Nyong Emmanuel Obot Vs Central Bank Of Nigeria (1993)
LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report
UWAIS, JSC.
The appellant brought an action in the High Court of Cross River State, Calabar against the respondent in which he claimed, as per paragraphs 16 and 17 of his statement of claim, as follows:- “16. The plaintiff therefore claims from the defendants (sic) the sum of N300,000.00 as s pecial and general damages for wrongful dismissal.
PARTICULARS OF SPECIAL DAMAGES 17. Whereof the plaintiff claims from the defendant: (i) A declaration that the dismissal of the plaintiff is wrongful; (ii) N300,000.00 as damages for wrongful dismissal.” The respondent filed a statement of defence. The appellant by motion on notice sought inter alia for leave to file a reply to the statement of defence but the trial court (Kooffrey, CJ.) refused him leave to do so. The facts of the case are not in dispute. They are as follows: At the time material to his suit, the appellant was employed by the respondent as Maintenance Superintendent at its branch in Calabar.
He had been in the respondent’s employment since 1962 when he transferred his service to it from the Nigerian Ports Authority. In September, 1982, the appellant had information that one Mr. Enembe – a Senior Maintenance Supervisor – who worked under the appellant had written a petition against the appellant to the Assistant Controller in charge of the respondent’s branch in Calabar alleging irregular award of contracts by the branch. In October, 1982, the appellant, while on leave, received a letter instructing him to appear before an Investigation Panel that was to come to Calabar from the Head Office of the respondent in Lagos.
The appellant appeared before the panel together with other employees of the respondent at the branch in Calabar. Appellant was asked questions concerning the award of contracts at the branch, which he answered. On 13th January, 1983, the appellant was issued a query from the respondent’s Head Office (exhibit 6) in which he was accused of the following misdeeds and was directed to explain in writing why disciplinary action should not be taken against him.:-
“1. Re: contract far external redecoration of the Senior Staff Quarters awarded to Jansenide Company. You allowed the contracting company to use the Bank’s extension scaffold for the job and caused same to be removed to the site by the Bank’s Bullion lorry. 2. Re: contract for the partitioning of two offices on the second floor of the branch building awarded to Doves Enterprises at a cost of N3,800.30.
(a) You did not call for nor accepted (sic) any written quotation in respect of this contract.
(b) If at all you received quotation, you failed to refer such to the Minor Contracts Tenders Board for its consideration in accordance with laid-down procedure considering the amount involved in the contract. (c) You did not make any drawing nor prepare any estimate for the partitioning before you caused the job to be award to a contractor at the cost of N3,800.30 (d) In spite of the fact that you were instrumental to the award of this contract to a contractor, you caused the Bank’s Maintenance Staff-Messrs Kolokolo, Umoh, Assian and Mbaba to carry out the partitioning job. 3. Re: contract for the dislodgement of septic tank and soak-away awarded to Doves Enterprises at a cost of N1,290.00. You failed to refer the quotations for this job to the Minor Contracts Tenders Board in accordance with established procedure which requires that tenders involving N1,001-N20,000 should be referred to the Board for its consideration. 4. Between March, 1979 and August, 1982, you signed for and collected L.P.O.s and cheques on behalf of the following firms without authority. FIRMS AMOUNT Doves Enterprises N72,736.90 Jansenide Company N37,088.80 Nefresi Enterprises N29,035.72 Heta (Nig.) Limited N 2,685.50″ The appellant answered the query by his letter (exhibit 7) dated the 17th January, 1983 in which he stated that the allegations made against him were “based on malice.” On 22nd February, 1983 a letter (exhibit 8) was issued from the respondent’s Branch in Calabar to the appellant. The letter reads:-
“Mr. N.E. Obot, Maintenance Office, CBN – Calabar.
Dear Sir, DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE You are required to appear before a Disciplinary Committee sitting in the Branch on the 3rd March, 1983 to give evidence in a case of irregular award of contracts involving certain members of staff in the branch. Please make yourself available before the Committee on the said date. Yours faithfully, (Sgd.) Manager, Establishments.” The Central Disciplinary Committee of the respondent went to Calabar and sat on 4th and 5th March, 1983. The Committee wrote a report (exhibit 40) which it gave title to as “Minutes of the Central Disciplinary (sic) Meeting held on 4th and 5th March, 1983 to determine a case of irregular award of contracts involving Messrs. N.E. Obot, O.R. Umoh and B. Assian, all of Calabar Branch.” The report indicates the procedure adopted by the Committee to be as follows:- “The meeting of the 4th March, 1983 opened at about 10.35 a.m. Since every member of the Committee bad earlier got and studied a copy of the case file, the chairman called for suggestions on how best to proceed with the case. The Committee agreed that Mr. Enembe who brought the case to light should be called to testify first. It was also agreed that in the course of its deliberations, the Committee would visit the site of some of the projects executed by the contractors to appraise the work done. The Committee would also, where possible, visit the offices of some of the companies involved in the contract jobs.” The Disciplinary Committee made the following findings and recommendations in its report with regard to the allegations made against the appellant:-
“l. USE OF THE BANK’S EXTENSION SCAFFOLD BY A CONTRACTOR : The Committee found that Mr. Obot himself agreed that the scaffold was taken to the Senior Staff Flats by the Maintenance Staff and he saw it standing there at least two weeks after the completion of the glazing work by the Maintenance Staff and by which time the contractors had started work at the flats. The committee therefore found it difficult to believe that the contractors did not use the scaffold or that Mr. Obot did not connive at its use by the contractors. It is the view of the Committee that Mr. Obot knew about the use of the scaffold by the contractor and he should therefore be held responsible as indicated.
2. CONTRACT FOR THE PARTITIONING OF TWO OFFICES IN THE BRANCH BUILDING AND USE OF BANK STAFF TO EXECUTE THE JOB In respect of the above charge the committee found the following:- (a) That Mr. Obot did not call for written quotation from contractors; (b) He did not pass the quotation through the Minor Contracts Tenders Board; (c) He did not prepare any estimate in respect of the job before he awarded it to a contractor, Doves Enterprises at a cost of N3,800.30; (d) He used the Bank’s Maintenance staff to execute the job;
3. CONTRACT FOR THE DISLODGEMENT OF SEPTIC TANK AND SOAK AWAY AWARDED TO DOVES ENTERPRISES AT A COST OF N1,290.00 Under this the Committee found that Mr. Obot did not refer the contract to the Minor Contracts Tenders Board before he awarded it to Doves Enterprises at a cost of N1,290.00;
4. SIGNING FOR AND COLLECTING LPOs AND CHEQUES ON BEHALF OF COMPANIES WITHOUT AUTHORITY: In respect of the above charge the Committee found that between March, 1979 and August, 1982 Mr. Obot signed for and collected cheques and LPOs without authority for the following companies: FIRMS AMOUNT DOVES ENTERPRISES N72,736.90 JANSENIDE COMPANY N37,088.80 NEFRESI ENTERPRISES N29,035.72 HETA (NIG.) LIMITED N 2,685.50 In addition to the above, the Committee also found the following:-
5. The existence of two of the companies – Doves Enterprises and Jansenide Company could not be established. The Committee however found that at least one company Nefresi Enterprises belongs to Mr. Obot. 6. From the way the estimates were prepared and indeed from quality of work done on the completed projects the committee was convinced that the prices of the contracts were arbitrarily inflated and consequently the bank incurred unnecessary loss of fund. COMMITTEE’S RECOMMENDATIONS: N.E. OBOT: In making its recommendations on Mr. Obot, the Committee noted that the gravity of the offence committed by Mr. Obot merited him summary dismissal. However, taking into consideration, the fact that Mr. Obot had served the bank for about twenty-one (21) years and in keeping with the Staff Manual provision, Chapter 5, Section 2(m) which states that ‘the bank may terminate the appointment of any staff member who engages in business that conflicts with the bank’s interest,’ the Committee recommended that Mr. Obot’s appointment with the Bank should be terminated.” A letter (exhibit 10) was written to the appellant on 27th May, 1983 dismissing him from the respondent’s employment. The letter reads:- Central Bank of Nigeria, Tinubu Square, Lagos. Private Mail Bag 12194, Cables: CENBANK. Telephone 27th May, 1983. Mr. N.E. Obot, Via: Brunch Controller, Central Bank of Nigeria, Calabar. Via: Deputy Director (Branches/Staff), Domestic Operations Department Central Bank of Nigeria, Lagos.
Dear Sir, DISMISSAL FROM BANK’S SERVICE I am directed to draw your attention to the fact that on 5th March, 1983 you appeared before the Bank’s Central Disciplinary Committee on a case of irregular award of contracts for which you were found guilty. Consequently, you have been summarily dismissed from the Bank’s service with immediate effect.
Your entitlement or indebtedness to the Bank is being determined and will be communicated to you in due course. Meanwhile, you are required to hand over all Bank’s property in your possession including the laminated identity and clinic cards to your Branch Controller before you leave. Please note that as a result of your dismissal from the Bank’s service, you will not be allowed into the Bank’s premises without official permission. Yours faithfully, (Sgd.) G.O. Akinlade, AG. Senior Manager, For: Director of Personnel.” The appellant contends in his Statement of Claim and testimony at the High Court that when he appeared before the Disciplinary Committee he was asked questions which he answered. He alleged that 9 employees of the Calabar Branch of the Bank testified before the Disciplinary Committee.
That he was not present when 8 of the witnesses gave evidence and that he was not given the opportunity by the Disciplinary Committee to cross-examine them. He was, however, present when the ninth witness, Mr. E. Kolokolo gave evidence and he was allowed to cross-examine him. The appellant averred in paragraph 12 of the Statement of Claim thus:-
“l2. The employment of the plaintiff with the defendant was regulated by the Central Bank of Nigeria Staff Manual (Condition of Service) and at the trial the plaintiff will contend that the defendant did not comply with the stipulation in the said manual in relation to disciplinary procedure and the dismissal of staff.” This was admitted in paragraph 12 of the Statement of Defence which reads as follows:- “12. The
Other Citation: (1993) LCN/2498(SC)
