U.t.c. (Nig) Plc V. Peters (2022)
LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report
OLUKAYODE ARIWOOLA, J.S.C.
This is an appeal against the judgment of the Port Harcourt division of the Court of Appeal, delivered on Thursday 19th February, 2009 – Coram: Kudirat M. O. Kekere-Ekun, Ibrahim M. M. Saulawa, Ejembi Eko, JJCA (as they then were) all now Justices of the Supreme Court.
The respondent herein, was the Plaintiff at the trial Court. By his amended statement of claim dated 28th November, 1995, the Plaintiff claimed in paragraph 15 as follows:
(a) A declaration that the purported summary dismissal of the Plaintiff by letter dated 30th April, 1984 is wrongful and unlawful and against the laid down conditions of service and the practice in the Defendant’s company.
(b) That the Plaintiff is therefore entitled to full benefits of all his entitlements in the UTC pension fund, the National Provident Fund Contributions.
(c) An injunction to restrain the defendant from tampering with the status quo of the parties vis-a-vis entitlement prior to the date of summary dismissal letter dated 30th April, 1984.
And or in the Alternative:
(d) The Plaintiff claims N750,000.00 as damages for the unlawful and wrongful dismissal of the Plaintiff by letter dated 30th April, 1984.
The trial Court in its considered judgment delivered on 17th November, 2000 gave judgment in favour of the respondent against the appellant.
Dissatisfied with the decision of the trial Court led to an appeal by the appellant herein to the Court below. In its judgment delivered on Thursday 19th February, 2009, the appeal succeeded in part. The judgment of the trial Court which declared the dismissal of the respondent by letter dated 30th April, 1984 wrongful was affirmed. The award of N750,000.00 as general damages in favour of the respondent was set aside. The Court below then held that the respondent was entitled to his relief (b) above in paragraph 15 of the amended Statement of Claim. However, prayer (c) of the appellant’s counter-claim succeeded and the appellant was awarded general damages in the sum of N75,000.00 for the wrongful detention of its vehicle by the respondent.
Further dissatisfaction led to the instant appeal by the appellant on three grounds filed on 10th March, 2009 at the Court below. Pursuant to the rules of this Court, briefs of argument were filed and duly exchanged by parties. Appellant’s brief of argument was filed on 25/1/2010. Respondent’s brief of argument was filed out of time on 29/3/2010 but deemed properly filed and served on 9/11/2021, the day the appeal was heard.
In the appellant’s brief of argument, the following issues were distilled for determination of the appeal.
Issues for Determination
- Whether or not in a master and servant relationship, declaratory reliefs are grantable for wrongful dismissal.
- Whether or not the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right in dismissing the appellant’s counter-claim when the respondent did not join issues with the appellant on the claims made against the respondent in the counter-claim.
In his own brief of argument settled by Akuro R. George Esq., the respondent formulated two issues from the three grounds of appeal filed by the appellant. The said two issues are couched in the following words:
- Whether a declaratory relief can be granted in a master and servant relationship.
- Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong in refusing to grant the appellant the amount claimed as special damages and the relief for restitution.
As can be seen clearly, the two respective issues of both parties are saying the same thing though differently couched.
In arguing the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant linked issue 1 to grounds 1 and 2 of the Notice of Appeal. He referred to the testimony of DW1 – one Michael Itsibor to the effect that the relationship between the parties was that of master and servant. He referred to pages 26-27 of the record. He contended that throughout his cross-examination he was not contradicted on the nature of the relationship between the parties as pleaded by the appellant and supported by the evidence of DW1. He referred to Exhibit ‘C’ which provides for the determination of the relationship or contract of employment by either party giving the necessary notice or salary in lieu of notice. He contended that the remedy available for wrongful dismissal is what is anticipated by the parties in a master-servant relationship, which is salary in lieu of notice. Learned counsel submitted that the Court below erred in law when it failed to follow the decision in Akinfosile Vs. Mobil Oil (Nig) Ltd (1969) 6 NSCC 376 at 380. He contended that damages for wrongful dismissal are not at large. And that the quantum of damages is dependent on the required length of notice. That it was the duty of the respondent to furnish the Court with materials needed for the assessment of damages. But in the absence of those materials, the claims for damages and or declaratory reliefs ought to fail. He relied on Morohunfola Vs. Kwara State College of Technology (1990) 4 NWLR (Pt.145) 506 at 519; Amodu vs. Amode & Anor (1990) 5 NLR (Pt.250) 356 at 373.
Learned counsel contended that the Court below ought not to have upheld the relief sought by the respondent in paragraph 15(b) of the amended statement of claim which was in the nature of a declaratory relief. He submitted that declaratory reliefs are not proper in a claim for wrongful dismissal in a master-servant relationship.
He urged the Court to hold that the relationship between the parties being that of master-servant, the only available remedy to the respondent was damages for wrongful dismissal. And having failed to provide the trial Court with a specific claim and the basis for the assessment of the quantum of damages, the Court below ought to have dismissed the entire claims.
In arguing issue no. 1, learned counsel to the respondent contended that it is discernible from the grounds of appeal filed by the appellant that its grouse is based on the decision of the Court below as it relates to the respondent’s relief for his entitlements under the UTC Pension Fund and National Provident Fund. Learned counsel further contended that the relief for entitlement due to the respondent is predicated on the declaration made with respect to the unlawfulness of the summary dismissal. He opined that the relief by itself is not a declaratory relief but a consequential one. He submitted that a consequential order is one giving effect to a judgment or order to which it is consequential. It is directly traceable to or flowing from that judgment or order duly prayed for and made. He relied on Dantsoho Vs. Mohammed (2003) 6 NWLR (Pt.817) 457 at 489, Agu Vs. Odofin (1992) 3 NWLR (Pt.229) 350, (1992) 3 SCNJ 161 and Akinbobola Vs. Plisson Fisko Nigeria Ltd (1991) 1 NWLR (Pt. 167) 270.
Admitting without conceding that the part of the judgment appealed against is declaratory, learned counsel submitted that the Courts are not in any way precluded by law from making declarations in respect of master and servant relationships. He further submitted that a declaratory relief by its inherent nature is a remedy for the determination of a justifiable controversy where the plaintiff is in doubt as to his legal rights. He relied on Oduyoye Vs. Lawal (2002) 3 NWLR (Pt.807) 432 at 497.
Learned counsel contended that the determination of whether or not an employment has been lawfully determined is by its very nature a declaratory relief. It is for this reason that the Courts have on several occasions granted declaratory reliefs in cases bothering on master and servant relationship. He relied on Chukwumah Vs. Shell Petroleum Development Company (1993) 4 NWLR (Pt.289) 527.
Learned counsel further contended that the fact that the relationship between the disputing parties, in this case, relates to master and servant relationship was never in contention and indeed was of common ground to the parties.
In the final analysis, learned counsel submitted that declaratory reliefs are available and can be granted by the Court in Master and Servant relationship. He urged the Court to resolve the issue against the appellant.
From the available evidence, certain facts are not in dispute between parties, hence they are deemed admitted. They include the following:
– The respondent was at all material times an employee of the appellant – UTC Nigeria Ltd having joined the company’s employment on 2/10/1962 as a Secretary/Typist and rose to the rank of Departmental Store Manager (Executive) on April, 1982.
– The respondent spent 22 years in the employment of the appellant.
– The relationship that existed between parties was that of Master-Servant.
– The respondent was summarily dismissed in writing with effect from 30th April, 1984.
– Condition of Service of the appellant is contained in Exhibit C.
– The respondent’s summary dismissal by the appellant was declared by the trial Court as wrongful and unlawful and against the laid down conditions of service and the practice in the appellant’s company.
The first issue being contested by the appellant is whether or not in the Master-Servant relationship that existed between parties declaratory reliefs are grantable for wrongful dismissal.
Generally speaking, master-servant relationship is the association between one in authority and a subordinate – especially between an employer and an employee. And employer-employee relationship is the association between a person employed to perform services in the affairs of another who in turn has the right to control the person’s physical conduct in the course of that service. See Black’s Law Dictionary 9th edition page 1402.
It is clear from the record that the respondent had sought, before the trial Court, for declaration that his purported summary dismissal by the appellant in April 1984 was wrongful and unlawful among other things.
Declaratory claims are said to be invitations to the Court to make pronouncement on the legal position of a state of affairs and it is by itself not enforceable in law. Declaratory judgment therefore is a remedy for determination of a justifiable controversy where the plaintiff is in doubt as to his legal rights. It is granted as a judicial discretion only in circumstances in which the Court is of the opinion that the party seeking it is entitled, when all facts are taken into account.
As earlier stated, the respondent was a servant of the appellant as the Master. He served the appellant for twenty-two (22) years prior to his said summary dismissal. He considered his dismissal as wrongful and unlawful but wanted the Court to so declare putting all the required and relevant facts before the Court. A wrongful act is characterized by unfairness or injustice. Contrary to law.
In the judgment of the trial Court, it was found as follows on page 49T of the records:
“In the suit before me, the plaintiff was employed by the Defendant and the conditions of service are as stated in Exhibit “C” – this is the document that binds the relationship between the parties. The Exhibit “C” is a mere condition of service drawn up by the Defendant to guide the employment terms and conditions. My attention has not been drawn to any statute under which the plaintiff is employed. I have not been shown either that the relationship has any statutory flavor. I have no doubt in my mind including that the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant does not go beyond mere Master/Servant relationship.”
The Court later found and held that the dismissal of the respondent as defendant was wrongful and unlawful. In other words, the trial Court granted the declaratory relief sought in paragraph 15(a) of the amended Statement of Claim. That is, the respondent’s summary dismissal by the appellant was declared wrongful and unlawful. Generally, it is the practice that a declaratory relief will be granted where the plaintiff is entitled to relief in the fullest meaning of the word. See Guaranty Trust Co. Vs. Hamay (1951) 2 KB at 572, Chukwumah Vs. Shell Petroleum (Nig) Ltd (1993) LPELR 864 (SC). There is no doubt that the trial Court was right in granting the declaratory relief sought by the respondent on the wrongful act of his summary dismissal. The Court below was therefore correct in affirming the grant of the declaratory relief sought by the respondent on his summary dismissal. In the circumstance, issue no.1 is resolved against the appellant.
Issue no.2 of the appellant is whether or not the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right in dismissing the appellant’s counter-claim which the respondent did not join issues with the appellant on the claims made against the respondent in the counter-claim.
It is clear on record that in paragraph 21 of the appellant’s counter-claim at page 11 of the record of appeal, the appellant indeed counter-claimed as follows:
(a) N1,500,000.00 being the current value of Peugeot 504 GR with Registration No.RV6922PD;
(b) N41,087.67 from its store for which the respondent was the Store Manager;
(c) N100,000.00 being general damages for wrongful detention of the car.
The total amount of special damages claimed was N1,641,087.00.
In the alternative to paragraph 21 (a) the appellant sought an order for the delivery of the vehicle in a perfect mechanical state.
There is no doubt that the Court below did not outrightly dismiss the appellant’s counter-claim as alleged.
Ordinarily, the law is clear that special damages must not only be specifically pleaded, they must be strictly proved by credible evidence of particular losses. See Luke N. Onyiorah Vs. Bendict C. Onyiorah & Anor (2019) LPELR 49096 (SC); Okafor & Ors Vs. Obiwo & Anor (1978) LPELR – 2413 (SC).
The Court below truly found that the failure of the respondent to file a defence to the counter-claim, in the circumstances of this case would not relieve the counter claimant of the burden to establish his claims. The Court below had found as follows in the counter-claim:
“The only witness for the appellant was DW1 – the Accounts Supervisor. In proof of paragraph 21(b) he tendered Exhibit L, the Stock taking report prepared by one J. O. Onakunle, who did not testify. On this document, the learned trial Judge held thus at pages 49-49w of the record:
It is to be noted that the plaintiff has contended that he was not invited when the stocktaking was made but all keys were taken away from him. Unfortunately this J. O. Onakunle was not called to clear this serious allegation. In the face of this serious doubt, can we say there was indeed a loss in the Departmental Store at Port Harcourt. Can we say that Exhibit L is credible documentary evidence without subjecting it to a proper test through the maker? It is my view therefore that no special damages based on Exhibit L has been proved against the plaintiff.”
Where a trial Court has satisfactorily performed its function evaluating evidence and ascribing probative value thereto, an appellate Court would not interfere with its findings on such evidence.
Still on the counter-claim by the appellant, the Court below found that there was no iota of evidence whatsoever in proof of the special damages claimed for the value of the Peugeot 504 GR. But the fact that the said vehicle was still in possession of the respondent was not in dispute.
Upon review of the pleadings and the findings of fact from the available evidence, the Court below found that the appellant had established the wrongful detention of the vehicle – Peugeot 504, GR by the respondent.
Even though the Court below had found that the appellant failed to prove the special damages in its reliefs (a) and (b), the appellant was found to have proved relief (c) – general damages for wrongful retention of the vehicle. The trial Court was therefore rightly adjudged to be in error in dismissing the counter-claim in its entirety. The Court below then granted the appellant the counter-claim for wrongful detention of its Peugeot 504 GR which was in possession of the respondent. Hence the appeal succeeded in part at the Court below. The appellant was therefore wrong to generally say that the counter-claim was dismissed by the Court below. There was misconception of the judgment of the Court of Appeal. The second issue is also resolved against the appellant.
In the result, the two issues for the determination of this appeal are resolved against the appellant. The appeal therefore fails and is liable to dismissal.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The judgment of the Court below stands and it is affirmed.
Appeal dismissed.
SC.17/2010