Sylvester C. Nwoye V. Federal Airports Authority Of Nigeria (2019)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

AMIRU SANUSI, J.S.C.

This appeal is against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Ekiti division (hereinafter referred to as “the lower Court”) delivered on 20th day of January, 2012.

The appellant as plaintiff, instituted an action at the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (“the trial Court” for short) and claimed a catalogue of reliefs against the respondent, as defendant thereat. The trial Court at the end of the hearing of the suit delivered its judgment and granted some of the reliefs claimed by the plaintiff/appellant, namely reliefs 1, 3 and 5. The defendant/respondent became disenchanted with the judgment of the trial Court and thereupon appealed to the lower Court, while the appellant/plaintiff also dissatisfied with the judgment, filed a cross appeal against the same judgment.

At the conclusion of the hearing of the said appeal and cross-appeal, the lower Court struck out the appeal of the respondent based on a preliminary objection by the appellant. After striking out the appeal, the lower Court went ahead to consider the cross appeal by the appellant and

1

held that the trial Court was right in refusing to grant reliefs 2 and 4 as contained in the Amended Statement of claim dated 28th May, 2009 but filed by the appellant on 5th June, 2009. The appellant alleged that instead of the lower Court to confine itself to the judgment appealed against, it delved into alternative reliefs Nos (i) and (ii) as contained in the appellant’s amended statement of claim upon which there was no appeal by either the appellant or the respondent. The Court held that the appellant was still in the service of the respondent (See page 504 of the Record) and that he is entitled to his retirement benefits. The appellant stated that he is still in service, notwithstanding the pronouncement of the Court on retirement benefits.

The appellant herein, still became dissatisfied with the judgment of the lower Court and thereupon further appealed to this Court.

As has been the practice in this Court, parties filed and exchanged briefs of argument. The appellant filed his brief of argument on 25th September, 2012, which was settled by Sir JC Okafor, wherein he proposed four issues for determination of the appeal as reproduced hereunder:-

2

Whether the lower Court has jurisdiction to consider or determine the alternative reliefs (i) and (ii) of the Amended Statement of Claim of the Appellant when there was no appeal on the alternative reliefs (Ground 1& 5).

2. Whether the lower Court was right in law to uphold the refusal of the trial Court to grant reliefs two (2) and four (4) of the Appellant’s Amended Statement of Claim or decline to grant same when both the trial Court and the lower Court have the jurisdiction to grant both reliefs (Grounds 2 & 4)
3. Whether the lower Court was right in law to hold that the Appellant is entitled to his retirement benefits when the Appellant has not been retired from the service of the Respondent. (Ground 3)
4. Whether the lower Court was right to hold in its judgment that Exhibits M, N, O, P and Q were rightly admitted in evidence by the trial Court when the said exhibits are inadmissible in law (Ground 6)Suffice it to say, that upon being served with Respondent’s brief of argument, the appellant also filed Appellant’s Reply Brief on 6th June, 2013 which was deemed filed on 17th November, 2014. The two briefs of argument were both

3

adopted at the hearing of the appeal on 23rd October, 2018.

On its part, the respondent filed its brief of argument on 26th November, 2012. The said respondent’s brief of argument was settled by lgwe Kingsley Chima. Therein, four issues for determination were also decoded which read as follows: –

A. Whether the lower Court has jurisdiction to consider the alternative reliefs which were canvassed in the trial Court but which were not appealed against by either party.