Total Nigeria Plc V. Edward Uzoma Anyiam (2013)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

IBRAHIM SHATA BDLIYA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Plateau State High Court of Justice, (hereinafter referred to as the lower court) (Presided over by Y.B. Nimpar, J), delivered on the 15th of December, 2010, wherein judgment was entered in favour of the respondent (who was the plaintiff) and the appellant (who was the defendant) counter claim dismissed. The appellant was dissatisfied with the judgment of the lower Court hence his appeal to this Court by filing a Notice of Appeal dated and filed on the 14th of March, 2011.

The facts leading to the institution of the suit before the lower court by the respondent could be briefly summarized thus. Sometime in 1982, the respondent was employed by the appellant as an Accounts Clerk and by 2001 he had become a Sales Executive. He was in charge of Lafiya Zone of the appellant. In 2004 it was discovered that some supply of petroleum products to the Wamba Station were not accounted for per the records of the Company. An investigation was carried out. The respondent was found to be responsible for the unaccounted or missing sums of money. The appellant suspended and later dismissed the respondent. The respondent did not agree to his dismissal, hence the institution of the suit before the lower court.

The Notice of Appeal filed by the appellant are on pages 186-190 of the printed record of appeal. There are ten (10) grounds of appeal. Without their particulars they are hereunder reproduced for easier comprehension.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

1. The learned Trial Court erred in law when he had that “…having found that the determination is one that carries with (sic) a stigma on the character of the Plaintiff, he shall be entitled to damages assessed in the sum of N1.5 Million (One Million, Five Hundred Thousand Naira Only).”
2. The Learned Trial Court erred in law when having held that “…Relief G cannot also be granted as it is not in consonance with the law on wrongful termination…” but nevertheless proceeded to hold further that …”the measure of damages was assessed above in the sum of N1.5 Million due to the stigma attached to his arising from the criminal allegations…”
3. The trial Court erred in law by arriving at a wrong finding that the Plaintiff is entitled to damages that will assuage the Plaintiff for the alleged stigma on his character.
4. The Learned Trial Court erred in law when he held that the “…Plaintiff is also entitled to all other benefits accruable to a person who has served the company for 22 years on voluntary disengagement…”
5. The Learned Trial Court having found that there is no evidence adduced in support of the Counter-claim and therefore not proved, the proper order the Court can make is that of non-suit of the Counter-Claimant and not dismissal.
6. The learned trial Court erred in law when he held that “…the argument of DW2 that the conditions in the handbook are complied with cannot stand the law…”
7. The learned Trial Court erred in law when it imputed into “Exhibit 15” issue of criminal allegations in holding that “…Obviously reasons number 2 and 3 in Exhibit 15 are criminal allegations…”, and thereby arrived at an erroneous conclusion that the Plaintiff was not tried before a court nor heard by panel set up by the Appellant.
8. The Judgment of the Lower Court is one sided and as such against the weight of evidence.
9. The Lower Court erred in law in entertaining the suit when it discloses no reasonable cause of action against the Defendant.
10. The Trial Court erred in law by relying on the decision in EZEKIEL VS WEST MINISTER DREDGING LIMITED (2009) 9 NWLR (PART 672) PG 248 AT 262 in awarding the sum of 1.5 Million as damages to the Plaintiff.

The appellant filed its brief of argument on 2nd June, 2011, in which four (4) issues were distilled from the ten (10) grounds of appeal. The issues are as follows:

1. Whether having regard to its decision that the Respondent’s dismissal was unlawful, the Lower Court was right in awarding the Respondent the sum of N1.5 Million as damages due to the stigma attached to the name of the Respondent arising from the Criminal Allegations. (Grounds 1, 2, 3, and 10).
2. Whether the Lower Court was right in dismissing the Appellant’s Counter-Claim for want of evidence. (Ground 5).
3. Whether the learned trial Court properly evaluated the evidence before it in arriving at its decision. (Ground 8).
4. Whether the Lower Court was not in error in entertaining the Respondent’s suit when in fact it discloses no reasonable cause of action. (Ground 9).

The respondent filed his brief of argument on the 22nd of March, 2013, wherein five (5) issues were formulated for determination in the appeal. They are thus:

1. Whether the claim of the Respondent before the Lower Court discloses reasonable causes of action (Ground 9 of the notice of appeal).
2. Whether the trial Court properly evaluated the evidence adduced before it before having at its decision (grounds 6, 7, and 8 of the notice of appeal).
3. Whether the Learned Trial Judge was right to have dismissed the counter-claim of the Appellant for want of evidence instead of non-suit (ground 5 of the notice of appeal).
4. Whether the Trial Judge having set aside the dismissal of the Respondent was right to have held that the Respondent was “entitled to all other benefits accruable to a person who has served the company for 22 years on voluntary disengagement.” (Ground 4 of the notice of appeal).
5. Whether from the claim of the Respondent and the evidence before the trial Court, the award of N1.5 Million to the Respondent as damages was right. (Grounds 1, 2, 3 and 10 of the notice of appeal).

A Reply brief was filed by the appellant in response to the arguments canvassed in the respondent’s brief. It was filed on the 15th of May, 2012.

On 14th of November, 2013, the appeal came up for hearing whereat learned counsel to the parties adopted their respective briefs of argument. Learned counsel to the appellant did urge the court to allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the lower court. Learned counsel to the respondent urged the court to dismiss the appeal and affirm the judgment of the lower court. In the determination of an appeal, the appellate court can adopt reframe or formulate new issues which must be related to the grounds of appeal, which in its opinion would ultimately determine the appeal. That an appellate court can adopt issues formulated by the parties in the determination of an appeal has the support of this Court in the case of Adesina V. Ojo (2012) 10 NWLR Pt. 1309 p.552 @ 516, where IYIZOBA J.C.A. adumbrated that:

“There is nothing strange in a judge adopting the issues as formulated by any of the parties to a dispute if the judge is satisfied that the said issues capture the essence of the dispute.”

The issues formulated for determination in the respective briefs of argument of the appellant and the respondent are not only interrelated but overlapping. Issue I of the appellant is issue 5 of the respondent; issue 2 of the appellant is issue 3 of the respondent issue 3 of the appellant is issue 2 of the respondent, issue 4 of the appellant is issue 1 of the respondent, Issue 4 of the respondent stands alone. In my view, therefore, issues 1, 2, 3, 4 of the appellant and issue 4 of the respondent, which have covered all the ten (10) grounds of appeal, would adequately determine the appeal whichever way they are resolved by the court. The issues to be considered and resolved in the determination of the appeal are therefore these:

1. Whether having regard to its decision that the Respondent’s dismissal was unlawful, the Lower Court was right in awarding the Respondent the sum of N1.5 Million as damages due to the stigma attached to the name of the Respondent arising from the Criminal Allegations. (Grounds 1, 2, 3, and 10).
2. Whether the Lower Court was right in dismissing the Appellant’s Counter-Claim for want of evidence. (Ground 5).
3. Whether the learned trial Court properly evaluated the evidence before it in arriving at its decision. (Ground 8).
4. Whether the Lower Court was not in error in entertaining the Respondent’s suit when in fact it discloses no reasonable cause of action. (Ground 9).
5. Whether the Trial Judge having set aside the dismissal of the Respondent was right to have held that the Respondent was “entitled to all other benefits accruable to a person who has served the company for 22 years on voluntary disengagement.” (Ground 4 of the notice of appeal).

RESOLUTION OF ISSUES

In the consideration and resolution of the issues for determination, I will take Issues 1, 3, 4, 5 and lastly 2, in that order.

ISSUE ONE (1)