CORAM

---

OLUKAYODE ARIWOOLA

JOHN INYANG OKORO

AMINA ADAMU AUGIE

ABDU ABOKI

EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM

---

PARTIES

---

U.T.C. NIGERIA PLC

APPELLANTS 

---

SAMUEL PETERS

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

APPEAL, ACTION, COURT, EVIDENCE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE,

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Respondent herein, was the Plaintiff at the trial Court. By his amended statement of claim dated 28th November, 1995, the Plaintiff claimed as follows: (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 Appellant’s case is that the Respondent was negligent in his duties, had continuously caused loss to the Appellant and was involved in malpractice. The Appellant also contended that the Respondent had unlawfully detained the official Peugeot 504 GR vehicle assigned to him for his official duties, therefore, it counter-claimed inter alia for the current value of the said vehicle or its return. The trial Court in its considered judgment delivered on 17th November, 2000 gave judgment in favour of the Respondent against the Appellant; granted all the reliefs claimed by the Respondent and dismissed the Appellant’s counter-claim Dissatisfied with the decision of the trial Court, the Appellant herein appealed to the Court below. In its judgment delivered on 19th February, 2009, the appeal succeeded in part. The Court below affirmed the judgment of the trial Court which declared the dismissal of the Respondent by letter dated 30th April, 1984 wrongful. 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 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 filed on 10th March, 2009

 

---

HELD

---

Appeal dismissed

 

---

ISSUES

---

1.Whether or not in a master and servant relationship, declaratory reliefs are grantable for wrongful dismissal. 2.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.

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

MASTER – SERVANT RELATIONSHIP – DEFINITION OF

---

Generally speaking, master-servant relationship is the association between one in authority and a subordinate – especially between an employer and an employee. PER – OLUKAYODE ARIWOOLA, J.S.C.

 

---

EMPLOYER – EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP – DEFINITION OF

---

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. PER – OLUKAYODE ARIWOOLA, J.S.C.

 

---

DECLARATORY CLAIMS – MEANING OF

---

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. PER – OLUKAYODE ARIWOOLA, J.S.C.

 

---

DECLARATORY JUDGMENT– MEANING OF

---

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. PER – OLUKAYODE ARIWOOLA, J.S.C.

 

---

DECLARATIVE RELIEFS – WHEN IS DECLARATIVE RELIEFS GRANTED?

---

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. PER – OLUKAYODE ARIWOOLA, J.S.C.

 

---

SPECIAL DAMAGES – SPECIAL DAMAGES MUST BE SPECIFICALLY PLEADED AND PROVED

---

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). PER – OLUKAYODE ARIWOOLA, J.S.C.

 

---

EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE – AN APPELLATE COURT WOULD NOT INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS ON AN EVIDENCE SATISFACTORILY EVALUATED BY A TRIAL COURT

---

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. PER – OLUKAYODE ARIWOOLA, J.S.C.

 

---

RE-EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE – INSTANCES WHERE AN APPELLATE COURT CAN EMBARK ON THE EXERCISE OF RE-EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE

---

The law is settled that re-evaluation of evidence by an appellate Court is only done where the trial Court has erred in evaluating the facts found by it. This is where the appellate Court can re-evaluate the whole facts and come to an independent decision from the trial Court. The appellate Court is in a good position to embark on the exercise where for instance:

(a) the trial Court’s evaluation of the evidence is clearly perverse;

(b) the trial Court drew wrong inferences from the totality of the evidence adduced; and

(c) the trial Court applied wrong principles of the law to accepted facts in the case. See Onyekwuluje & Anor Vs. Animashaun & Anor. (2019) LPELR – 46528 (SC), Jibrin vs. FRN (2018) LPELR – 43844 (SC); Ali vs State 2015 LPELR- 24711 (SC). However, where the evaluation of evidence by the lower Court is found to be properly done, there would be no need for an appellate Court to embark on the exercise. PER – JOHN INYANG OKORO, J.S.C.

 

 

---

TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT – THE PRINCIPLE OF TERMINATION IN MASTER/SERVANT RELATIONSHIP AND EMPLOYER/EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP

---

It is well settled that a master has the right to terminate his servant’s employment for good or bad reasons or for no reasons at all. Except in employment governed by statute wherein the procedure for employment and discipline of an employee are clearly spelt out, any other employment outside the statute is governed by the terms under which the Parties agreed to be master and servant. In this case, the relationship between the parties is that of master/servant, it is not statutory. PER – AMINA ADAMU AUGIE, J.S.C.

 

---

GENERAL/ SPECIAL DAMAGES – THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN GENERAL AND SPECIAL DAMAGES

---

Now, general damages are such as the law will presume to be the direct, natural, or probable consequence of the act complained of. Special damages, however, are such as the law will not infer from the nature of the act. They do not follow in ordinary course. They are exceptional in their character, therefore, they must be claimed specially and proved strictly – Akinfosile V. Mobil Oil (Nig.) Ltd. (1969) NSCC (Vol. 6) 376. In this case, the two lower Courts found that there was no evidence to prove special damages claimed by the Appellant. PER – AMINA ADAMU AUGIE, J.S.C.

 

---

TERMINATION – TERMINATION AND CLAIM FOR DAMAGES IN AN EMPLOYER/EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP

---

It is now beyond any argument that in a master and servant relationship, which is devoid of statutory flavour, as in the instant case, the termination of the employment of an employee by the employer cannot be wrongful unless it is in breach of the terms and conditions of the contract of employment. It must, however, be always remembered the parties are bound by the terms of their contract voluntarily entered into. Once there is a compliance with the terms of the contract of employment, the termination can never be said to be wrongful. However, where there is a written provision for terminating the contract of employment, and the termination is carried out in a manner which is contrary to the terms of the agreement between the parties, the employer must pay damages for the breach of the agreement between the parties. The employee however is not entitled to general damages as in a claim in tort. He is only entitled to what he would have earned over a period required to lawfully terminate his employment. See Garuba v. K.I.C. Ltd (2005) LPELR 1310 SC. PER – ABDU ABOKI, J.S.C.

 

---

TERMINATION – AN EMPLOYEE CLAIMING TO BE WRONGLY TERMINATED HAS THE ONUS OF PRODUCING THE TERMS OF CONTRACT TO PROVE THAT THOSE TERMS WERE BREACHED BY THE EMPLOYER

---

In Shitta-Bey v. Federal Public Service Commission (1981) LPELR-3056 SC, this Court posited that:

“At common law, in a master/servant relationship devoid of statutory flavour, an employer has the right to summarily dismiss an employee on grounds of misconduct or wilful disobedience. However, where conditions of service exist between the employer and the employee the provisions are binding on them. Any disciplinary measure by way of dismissal or termination must follow the laid down procedure.”

It follows therefore, that an employee (as in the instant case), who complains that he was wrongly terminated has the onus to place before the Court the terms and conditions of the contract of employment and to prove the way and manner those terms were breached by the employer. See also Ziideeh v. Rivers State Civil Service Commission (2007) LPELR-3544 SC. PER – ABDU ABOKI, J.S.C.

 

 

---

CASES CITED

---

Not Available

 

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Not Available

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT

---