MALLAM YUSUF JIMOH VS MALLAM KARIMU AKANDE
May 28, 2025DUMEZ NIGERIA LIMITED V PETER NWAKHOBA & 3 ORS
May 28, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2008-12) Legalpedia (SC) 01916
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Dec 19, 2008
Suit Number: SC. 197/2002
CORAM
MAHMUD MOHAMMED, JSC JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
ALOMA MARIAM MUKHTAR, JSC JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
MAHMUD MOHAMMED, JSC JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
MAHMUD MOHAMMED, JSC JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
MAHMUD MOHAMMED, JSC JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
MAHMUD MOHAMMED, JSC JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
MAHMUD MOHAMMED, JSC JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
FRANCIS FEDODE TABAI (Lead Judgment) JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
MAHMUD MOHAMMED, JSC JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
CRAIG
ALOMA MARIAM MUKHTAR, JSC JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
MAHMUD MOHAMMED, JSC JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
OBASEKI JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT UWAIS JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT OPUTA JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT WALI CRAIG
FRANCIS FEDODE TABAI (Lead Judgment) JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
MAHMUD MOHAMMED, JSC JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
ALOMA MARIAM MUKHTAR, JSC JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
SHELL PETROLEUM DEV. CO. LTD APPELLANTS
CHIEF VICTOR SUNDAY OLAREWAJU
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appellant dismissed the respondent for alleged gross misconduct without establishing the reason for the misconduct.
HELD
The court held that the dismissal was wrongful and dismissed the appeal.
ISSUES
1. Were the learned Justices right in law in affirming the judgment granting reliefs IV and V as claimed in paragraph 42 of the Amended Statement of Claim on the basis that the dismissal was null and void when:
(a) the contractual relationship between defendant and Plaintiff affirmed by their Lordships is one of master and servant under the common law?
(b) Plaintiff is not entitled to the said reliefs.
(c) The binding judicial decision cited and relied on by defendant were not considered or followed.
2. Were the learned justices right in law in holding that the cause or reason for summary dismissal was not established because the domestic committee which investigated and found against Plaintiff was not competent to determine allegation of crime when:
(a) on the pleadings, no allegation of crime was on issue?
(b) neither Plaintiff not Defendant made allegation of crime basis of either the claim or defence?
(c) misconduct was established against the Plaintiff.
3. Were the learned justices right in law in affirming the judgment for wrongful arrest and or detention of the Plaintiff when
(a) there was no evidence in support of such judgment
(b) the purported findings were:
(i) based on mere speculation without evidence not on issue joined on the pleadings?
(ii) evidence on record did not show that defendant did anything other than make report to the Police?
4. Were the learned justices right to dismiss defendant’s interlocutory appeal on admissibility of a pleaded document relevant to the case.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
WHETHER EMPLOYEE NEEDS TO PROVE THAT THE DOMESTIC PANEL THAT INVESTIGATED HIM WERE INDEED PRJUDICIAL TO HIM
Employee who was dismissed or otherwise punished for gross misconduct need not prove that the proceedings of the domestic panel that investigated him were indeed prejudicial to him, it is sufficient that it might. The risk of any prejudice is enough- Tabai J.S.C
AN EMPLOYER WHO GIVES REASON FOR TERMINATING AN EMPLOYMENT MUST ESTABLISH THE REASON
An employer is not bound to give reasons for terminating the appointment of his employee. But where, as in this case, he gives a reason or cause for terminating the appointment, the law imposes on him a duty to establish the reason to the satisfaction of the court- Tabai J.S.C.
STANDARD OF PROOF IS DEPENDENT ON THE GRAVITY OF ALLEGATION
The standard of proof in a civil allegation is not as high as that in a criminal one. It can nevertheless be also very high, depending on the gravity of what is alleged. The standard of proof in any case be it criminal or civil is not a static or absolute one, the more serious the allegation, the higher the standard of proof to eliminate its unlikelihood- Tabai J.S.C
CASES CITED
1. Olatunbosun v. N.I.S.E.R. Council (1988) 1 N.S.C.C. 1025; (1988) 3 NWLR(Part 80) 25
2. Bater v. Bater (1950) 2 All E.R. 458 at 459
3. Hornal v. Neuberger Products Ltd (1956) 3 All E.R. 970
4. Garba v. University of Maiduguri (1986) 1 N.W.L.R. 550 at 618
5. Surunder Singh Kanda v. Govt. of the Federation of Malasia (1962) A.C. 322
STATUTES REFERRED TO
NONE
