Before Their Lordships
DALHATU ADAMU Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
THERESA NGOLIKA ORJI-ABADUA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
ITA GEORGE MBABA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
NEW NIGERIA NEWSPAPERS LIMITED-Appellant
AND
2. MR. FELIX ATOYEBI –Respondent
…………………….A…………………….
ITA G. MBABA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the judgment of Kaduna State High Court in Suit No. KDH/KAD/373/1988 delivered by Hon. Justice A. A. Othman on 29/11/2004, wherein the lower Court held that the Summary dismissal of the Respondent was against the rules of Criminal justice, equity and fair hearing, and that the employment was governed by statutory flavour, and that the Appellant could not just dismiss him like one employed under master/servant engagement.
Appellant filed the appeal on 21/12/2004, disclosing five grounds of appeal, as per the Notice of Appeal on pages 83 – 85 of the Records of Appeal. It also filed its brief of argument on 7/2/2007 and the same was deemed duly filed on 17/4/2007, The Respondent did not file any brief but had on 21/04/2007 filed a Notice of preliminary objection pursuant to Order 10 of the Court of Appeal Rules to challenge the competency of the appeal on the ground:
“That Appellants purported Notice of Appeal dated the 15th day of December, 2004, 5 (sic) captioned or “In the High Court of Justice of Kaduna State” and not to the Court of Appeal, Consequently no valid notice of Appeal has been filed is (sic) this Honourable Court,”
Because the Respondent failed to file his brief of argument, Appellant brought a motion 12/12/2011 praying that the Appeal be heard on its brief alone and the same was granted on 29/3/2012.
There is evidence the Respondent was served with the hearing Notice of this appeal on 22/2/2013 for the hearing on 28/2/2013. He was not in court, neither his Counsel and so the process (Notice of preliminary Objection), filed by the Respondent stands abandoned and is hereby struck out,
In its brief of argument, Appellant distilled five (5) issues for determination as follows:
“(1) Whether the trial Court was right when he held that the nature of relationship between the Appellant and the Respondent is not master/servant relationship (Ground 1).
