Legalpedia Citation: (2015-03) Legalpedia (SC) 18011
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Mar 27, 2015
Suit Number: SC.71/2005
CORAM
PARTIES
BUKAR MODU AJI APPELLANTS
CHAD BASIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Plaintiff/Appellant commenced this action in the Federal High Court, Maiduguri challenging his dismissal from service by the Defendants/Respondents via a letter as unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect. The Plaintiff/Appellant also sought for an order of reinstatement, an order compelling the Defendants to pay all his entitlement due and accruable from the date of his dismissal to the date of re-instatement, damages and cost of the action. The Defendants/Respondents on the other hand, contended that the suit be struck out on ground that it constitutes a challenge to an action taken by the Head of State under the Public Officers (Special Provisions) Act Cap. 381 Laws of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1990 and that the dismissal was valid. A motion on Notice which was subsequently filed by the Defendants/Respondents challenging the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the matter was dismissed. During trial, the Plaintiff/Appellant failed to plead the terms and conditions of his employment. Although the learned trial judge found that the Plaintiff/Appellant was not given fair hearing before he was removed, he however held that such failure cannot be in vacuum as the essential ingredient of the claim of the Plaintiff/Appellant was missing and consequently dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim. An appeal to the lower court was dismissed hence the instant appeal at the apex court.
HELD
Appeal Dismissed
ISSUES
1. Whether there was a breach of fair hearing leading to appellant’s dismissal from service, which infraction was not to the advantage of the Appellant irrespective of his failure to plead and establish his conditions of service?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
WRONGFUL TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT – DUTY OF A PARTY WHO COMPLAINS THAT HIS EMPLOYMENT HAD BEEN WRONGFULLY TERMINATED
“It is trite law that when an employee complains that his employment has been wrongfully terminated, he has the onus, first to place before the court the terms of the contract of employment and, second, to prove in what manner the said terms were breached by the employer. It is not in principle for the employer who is a defendant to an action brought by the employee to prove any of these issues. See Francis Katto V. Central Bank of Nigeria (1999) 6 NWLR (pt. 607) 390, Iwuchukwu V. Nwizu (1994) 7 NWLR (pt. 357) 379 at 412”. PER J.I.OKORO,J.S.C
TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT – THE PLAINTIFF HAS THE ONUS OF PLACING THE TERMS OF CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT AND PROVE THE BREACH OF THE TERMS WHERE HIS EMPLOYMENT HAS BEEN WRONGLY TERMINATED
“The Plaintiff/Appellant is enjoined by law when he complains that his employment has been wrongfully terminated, he has the onus of placing before the Court the terms of contract of employment and then go on to prove in what way the said terms were breached by the employer”. PER M. U. PETER-ODILI, J.S.C
CONCURRENT FINDING OF THE LOWER COURTS – CONCURRENT FINDING OF THE LOWER COURTS SHOULD NOT BE UPSET WHERE IT HAS NOT OCCASIONED A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE
“What has transpired in this case is an example of when concurrent judgments of two Courts below should be left unhampered with. The reasons are obvious and easy to see as there is no miscarriage of justice, no perversity, no substantial error apparent on the face of the record of proceedings nor is there a wrong application of the substantive or procedural law advanced by the appellant and so the appellant failing on those counts, those findings of the two Courts emanating from due and painstaking considerations are not to be upset or interfered with in this appeal. I rely on Salim v CPC (2013) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1315) 501 at 524, 526, a decision of this Court. PER M. U. PETER-ODILI, J.S.C
BREACH OF CONTRACT OF SERVICE – THE COURT IS INCAPABLE OF DETERMINING WHETHER THERE IS A BREACH OF CONTRACT OF SERVICE OR NOT IN THE ABSENCE OF PLEADINGS AND THE CONTRACT OF SERVICE WHICH ARE FUNDAMENTAL CONDITION PRECEDENT
“In the absence of the pleading and establishing the contract of service, the Court is left without the working tools with which it can consider the case as advanced by the employee as to whether or not there was breach. In other words, the breach cannot exist in vacuo and such a situation produces the absence of a condition precedent which cannot be waived being fundamental. I place reliance on the following case Rector Kwara State Polytechnic v Adefila (2008) All FWLR (Pt. 431) 914 at 982-983. PER M. U. PETER-ODILI, J.S.C
DECLARATORY RELIEFS – THE COURT IS OBLIGED TO GRANT DECLARATORY RELIEFS WHERE A CLAIMANT PLEADS AND PROVES HIS CLAIM
“The law requires the appellant, on the basis of the reliefs he seeks, to plead and prove his claim. The burden of proof on him to establish these declaratory reliefs to the satisfaction of the court is quite heavy in the sense that the reliefs being declaratory are never granted even on admission by the defendant where the plaintiff, as in the instant case, has failed to establish his entitlement to the declaration by his own evidence. Without evidence from the claimant, which can only be led if pleaded, the court is not obliged to grant declaratory reliefs. The plaintiff succeeds on the strength of his case, and nothing else. See CPC v. INEC (2012) 2-3 SC 1, AG, Cross River State v. AG Federation & anor (2012) 7 SC (pt 11) 72, AG Rivers State v. AG Akwa Ibom State & anor (2011) 3 SC 1 and Dumez Nig Ltd v. Nwakhoba & 3 ors (2008) 12 SC (pt 111) 142. PER M. D. MUHAMMAD, J.S.C
DETERMINATION OF WRONGFUL TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT – CONDITION PRECEDENT TO THE DETERMINATION OF WRONGFUL TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT BY THE COURT
“Whether one is suing for wrongful dismissal from an employment with statutory flavor or under the common law principles- of master and servant, the fact of the employment and the terms and conditions of same must not only be pleaded but must be proved by evidence before a determination of the wrongful nature of his termination/dismissal can be considered by the court”. PER W.S.N.ONNOGHEN, J.S.C
ACTION ON TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT – AN AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEE HAS A DUTY OF PROVING HIS CONTRACT OF SERVICE IN AN ACTION ON TERMINATION OF HIS EMPLOYMENT
“What can be stated to be the rock solid position of the law with regard to an action by an aggrieved employee on the termination or dismissal from service is that to found his case there is no running away from pleading and proving his contract of service to substantiate his claim”. PER M. U. PETER-ODILI, J.S.C
EFFECT OF FAILURE TO PLEAD AND PROVE THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SERVICE – A PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO PLEAD AND PROVE THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SERVICE IS FATAL TO HIS CASE
“Failure to plead and prove the terms and conditions of service by a plaintiff seeking to challenge his dismissal is fatal to his case. In fact, this failure completely knocks off the substratum of his case. Therefore, issue of fair hearing or lack of it cannot hang in the air. You cannot put something on nothing and expect it to stand, it will certainly collapse like a pack of cards. See Macfoy V. U.A. C. (1961) 3 ALL ER 1169 at 1172.” PER J.I.OKORO,J.S.C
CONTRACT OF SERVICE – THE COURT WILL NOT LOOK OUTSIDE DOCUMENTED TERMS OF A CONTRACT OF SERVICE IN DECIDING THE RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF PARTIES
“It has to be understood that as the contract of service is the bedrock upon which an aggrieved employee must found his case, he succeeds or fails upon the terms thereof. Therefore, in a written or documented contract of service, the court will not look outside the terms stipulated or agreed therein in deciding the rights and obligations of the parties. See Western Nigeria Development Corporation V. Abimbola (1966) NSCC 172, Olaniyan V. University of Lagos (1985) NWLR (pt. 9) 599”. PER J.I.OKORO,J.S.C
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999Public Officers (Special Provisions) Act Cap. 381 Laws of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1990