Okomu Vs. Iserhienrhien (2001)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

UWAIFO, J.S.C. 

The plaintiff (now respondent) was in the employ of the defendant (now appellant) as Chief Accountant. The defendant is a limited liability company owned by the Federal Government. It terminated the appointment of the plaintiff by letter that his services were no longer required. In this case the plaintiff has contested the termination on the basis that by definition he is a public servant and that the procedure for removing a public servant of his rank should have been complied with but was not. His contention is that the applicable procedure is as provided under the Federal Government Civil Service Rules. He therefore in his writ of summons as well as his statement of claim sought the following reliefs:

“1. A declaration that the purported letter of termination of the plaintiff was issued mala fide and without just cause and in utter disregard to (sic) the terms and conditions of service of the defendant company.

2. A declaration that termination of the plaintiff is unlawful, unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect whatsoever.
3. N50,000.00 (fifty thousand naira) being damages for wrongful dismissal.” (sic)

The defendant terminated the plaintiff’s appointment on ground, put simply, of poor performance. His letter of termination (Exh. E) showed that he had the sum of N38,138.70 to refund to the company. Correspondence passed between the plaintiff’s solicitors and the defendant in which they demanded for the terminal entitlement of the plaintiff which was N4,781.11. The defendant appeared to have responded in a letter dated 14 April, 1986 which, although not tendered in evidence, was reflected in the solicitors’ letter dated 24 April (Exh.L) as follows:

“We do hereby acknowledge your letter dated 14th April, 1986 and to inform you that our client has no intention to demand any other money from your organisation if and only if his legitimate earning is paid to him without any further delay.”

Upon the receipt of this letter, the defendant wrote to the solicitors on 25 April, 1986 (Exh. M) as follows:

“In reference to your letter of 24th April, 1986 we enclose our cheque No. 259449 for N4,511.71 comprising:-

Amount as previously agreed 4,781.11

Less expenses still to be accounted for

(our letter 10.4.86) 269.40

N4.511.71

This payment is in full and final settlement of all claims your client may have on this company with the proviso that if a satisfactory statement is given for the above amount of N269.40 this will be reimbursed.”

It was after receiving the said amount of N4,511.71 that the plaintiff commenced this action. On 27 March, 1987, the learned trial Judge (Akenzua, J.) gave judgment for the plaintiff in respect of the first two reliefs but held that the third relief was not proved. Before reaching his decision on the first two reliefs the learned trial Judge observed and held inter alia:

“From the evidence therefore and by reason of section 277 subsection 1(f) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1979, the plaintiff falls within the category of a public servant not a civil servant because he is a member of the staff of a company in which the Federal Government has controlling shares … That the plaintiff is therefore a public servant and not a civil servant, then the provisions of rule 04102 applies to him as learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted.”