Legalpedia Citation: (2024-03) Legalpedia 79808 (SC)

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Fri Mar 8, 2024

Suit Number: SC.70/2010

CORAM

Kudirat Motonmori Olatokunbo Kekere-Ekun Justice, Supreme Court

Mohammed Lawal Garba Justice, Supreme Court

Helen Moronkeji Ogunwumiju Justice, Supreme Court

Adamu Jauro Justice, Supreme Court

Tijjani Abubakar Justice, Supreme Court

PARTIES

DANGOTE CEMENT, PLC. (FORMERLY BENUE CEMENT COMPARY PLC

APPELLANTS

1. PETER ASOM AGER
2. GAZBRIEL SAMALI

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

APPEAL, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, CONTRACT, EVIDENCE, JUDGMENT, LABOUR LAW, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

 

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Respondents were employees of the former Benue Cement Company, Plc, which was later taken over by the present Appellant. They were suspended indefinitely pending an investigation into allegations of fraud and theft in the company’s commercial/marketing department. The Respondents protested their indefinite suspension, and when the company failed to address their concerns, they filed an action in the trial court against the company. The court issued an injunction preventing any further disciplinary action against the Respondents during the pendency of the action.

Meanwhile, the Benue Cement Company, Plc was acquired by the Appellant, and the employment of the Respondents, along with other employees of the acquired company, was terminated. Consequently, the Respondents amended their claims before the trial court to include reinstatement and payment of entitlements from the date of their indefinite suspension and termination, alleging a breach of their contract of employment.

At the end of the trial, the court declared the indefinite suspension and termination of the Respondents unlawful and ordered the company to pay all their entitlements from the date of suspension, termination, and disengagement. The Appellant’s appeal to the Court below was dismissed, and they were ordered to pay the Respondents their salaries from the date of suspension to the date of the judgment, along with all entitlements.

Dissatisfied with this decision, the Appellant has filed the instant appeal.

HELD

Appeal allowed in part

ISSUES

Ø  1.Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were not in error when they affirmed the trial Court’s holding that the indefinite suspension of the Respondents amounted to a breach of the terms of service contained in Exhibit 1?

2. 2. Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were not in error when they affirmed the trial Court’s declaration of Exhibits 17 and 42 (letters of termination issued to the Respondents) as being unlawful, null and void?

3. 3. Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were not in error when they affirmed the undetermined entitlements awarded by the trial Court and suo moto extended the damages awarded to cover the period from dates of the Respondents’ suspensions in 2003 to the date of its judgment (9th December, 2009)?

 

RATIONES DECIDENDI

EMPLOYMENT – DUTY OF PARTIES TO AN EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

The law is firmly settled in
employment/labour matters, the terms and conditions signed by both the employer
and the employees form the formal agreement or contract that would regulate and
govern the relationship between the parties.

The parties to the contract or
agreement; ie. the employer, on the one part and the employee/s, on the other,
are legally bound by the terms and conditions agreed to by them and all actions
by them during the employment, must be in compliance or in accordance with the
specific terms and conditions of service specially provided to regulate and
govern the relationship between them. Any of the parties who breaches or acts
in violation of the terms and conditions of the service relationship would be
liable for the breach or violation of the contract as may be stipulated
therein. See Okonkwo v. Co-op. & Comm. Bank Nig. Plc (2003) FWLR (pt. 154)
457 (SC), Ifeta v. Shell Petroleum (2006) 3 FWLR (pt. 321) 3899 (SC), Babatunde
v. B.O.N. Ltd. (2011) 18 NWLR (pt. 1279) 738 (SC), Obanye v. U.B.N. Plc (2018)
17 NWLR (pt. 1648] 375 (SC), Enilolobo v. N.P.D.C. (2019) 18 NWLR (pt. 1703)
168 (SC). – Per M. L. Garba, JSC

 

 

EMPLOYMENT – WHERE ANY PARTY VIOLATES AN EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

The law is firmly settled in
employment/labour matters, the terms and conditions signed by both the employer
and the employees form the formal agreement or contract that would regulate and
govern the relationship between the parties. 

The parties to the contract or
agreement; ie. the employer, on the one part and the employee/s, on the other,
are legally bound by the terms and conditions agreed to by them and all actions
by them during the employment, must be in compliance or in accordance with the
specific terms and conditions of service specially provided to regulate and
govern the relationship between them. Any of the parties who breaches or acts
in violation of the terms and conditions of the service relationship would be
liable for the breach or violation of the contract as may be stipulated
therein. See Okonkwo v. Co-op. & Comm. Bank Nig. Plc (2003) FWLR (pt. 154)
457 (SC), Ifeta v. Shell Petroleum (2006) 3 FWLR (pt. 321) 3899 (SC), Babatunde
v. B.O.N. Ltd. (2011) 18 NWLR (pt. 1279) 738 (SC), Obanye v. U.B.N. Plc (2018)
17 NWLR (pt. 1648] 375 (SC), Enilolobo v. N.P.D.C. (2019) 18 NWLR (pt. 1703)
168 (SC). – Per M. L. Garba, JSC

 

 

CONTRACTS– CONDUCT OF COURTS IN INTERPRETING THE CONTRACTS BETWEEN PARTIES

…These provisions are very clear and simple in words and tenor for the need for interpretation to arise, as the requirement of the law is that they should be ascribed the ordinary, plain and grammatical meanings. Since the words, in such a situation, best declare the intention of the parties to the contract (as law givers]. See Awolowo v. Shagari (1979) All NLR (SC), 120, Ishola v. Ajiboye (1994) 6 NWLR (pt. 352) 506, Ompadec v. Ajoku (2001) 8. NWLR (pt. 715) 379, Marwa v. Nyako (2012) 6 NWLR (pt. 1296) 199 (SC)  – Per M. L. Garba, JSC

APPELLANT – WHERE THE APPELLANT ABANDONS THE COMPLAINT AGAINST SPECIFIC FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT

The legal consequence and effect of the abandonment of the complaint and attack against the specific finding and holding by the trial Court on the indefinite suspension of the Respondents by the Appellant, as initially contained in Ground (4) of the aforenamed Notice of Appeal, is that the Appellant had accepted the said finding and decision by the trial Court and so it remains extant and binding on the parties.

This position and principle of law is now of considerable antiquity in our judicial jurisprudence to be entitled to the accord of being “trite” from the legion of pronouncements by the appellate Courts, including Green v. Green (1987) 7 SCNJ, 255), Okotie-Eboh v. Manager (2004) 11 -12 SC, 174, Idiok v. State (2008) 6 MJSC, 36, Standard Nig. Engr. Co. Ltd. v. Nig. Bank for Comm. & Ind. Ltd. (2006) All FWLR (pt. 316) 255 (SC), Chami v. UBA, Plc (2010) 6 NWLR (pt. 1191) 474 (SC), Maduabum v. Nwosu (2010) 13 NWLR (pt. 1212) 623, State v. Solomon (2020) 3 – 4 SC (pt. 1) 180, Hanatu v. Amadi (2020) 1 SC (pt. vi) 91, PDP v. Degi-Eremienyo (2020) 1-2 C (pt. 1) 144, Akinlade v. INEC (2020) 77 NWLR (pt. 1754) 439 (SC), Robert v. IGP (2021) 7 NWLR (pt. 1775) 267 (SC), Messrs Singoz & Co. Nig. Ltd. v. U.M. Co. Ltd. (2022) 18 NWLR (pt. 1862) 203 (SC), Jaiyesimi v. Darlington (2022) 9 NWLR (pt. 1835) 335 (SC), U.E.S. Ltd. v. R. M. A. & F.C. (2022) 10 ‘NWLR (pt. 1837) 133 (SC). – Per M. L. Garba, JSC

APPEAL – WHETHER A PARTY WHO OPTS NOT TO APPEAL THE FINDINGS OF A TRIAL COURT ON APPEAL CAN CHOOSE TO APPEAL AGAINST SAME FINDINGS IN A FURTHER APPEAL

I should point out that since the Appellant had freely opted to accept and not to appeal against the said finding and decision by the trial Court, to the Court below, the law does not allow or permit it to raise grounds of appeal and canvass arguments against same in this Court on the ground, only, that the Court below restated the decision of the trial Court in its judgment. The restatement was not and did not constitute an affirmation of the findings or decision since there was no appeal against same by the Appellant before it.

This Court has no jurisdiction to directly, entertain an appeal against any finding or decision by the trial Court which was accepted by the Appellant and in respect of which no appeal was lodged before the Court below. See Ijebu-Ode L.G. v. Adedeji Balogun & Co. Ltd. [1991] 1 NWLR (pt. 166] 136 [SC], Akinlagun v. Oshoboja [2006] All FWLR (pt. 325] 53 [SC], Simi v. INEC [2020] 1-2 SC (pt. IV] 17, Adekunjo v., Hussaini [2021] 11 NWLR (pt. 1788] 434 [SC], Musa v. State (2022] 18 NWLR (pt. 1863] 551 (SC).  – Per M. L. Garba, JSC

COUNSEL – ADMONISHMENT TO COUNSELS WHO COPY BRIEFS JUST TO APPEAR AND GET JUDGMENTS BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT

Because the issues raised in the 2nd Respondent’s Brief are the same as those submitted in the 1st Respondent’s Brief, the arguments on the issue are not only identical but copied and so the same; word for word as those canvassed in the 1st Respondent’s Brief and reviewed above.

I must say that this practice by counsel of copying Briefs of Argument and arguments therein filed by another counsel for a different party to an appeal in this Court or any appellate Court, is not only appalling but also shows clear admission of professional incompetence and breach of professional duty to the client/party who retained the services of such counsel.

I have noted that, recently, the desire by counsel to obtain a judgment/judgments from this Court for the sole purpose of meeting one or as part of requirements for the conferment of the privilege rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria, has driven many counsels to blindfoldedly bring all manners appeals even in the most inappropriate situations or cases, to this Court, or, as in this appeal, merely copy brief of arguments for different parties by just changing or substituting the name of counsel who wrote and settled the original briefs. The practice cannot be deprecated enough and should be made to attract some serious professional penalties, apart from or in addition to imposition of appropriate costs to be personally paid by such indulgent counsel – Per M. L. Garba, JSC

TERMINATION – WHETHER TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT ON THE BASIS OF TAKE OVER AND ACQUISITION CAN BE SAID TO BE WRONGFUL

In essence, the termination of the Respondents’ employment with the Appellant after the take-over or acquisition was not a disciplinary action or measure, let alone “further disciplinary action against the applicants ….” which was restrained by the order of injunction made by the trial, directed at the company that was taken over or acquired by the Appellant. In the circumstances, the termination of the employment cannot reasonably be said to have been in breach or violation of the order of interlocutory injunction granted by the trial Court, so as to be termed unlawful, illegal or null and void on that ground. In addition, since the take over and acquisition by the Appellant, the Respondents until the termination, became and were members of staff of the Appellant and Exhibit remained the terms and conditions of the contract of employment between them. UBN Ltd. v. Ogboh [1995] 2 NWLR (pt. 380] 647 [SC], Exhibit 1 was the governing document that regulated the relationship between the Appellant and the Respondents as employer and employees, respectively, and they were both bound by it, after the take-over or acquisition. See Ibama v. SPDCN Ltd.[2005] 17 NWLR (pt. 954] 364 [SC], UBN Ltd. v. Ozigi (1994) 3 (pt. 333) 385, lyere v. B.F.F. M. Ltd. (2008) 18 NWLR [pt. 1119) 300. – Per M. L. Garba, JSC

TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT – WHEN TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT CAN BE SAID TO BE WRONGFUL

Termination of employment can only be said to be wrongful when it was done in breach or violation of or in a manner not contemplated by the agreed terms and conditions set out either in the contract of the employment entered into by the parties, or contrary to or not in compliance with the relevant statutory provisions governing the employment with statutory flavor. Gbedu v. Itie (2020) 3 NWLR (pt. 1710) 104 (SC), Morohunfola v. Kwara State College of Technology (1990) 4 NWLR (pt. 145) 506 at 579, Katto v. CBN (1999) 6 NWLR (607) 390 (SC), Amodu v. Amode (1990) 5 NWLR 5 NWLR (pt. 150) 356 (SC), Iwuchukwu v. Nwizu (1994) 7 NWLR (pt. 357) 357 at 412 (SC), Umera v. N.R.C. (2022) 10 NWLR (pt. 1838) 349 (SC). – Per M. L. Garba, JSC

TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT – WHEN TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT CAN BE SAID TO BE UNLAWFUL

It may be recalled that I have stated that the termination of employment of an employee by an employer may be declared wrongful if done in breach or violation of any of the terms and conditions of the employment agreed to by the parties in their contract of service, because it constitutes a breach of such contract.  – Per M. L. Garba, JSC

EMPLOYMENT – WHETHER AN EMPLOYEE CAN BE FORCED ON AN EMPLOYER WHO RIGHTFULLY ENDS EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP WHICH LACKS STATUTORY FLAVOUR

The law, for many years now, has been that in employment that does not enjoy the benefit of statutory flavour, but of the nature of pure master and servant relationship, an employee, cannot be imposed on an unwilling employer who rightfully exercises the power and authority to end the employment relationship, even if wrongfully, Obanye v. UBN, Plc (2018) 17 NWLR (pt. 1648) 375 (SC), Longe v. FBN, (2010) 6 NWLR (pt. 1189) 1 (SC), Banke v. Akure North L. G (2015) 6 NWLR (pt. 1455) 400, Agwu v. Julius Berger Nig. Plc (2019) 11 NWLR (pt. 1682) 165 (SC), Nwoye v. FAAN (2019) 5 NWLR (pt. 1665) 193 (SC). – Per M. L. Garba, JSC

REMEDY – THE REMEDY OPEN TO AN EMPLOYEE IN A CASE OF WRONGFUL TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT

The remedy opened to the employee in cases of wrongful termination of employment by his employer, and recognised by the law, is the claim for damages. In the case of Umera v. N. R. C. (Supra), I, in the Lead Judgment, restated the law, at page 394, paragraph, A.-H. that:-

“In claims for breach of contract, either ordinary or for employment, award of damages depends on the terms and conditions of such a contract and the quantum assessed on the basis of the evidence of the facts and circumstances given rise to the breach of the agreement between the contracting parties. Where for instance, the contract provides that the parties may determine it by way of notice of a specified nature and length or payment of money in lieu thereof, then in a claim for alleged wrongful termination of the employment, the law is now firmly established and settled that the quantum of damages a claimant would be entitled to is the sum or amount of money to be in lieu of the requisite notice for the proper termination of the employment. – Per M. L. Garba, JSC 

DAMAGES – THE MEASURE OF DAMAGES IN A CASE OF WRONGFUL DISMISSAL

In the recent case of: Obanye v. U.B.N. Plc (2018) 14 ACELR 1 at 18 (2018) 17 NWLR (pt. 1648) 375 Nweze, J.S.C, restated the position that:-

“In a claim for wrongful dismissal, the measure of damages is prima facie the amount the plaintiff would have earned had the employment continued according to the contract. Beckham v. Drake (1849) 2 H.L. cases 579 at pages 607-668. Where however the defendant, on giving the prescribed notice, has the right to terminate the contract before the end of the term, the damages awarded, apart from the other entitlements, should be limited to the amount which would have been earned by the plaintiff over the period of notice.”

I.D.C.N. Ltd. v. Ajijola (supra); Onalaja v. A.P. Ltd. (1991) 7 NWLR (Pt. 206) 691; Chukwuma v. SPDCN Ltd. (1993) 4 NWLR (Pt.289) 512, among other cases, were referred to by His Lordship. See also Co-operative Bank Plc v. Essien (2001) 4 NWLR (Pt. 704) 479; Ativie v. Kabel Metal Nig. Ltd. (2008) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1095) 399; Nig. Prod. Mkt. Bd. V. Adewunmi (1972) 11 SC 111 at 117; (1972) 1 ALL NLR (Pt. II) 2133; If eta v. SPDCN Ltd. (2006) 8 NWLR (Pt.. 983) 585; Seven-Up Bottling Co. Plc v. Augustus (2012) LPELR-20873; Baba v. N.C.A.T.C. (supra); Katto v. CBN (1999) 6 NWLR (Pt. 607).”

See also Longe v. FBN, Plc (supra), Okoh v. Unilag (2011)14 NWLR (Pt. 1268) 563,Ekumola v. CBN (2013) ALL FWLR (Pt. 703) 1861 (SC), F. M. C. Ido-Ekiti v. Alabi (2012) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1285) 411, Banke v. Akure North L. G. (supra), Onuminya v. Access Bank, Plc (2015) 9 NLWR (Pt. 1463) 159. – Per M. L. Garba, JSC

TERMINATION – WHERE AN EMPLOYER FAILS TO GIVE REQUISITE NOTICE OR PAYMENT IN LIEU OF NOTICE FOR TERMINATION

Failure to give the requisite notice or payment lieu of the notice only renders the termination of the employment wrongful and as pointed out above, the remedy available to the Respondents in the situation, is the claim for damages for wrongful termination of their employment since there is no dispute between the parties that the employment does not have or enjoy a statutory flavour. Being purely of a master-servant nature or kind of employment, the Respondent’s cannot claim and are not, in law, entitled to arrears of salaries and allowances and reinstatement on ground of the wrongful termination. See Bamgboye v. Univ, of Ilorin (1999) 10 NWLR (Pt. 22) 290, Ifeta v. S. P. D. C. N. Ltd. (2006)8 NWLR (Pt. 983) 583 (SC) Oloruntoba-Oju v. Abdul.-Raheem (2009) 13NWLR (Pt. 1157) 83 (SC), Eze v. Spring Bank, Plc (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1278) 113. – Per M. L. Garba, JSC

APPEAL – WHERE AN APPELLANT DOES NOT APPEAL THE FINDING BY A TRIAL COURT

However, since the Appellant did not appeal against the finding by the trial Court that the indefinite suspension of the Respondents was illegal, unlawful, null and void, the Respondents are entitled to claim and be awarded the payment of their Salaries and allowances from the date of their indefinite suspension to the date their employments were wrongfully terminated by the Appellant. – Per M. L. Garba, JSC

APPEAL – THE EFFECT OF FAILURE TO APPEAL A FINDING OF THE TRIAL COURT OR COURT OF APPEAL

The law is well settled that where a party fails to appeal against a finding of the trial Court or the Court of Appeal, he cannot be heard to question the finding on appeal to the Supreme Court. The effect of failure to appeal against such finding is that the decision remains binding and conclusive between the parties. See Opara Vs Dowel Schlumberger (Nig) Ltd & Anor, (2006) LPELR – 2746 (SC) @ 19 A — E; Alakija Vs Abdulai (1998) 6 NWLR (Pt, 552) 1 @ 4; State Vs Solomon (2020) LPELR – 55598 (SC) @ 24 – 25 13 – A; C.G.C. Nig. Ltd Vs Alh. Mustapha Isa (2023) LPELR – 60350 (SC) @ 28 – 29 D – F. – Per K. M. O. Kekere-Ekun, JSC

GROUND OF APPEAL – WHERE NO ISSUE IS FROMULATED FROM A GROUND OF APPEAL

It is also trite that where no issue is formulated from a ground of appeal, the ground is deemed abandoned. See Adigun Vs Ayinde (1993) 8 NWLR (Pt- 313) 516; Ibrahim Vs Mohammed (2003) 2 SC 127; (2003) LPELR – 1409 (SC) @ 26 – 27 F – A; Eke Vs Ogbonda (2006) 11-12 SC. 31. – Per K. M. O. Kekere-Ekun, JSC

REMEDY – THE REMEDY FOR WRONGFUL TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENTS THAT COULD BE TERMINATED WITH THE GIVING OF NOTICE

I am also in agreement with His Lordship that the employment of the respondents not being one that enjoys statutory flavour, where their employment was terminable upon the giving of notice and the said employment was terminated without giving the requisite notice, what they are entitled to by way of damages is what they would have earned during the period of notice. The reason being that in an ordinary master/servant relationship, an employer has the right to terminate his employee’s employment for good or bad reason, or for no reason at all. See Shitta-Bey Vs Federal Public Service Commission (1981) 1 SC 40 @ 56; Olaniyan Vs University of Lagos (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 9) 599. The employer must however comply with terms of the agreement between the parties. Failure to comply with the terms of the agreement renders the termination wrongful but not null and void. See Obanye Vs Union Bank of Nig, Plc (2018) LPELR – 44702 (SC) @ 24 – 27 F – E. – Per K. M. O. Kekere-Ekun, JSC

TERMINATION – WHETHER EMPLOYEES ARE ENTITLED TO REMEDIES FOR WRONGFUL TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT

In the circumstances of the present appeal, I agree with His Lordship in the lead judgment that the respondents were entitled to the salaries and allowances they would have earned had they received the requisite notice. In the absence of an appeal against the finding of the trial Court concerning their suspension I agree that they are entitled to their salaries and allowances from the date of their indefinite suspension to the date of the wrongful termination of their employment without the requisite notice. – Per K. M. O. Kekere-Ekun, JSC

REMEDY – THE REMEDY FOR WRONGFUL TERMINATION OF AN EMPLOYMENT WITHOUT STATUTORY FLAVOUR

The only remedy for wrongful termination of appointment is damages for breach of the contract of employment as set out in Exhibit ‘1’. Therefore, my Lords, in the circumstance of this case, the employment not being one with statutory flavour, the only remedy in damages the Respondents were entitled to for the wrongful termination was the salaries and allowances they would have earned had their employment been terminated by the giving of prior notice or salary and allowances in lieu of notice. – Per H. M. Ogunwumiju, JSC

APPEAL – THE EFFECT OF A FAILURE TO APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OR FINDING OF A LOWER COURT

It is well settled beyond equivocation that the failure of a party to appeal against a decision or finding of a lower Court means that he can no longer be heard to question that finding, which he is deemed to have accepted as binding, and has in fact, become binding on him. See YUSUF V. KANO STATE (2023) 10 NWLR (PT. 1891) 23; I.N.E.C. V. A.C.D. (2023) 3 NWLR (PT. 1870) 97; OKEREMUTE V. STATE (2021) 16 NWLR (PT. 1803) 587; OFFODILE V. ONEJEME (2021) 7 NWLR (PT. 1775) 389. 

Furthermore, the Appellant having failed to appeal against the decision at the Court below, cannot challenge the same before this Court as this Court is not vested with jurisdiction to entertain an appeal directly from a High Court. See Sections 233(1) and 240 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as altered) as well as the cases of C.G.C. (NIG) LTD V. ISA (2023) LPELR – 60350 (SC); IGWEMMA & ANOR V. OBIDIGWE & ORS (2019) LPELR – 48112 (SC); BELLO V. FRN (2018) LPELR – 44465 (SC); IDAGU V. STATE (2018) LPELR – 44343 (SC); DARLINTON V. FRN (2018) LPELR – 43850 (SC). – Per Adamu Jauro, JSC

TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT – THE RIGHT OF AN EMPLOYER TO TERMINATE EMPLOYMENT IN AN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP IN THE CLASS OF A MASTER-SERVANT RELATIONSHIP

The employment relationship between the Appellant and each of the Respondents is in the class of a master-servant relationship. There is no argument as to the fact that the Respondents’ employments did not enjoy statutory flavour. Hence, the Appellant being the employer, had the right to terminate the employment for no reason at all. This is also in line with the agreement between the parties as captured in Paragraph 19.02 of Exhibit 1. The same Paragraph provides that the employees (like the Respondents) who have put in upwards of five years of service are entitled one month’s notice of termination of employment or salary in lieu of notice. The Appellant terminated each of the Respondents’ employments without giving the requisite notice or salary in lieu. Since the employment in question was in the class of a master-servant relationship, the failure to give notice or salary in lieu as envisaged by the parties’ agreement rendered the termination wrongful rather than null and void and the only remedy that the Respondents are entitled to for the wrongful termination are damages in the form of the salary and entitlements due to them in lieu of notice. See OBANYE V. UNION BANK (2018) LPELR – 44702 (SC); OSISANYA V. AFRIBANK (NIG) PLC (2007) LPELR – 2809 (SC). – Per Adamu Jauro, JSC

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

1. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)
   

   CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGEMENT