Download PDF
This is a matter transferred from the Federal High Court, Lagos Division, to thIS Court. The claimant had sued the defendant vide a writ of summons and statement of claim on 27th February 2009. The claimant in this suit as per his statement of fact filed in this Court on 9th August 2016 as ordered by this Court on 30th June 2016 is claiming against the defendant for the following reliefs: (I) Declaration that the retirement of the claimant from the service of the defendant by a letter date (sic) 4th day of April, 2003 was wrongful having not allowed the claimant to put in his full years in service of the defendant and that the retirement was not in accordance with any of the provisions of the Conditions of Service of the defendant. (II) (A) declaration that upon the wrongful retirement of the claimant by the defendant from the defendant’s service, the claimant was entitled to reinstatement or alternatively (B) An order directing the defendant to effect full payments to the claimant of all his salaries, emoluments, increment in accordance with promotions due to and of a fully served officer to the retirement age of 60 years all fringe benefits and emoluments of an officer who has served the defendant to full retirement age. The claimant then proceeded to give the particulars of his claims (special damages) as to salary and allowances according to the following periods: From April 2003 to December 2007; From January 2008 to December 2009; From January 2010 to May 2012; and From May 2012 to March 2018. The grand total of the monetary claims of the claimant is One Hundred and Twenty-Seven Million, One Hundred and Thirty-Nine Thousand, Nine Hundred and Sixty-Four Naira (N127,139,964.00) only, which includes tours and subsistence allowance for 15 years, transfer allowance for 2 time in 15 years and general damages. 2. The defendant reacted by filing its defence processes, which include the statement of defence, list of witnesses, statement on oath of the witness, list and copies of documents. 3. At the trial, the claimant testified on his own behalf as CW; while Taiwo Olufemi Erinle, Principal Examination Officer with the defendant, testified for the defendant as DW. At the close of trial, parties starting with the defendant filed and served their respective written addresses. That of the defendant is dated and filed on 15th June 2017, while that of the claimant is undated but was filed on 31st July 2017. The defendant did not file any reply on points of law. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE DEFENDANT 4. The defendant submitted two issues for determination, to wit: (1) Is the claimant entitled to an order of wrongful retirement and reinstatement? (2) Is the claimant entitled to payment of entitlements till retirement at 60? 5. On issue (1), the defendant submitted that the onus of proof is on the claimant to prove his allegations. That on cross-examination, the claimant lied that he only had five queries when he had over 15 queries (on issues ranging from absence from the office to fighting with other staff - Exhibits D1 to D11) including a final warning, Exhibit D12. That in Exhibit D12, the claimant was given a final warning that he would be terminated. The defendant relied on Imonokhe v. Unity Bank Plc [2011] 12 NWLR (Pt. 1262) 624. To the defendant, the queries issued to the claimant warranted the defendant the right to dismiss the claimant; instead the defendant retired him and paid him his final payment which is included in the defendant’s exhibits. That the claimant is even collecting his pension, a fact the claimant confirmed to the Court. The defendant went on that courts cannot order reinstatement as an employee cannot be forced on an employer, referring to Chukwumah v. Shell Petroleum [1993] 4 NWLR (Pt. 289) 512. That the claimant retired in 2003 and he has been collecting his pension since 2003; as such he is caught up by the statute of limitation as it is over 15 years. 6. As for issue (2), the defendant submitted that the claimant is not a good employee of the defendant given the several queries he has had. That the claimant’s averment that he should be employed till he attains the age of 60 and so is entitled to be paid since 2003 till 2017 is totally ridiculous given that he has been paid his gratuity and has been collecting his pension. The defendant then stressed that given the several queries, the claimant is not entitled to any monetary claims. The defendant then urged the Court to use its discretion to dismiss this case or in the alternative award a small amount of damages, relying on Chukwumah v. Shell Petroleum. In arguing against the award of general damages, the defendant relied on Nwobosi v. ACB [1995] 6 NWLR (Pt. 404) 658; and then urged the Court to dismiss this case with cost. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE CLAIMANTS 7. On his part, the claimant submitted three issues for determination, to wit: (a) Was the claimant validly and legally compulsorily retired by the defendant and if yes, is the claimant entitled to an order of wrongful retirement and reinstatement? (b) Is the claimant entitled to payment of entitlements till retirement age of 60? (c) Is the action of the claimant caught up by the statute of limitation? 8. Regarding issue (a), the claimant answered in the negative. To the claimant, he was retired vide a letter dated 4th April 2003 for issues raised against him which are mere allegations and fall under minor offenses, the punishment of which do not warrant compulsory retirement. That at the time he was retired, the conditions of service (Exhibit C2), which derives from section 4(3) of the WAEC Act Cap. W4 LFN thus giving the claimant’s employment a statutory flavour, was not complied with. Citing chapter 11 of Exhibit C2 dealing with discipline, making a distinction between minor and major misconduct, the claimant submitted that the misdemeanors ascertained against him fall under minor offences for which he has been reprimanded either by way of queries or loss of pay. That the defendant went beyond the provisions of the contract of service and invariably the Act when it compulsorily retired him without following the process, relying on Adeniyi v. Yabatech [1993] 7 SCNJ 304. The claimant urged the Court to note that the defendant never brought his file of which he gave the defendant notice to produce. That this is breach of fair hearing (relying on “Dr Taiwo Oioruntoba & ors v. Professor Shuaib O. Abdul-Raheem Oloruntoba-Oju v. Abdul-Raheem [2009] 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 83 SCâ€) as the Court thereby cannot see his answers to the queries issued to him. That when the defendant submitted the case before the disciplinary committee, the claimant was not called to appear or hear his side of the story before the letter for compulsory retirement was issued. This, to the claimant, is a clear breach of the conditions of service. 9. On issue (b), the claimant submitted that the alleged offences he is said to have committed do not fall under major offences, which penalty would have warranted his compulsory retirement. That it is impossible to put something on nothing and expect it to stand, citing UAC v. Malfoy [1961] 3 All ER 1160, Adeniyi v. Governing Council of Yabatech [1993] 7 SCNJ (Pt. II) 304 at 337 - 340 and Mil. Add. Benue State v. Ulegede [2001] 17 NWLR (Pt. 741) 194. That the fact that the claimant is being paid gratuity and monthly pension does not vitiate the fact that the compulsory retirement “was lawfully effected on the claimantâ€. That when a statute directs that certain procedures be followed before a person can be deprived of his right, such procedure must be strictly followed, citing UNTHMB v. Nnoli [1994] 8 NWLR (Pt. 363) 376. Accordingly, that the claimant is entitled to either reinstatement or in the alternative to damages for the period for which he was not allowed to work, having already specifically pleaded special damages. 10. For issue (c), the claimant submitted that he instituted this case within the period allowed by the statute of limitation as the matter was transferred from the Federal High Court to this Court; and that the case started de novo in this Court does not in any way obliterate his claim and his case, which in any event is still pending, citing Sifax Nig. Ltd & ors v. Migfo Nig. Ltd & anor [2015] LPELR-24655(CA). The claimant then submitted that the contention of the defendant that this case is caught by the statute of limitation does not hold water and so should be discountenanced. In conclusion, the claimant urged the Court to grant the reliefs he seeks in this suit. 11. Like I pointed out earlier, the defendant did not file any reply on points of law. COURT’S DECISION 12. In considering the merit of the claimant’s case, I need to clarify a thing or two. The claimant had argued that he issued on the defendant a notice to produce his file; and that failure of the defendant to so produce the file is a breach of his fair hearing right. By this submission, the claimant is drawing an adverse conclusion from the failure of the defendant to produce his file. The law is that the consequence of failure to produce where notice to produce is served on a party is that the party that gave the notice to produce is thereby allowed to submit secondary evidence in regard to what has been asked to be produced. See Onwuzuruike v. Edoziem & ors [2016] LPELR-26056(SC), Buhari v. Obasanjo [2005] 13 NWLR (Pt. 941) 1 and UBA Plc v. Ogochukwu [2014] LPELR-24267(CA). The argument of the claimant here accordingly goes to no issue; and I so hold. 13. In arguing issue (1), the defendant had per paragraph 4.1.5 of its written address ended the submission in that regard with the following statement: “The retirement was in 2003 and he has been collecting his pension since 2003 and he is caught up by the statute of Limitation as its over fifteen yearsâ€. Beyond this statement, nothing else is said by the defendant of the issue of statute of limitation. As this statement is, taken in its literal state, it signifies virtually nothing in terms of the quality of a legal argument. The statement does not disclose the prerequisites needed to ground the application of the statute of limitation. The defendant did not disclose what the cause of action is, and when it arose, to enable the Court determine if the cause of action thereby is caught up by the limitation law. It is the claimant who took time out to actually argue that the limitation law is inapplicable, the case being a transferred case from the Federal High Court and hence a continuing and pending case. I do not know why the defendant raised the issue beyond simply looking for a straw (something) to hang on. I am not convinced that the defendant even knows what the statute of limitation signifies, given the context in which it raised the issue in paragraph 4.1.5 of its written address. I accordingly agree with the claimant that the defendant did not establish the applicability of the statute of limitation; and so its argument in that regard should be discountenanced. I so hold. 14. The claimant had cited Chapter 11 of the Conditions of Service (Exhibit C2) dealing with discipline, and thereby made a distinction between minor and major misconduct. The claimant then submitted that the misdemeanors ascertained against him fall under minor offences for which he has been reprimanded either by way of queries or loss of pay. I looked through the claimant’s pleadings and there in no where in the pleadings where the claimant plead the fact that he had already been reprimanded (by way of queries and loss of pay) for the minor offences he is said to have committed. As it is, this piece of statement is counsel bringing in evidence in a written address. The law, by Gbadamosi v. Tolani [2010] LPELR-3733(CA), is that address by counsel is not a substitute for pleadings nor evidence. And evidence given which is not in line with the facts pleaded goes to no issue and so is of no help to the party that produces it. See The Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Limited v. Kwameh Ambah [1999] LPELR-3202(SC); [1999] 3 NWLR (Pt. 593) 1; [1999] 2 SC 129. I must accordingly discountenance the submission of the claimant’s counsel that that the claimant had already been reprimanded by way of queries and loss of pay for the minor offences he is said to have committed. I so hold. 15. The case of the claimant is that he was wrongly retired by the defendant; as such he should either be reinstated or paid all his salaries, emoluments, entitlements, increment in accordance with promotions due to him, all for the period April 2003 (when he was retired) to 2018 when he would clock the retiring age of 60 years. The evidence before the Court, however, is that under cross-examination, the claimant acknowledged that he absented himself from work (he could not even remember how many times this was) and that he got a final warning. He also acknowledged that he was retired; and that despite Exhibit D12, he wants to be reinstated. The claimant also acknowledged that he received gratuity and is currently receiving his pension. Specifically, Exhibit D22 is a letter by the claimant dated 17th December 2003, wherein the claimant acknowledged that gratuity was paid to him although he noticed a difference of N100,000 in the rent allowance deduction, which he then asked for. Here, the argument of the claimant is that the fact that he is being paid gratuity and monthly pension does not vitiate the fact that the compulsory retirement “was lawfully effected on the claimantâ€. 16. I think that the claimant misinformed himself on the state of the law here. For instance, the claimant was retired vide a letter of 4th April 2003. This means that the particulars of special damages, which he claims from April 2003 to March 2018 are on the assumption that he is either still in service or that he is entitled to reinstatement as to have a right to paid up to March 2018. However, Okeke v. Civil Service Commission, Edo State [2000] 14 NWLR (Pt. 68) 480 laid down that an employer does not guarantee a job to an employee until the employee’s retirement age; and that the time stipulated for retirement only set out the maximum duration possible for the employment under the existing contract. Consequently, that the court will not grant a claim for payment of salary up to the retirement age of the employee in claim of wrongful dismissal. This means that the claimant cannot ask for his salary for the period April 2003 to 2018 as he is presently doing. 17. Secondly, contrary to the thinking and argument of the claimant, the law is now well established that once an employee accepts payment after his employment is terminated, it is late in the day for him to complain that his employment was not properly determined; see Ekeagwu v. Nigerian Army [2006] 11 NWLR (Pt. 991) 382 and Osaye v. The Honda Place Limited [2015] 53 NLLR 51. Additionally, Julius Berger (Nig.) Plc v. Nwagwu [2006] 12 NWLR (Pt. 995) 518 CA held that where an employee receives his terminal benefits after his employment is brought to an end, he cannot be heard to complain later that his contract of employment was not properly determined because the acceptance of payment by the employee renders the determination mutual. See also Morohunfola v. Kwara College of Technology [1990] 4 NWLR (Pt. 145) 506 SC, Adeniyi v. Governing Council of Yaba College of Technology [1993] 6 NWLR (Pt. 300) 426; [1993] 7 SCNJ (Pt. II) 307, John Holt Ventures Ltd v. Oputa [1996] 9 NWLR (Pt. 470) 101 CA, Iloabachie v. Phillips [2002] 14 NWLR (Pt. 787) 264 CA, Etim Okon Ante v. University of Calabar [2001] 3 NWLR (Pt. 700) 231 and Umoh v. ITGC [2004] 4 NWLR (Pt. 703) 281 CA, which held that where an employee accepts salary in lieu of notice of termination of his employment, he may not be heard to complain later that his contract was not validly and properly determined. See also Footwear, Leather and Rubber Products Senior Staff Association v. Management of Michelin Tyre Services Company Limited unreported Suit No. NICN/ABJ/204/2014, the judgment of which was delivered on 4th July 2016. The claimant did not contest that he accepted the gratuity paid to him in 2003 and that since then he has been on pension. In fact Exhibit D22 is a handwritten letter by the claimant himself wherein he acknowledged the payment of gratuity, although he complained of being underpaid in respect of rent allowance. The claimant did not file this suit at the Federal High Court until 27th February 2009. This means that between 2003 and 2009, the claimant collected gratuity and pension before turning around to file this suit claiming for salaries and emoluments up to 2018. The actions of the claimant show an acceptance of his compulsory retirement. To turn around and make the claims he is making in this suit is to play smart and to go for a windfall, which no Court should allow. See NITEL Plc v. Ayu [2008] All FWLR (Pt. 411) 904 at 907 - 908 and 922. 18. Exhibit C6 is the letter of the defendant retiring the claimant. It is dated 4th April 2003. It simply states as follows: I regret to inform you that Council at its 51st Annual Meeting ratified your retirement from its service. The retirement is with immediate effect. You will be paid three months’ salary in lieu of notice in addition to all your entitlements, less any debt you may owe Council. The Head of Office, Lagos is by a copy of this memo being directed to arrange for the payment of your benefits in accordance with the provisions of the Nigerian Pension Law. You should surrender all Council properties in your possession including your identity card to the Head of National Office, Lagos or his designated representative. The Council wishes you the best of luck in your future endeavours. 19. Now, no where in Exhibit C6 is it written that the claimant was retired for any wrongdoing. And to the extent that the claimant will be paid three months’ salary in lieu of notice, Exhibit C6 came within the purview of clause 13.02(a) under Chapter 13 of Exhibit C2 (the Conditions of Service), which provides thus: “The Council may terminate the appointment of a confirmed officer by giving his three months’ notice or three months’ salary in lieu of noticeâ€. Exhibit C6 complied with clause 13.02(a) of Exhibit C2, and the claimant accepted this and lived with it for close to 6 years (after collecting gratuity and still collecting pension) before he decided to contest it in Court. The claimant cannot eat his cake and have it. I do not accordingly see how the retirement of the claimant can be branded wrongful as he argues. I hold that the retirement of the claimant was lawful, it having complied with clause 13.02(a) of Exhibit C2, the Conditions of Service. The truth of the matter, however, is that it is not even material in the circumstances of this case whether or not the claimant’s retirement was wrongful. The fact is that the claimant accepted his retirement; as such it is not open to him to come to Court as he has presently done asking for his reinstatement or payment of his salaries and emoluments up to 2018 when he would have clocked 60 years. I accordingly see no merit whatsoever in the case of the claimant. The claimant’s case fails and is hereby dismissed. 20. Judgment is entered accordingly. I make no order as to cost. …………………………………… Hon. Justice B. B. Kanyip, PhD