The Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Limited & Anor V. Douglas Eriata & Anor (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA, J.C.A.

This appeal emanated from the Judgment of High Court of Justice Warri Division in the Delta State of Nigeria in Suit No. HOR/24/2000 ? DOUGLAS ERIATA VS (1) SHELL PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED (2) V.S. OLAREWAJU (3) COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, DELTA STATE delivered on the 26th day of April, 2004.

Briefly, the facts of this case are that by Paragraph 27 of the Statement of Claim, the Plaintiff claimed ?
(1) Against the Defendants jointly and severally, a declaration that the alleged termination of the Plaintiff?s appointment on the 9th of January 1997, following his suspension from duty vide letter dated 7th January 1997 is improper, wrongful, illegal, unconstitutional, null and void and against the principles of natural justice.
(2) Against the 3rd Defendant, a Declaration that his ratification of the termination of the Plaintiff?s appointment vide letter Ref ? AH/6700/DTS. Volume 1/74 of 18th February 1997, is contrary to the provisions of the Police Act 1967 and therefore improper, wrongful, illegal,

1

unconstitutional, null and void.
(3) Against the 1st and 3rd Defendants jointly, an order setting aside the alleged termination of appointment of the Plaintiff from the services of the 1st Defendant and a consequential order enjoining the 1st Defendant to pay to the Plaintiff all her accrued and withheld salaries, other emoluments and benefits from the 7th of January 1997 till the date of Judgment in this suit, and thereafter till the services of the Plaintiff with the 1st Defendant are properly severed in accordance with the provisions of the Police Act, 1967.
(4) Against the 2nd Defendant ?
(i) The sum of (N1,000,000.00) One Million Naira being damages for malicious instigation and procuring the wrongful termination of the appointment of the Plaintiff from the services of the 1st Defendant.
(ii) The sum of (N1,000,000.00) One Million Naira as Damages for defamation of character by maliciously publishing of the Plaintiff to be involved ?in a drinking spree? even though he knew her to be a serving supernumerary Police Constable in the services of the 1st Defendant?s Security Department.

?At the end of

2

hearing, Judgment was entered in favour of the Plaintiff.

Dissatisfied with the Judgment of the Lower Court, the Appellants appealed to this Court.

The learned counsel for the Appellants formulated three issues for the determination of this appeal. The said issues are reproduced as follows: –
(1) Whether the learned trial Judge was right in assuming jurisdiction over claims 1 to 4 (i) of paragraph 27 of the Plaintiffs statement of claim?
(2) The learned trial Judge having found that the claim against the 3rd Defendant is not within the purview of the High Court but within that of the Federal High Court whether he was right in striking out the name of the 3rd Defendant suo motu?
(3) Whether the Judgment of the High Court can be allowed to stand when the Appellants have been denied their full rights of appeal by the inability of the High Court Delta State to compile and transmit the complete records of appeal to this Honourable Court.

In her own case, the learned counsel for the 1st Respondent formulated five issues for the determination of the appeal. The issues are reproduced as follows: –
(1) Given the facts and

3

circumstances of this case, coupled with the nature of reliefs sought by the 1st Respondent at the Lower Court, whether the Lower Court was not right in holding that the termination of the 1st Respondent appointment vide Exhibit D and ratified vide Exhibit G was wrongful, illegal, null and void? (Distilled from grounds 1, 3 and 5 of the amended notice of appeal).
(2) Based on the reliefs claimed by the 1st Respondent and the evidence before the Lower Court, whether the Lower Court did not properly evaluate evidence before granting the 1st Respondent?s relief having struck out the name of the 2nd Respondent? (Distilled from Ground 2 of the amended Notice of Appeal).
(3) Looking at the clear and unambiguous provisions of Sections 18 (5) & 22 of the Police Act Cap P19 LFN 2004 and those of the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria, whether the trial Court was right to hold that the 1st Respondent was not given a fair hearing? (Distilled from Ground 4).
(4) Given the state of the pleadings and the evidence before the Lower Court, whether the Court was right in awarding damages of N1,000,000 in favour of the 1st Respondent (Distilled

4