned trial Judge, Sowemimo, J., expressed the view that in the events which had happened the defendants breached their contract with the plaintiff and were liable to him in damages. After setting out the law relating to the measure of damages the learned trial Judge stated as follows:-

“Applying this principle therefore to the particulars of special damages, the plaintiff would be entitled to all the items of special damages totalling 13 pounds,115 less the amount which I have ordered during these proceedings to be paid to him, and in addition I award 500 pounds as general damages.”

A total award of 13 pounds,615 was therefore made to the plaintiff and this appeal is brought by the defendants against that judgment. Although both the original and the substituted grounds of appeal questioned the finding of the court below that the defendants were liable in damages, no argument has been addressed to us by or on behalf of the defendants concerning the fact of their liability, and learned counsel representing the defendants has before us conceded the issue of liability.

The arguments on the appeal ranged around the measure of damages and put in issue the amount of the awards. In Para.18 of his statement of claim the plaintiff has itemised the amount of damages claimed on his writ for that paragraph reads as follows:
“18. By reason of the matter aforesaid the plaintiff has suffered and is still suffering damage and has not been able to obtain employment elsewhere.”
Whereof the plaintiff claims as follows:-
Particulars of Special Damage
1. Salary due for the month of April 1969 which is unpaid.
2. Salary due for the unexpired period of contract of service in Nigeria.
3. Estimated costs of employment benefits and entitlements including free house, free medical treatment, free car and chauffeur and steward effect. Before us in this court and during the pendency of the a

4. Expenses incurred on behalf of the defendants in Switzerland for trans-portation, visa, medical treatment and for the delay of the travelling of the plaintiff to Nigeria at the defendants’ request.
5. Unpaid retained salary for November 1st, 1968 to January 12th, 1969 for the services rendered in Europe to the defendants at their request.
6. General damages for wrongful dismissal Total amount claimed:
p s d
300.00
6,420.00
6,000.00
95.00
300,00
13,115.00
6,885.00
20pounds.000.00

We were told that whilst the case was pending in the High Court, Lagos a total amount of 600 pounds representing salary was paid to the plaintiff by the defendants pursuant to an order of the court to that effect. Before us in this court and during the pendency of the appeal an application was made by the plaintiff and acceded to by this court that an amount of 1,000 pounds be paid to him by the defendants in part satisfaction of his claims.

The position then is that at the time that the appeal was being argued the plaintiff had already received a total amount of 1,600 pounds from the defendants apart from his salary for the month of April 1969 which was agreed had in fact been paid to him.