md←→ previous / next
Before Their Lordships
MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMAD Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
KUDIRAT MOTONMORI OLATOKUNBO KEKERE-EKUN Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
CHIMA CENTUS NWEZE Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
EJEMBI EKO Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
PAUL ADAMU GALINJE Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
KUDIRAT MOTONMORI OLATOKUNBO KEKERE-EKUN Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
CHIMA CENTUS NWEZE Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
EJEMBI EKO Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
PAUL ADAMU GALINJE Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
Between
PETER ONYEACHONAM OBANYE –Appellant
AND
UNION BANK OF NIGERIA PLC –Respondent
…………………….A…………………….
CHIMA CENTUS NWEZE, J.S.C. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): The appellant was an employee of the respondent. The respondent, by a letter of November 28, 2003, although back-dated to October 30, 2003, terminated the said employment. Sequel to the said letter, the respondent credited his account with the required one month’s salary in lieu of Notice on December 3, 2003. However, only five days later, the respondent reversed the payment. Having failed in all his attempts to persuade the respondent to reverse the said termination of his employment, the appellant repaired to the Anambra State High Court, Onitsha Judicial Division.
Thereat, he caused a Writ of Summons to be issued and served on the respondent. He claimed the following reliefs:
(a) A Declaration that the termination of the plaintiffs employment by the defendant is illegal, null and void and of no effect, the defendant having failed to comply with the staff condition of service by paying the plaintiff one month (sic) salary in lieu of service (sic, Notice);
(b) An Order for the defendant to pay the plaintiff all his salaries from December, 2003 and from 2004 to 2008, which is the sum of N17,057,967.00 (Seventeen Million, Fifty-Seven Thousand, Nine Hundred and Sixty-Seven Naira) and such other entitlements due to the plaintiff until judgment is delivered;
(c) An order that the plaintiff is entitled to 6263 unit shares of UBESOT as a staff of the defendant;
(d) N100,000,000 (One Hundred Million Naira) general damages for the plaintiffs unlawful dismissal.
Upon the eventual joinder of issues in the settled pleadings, the matter went to trial. The appellant, (as plaintiff) testified as the sole witness. He tendered nineteen exhibits, Exhibits P1-P19. On her part, the respondent, (as defendant), equally called only one witness who testified and tendered one exhibit, Exhibit D1. The High Court (hereinafter, simply, referred to as “the trial Court”) dismissed the plaintiff’s case, prompting the appellant’s appeal to the Court of Appeal, Enugu Division, (hereinafter simply referred to as “the lower Court”).
The lower Court allowed the appeal in part, holding that “all that the appellant is entitled to is one-month (sic) salary in lieu of Notice and any other entitlements legitimately due to him at the time of termination of his employment and nothing more.” Aggrieved, the appellant further appealed to this Court entreating it to determine the two issues he set out. However, at the hearing, he withdrew the second issue. Thus, the only extant issue for the determination of this appeal is the one framed thus:
Whether the appellant is not entitled to damages, the Court of Appeal having found that the employment of the appellant was wrongly terminated as the one month’s salary in lieu of Notice was not paid, the respondent having breached the terms of the Contract of Employment binding the two parties?
The respondent, on the other hand, framed a sole issue in these words:
Whether the measure of damages for alleged wrongful termination of employment or wrongful dismissal ought not to be the amount equivalent to the period of notice that the affected persons ought to be given as stipulated by the contract?
For the avoidance of any doubt, I shall adopt the appellant’s sole issue after all, it is his appeal. Thus, the issue for the determination of this appeal is that couched thus:
Whether the appellant is not entitled to damages, the Court of Appeal having found that the employment of the appellant was wrongly terminated as the one month’s salary in lieu of Notice was not paid, the respondent having breached the terms of the Contract of Employment binding the two parties?
ARGUMENTS ON THE SOLE ISSUE
APPELLANT’S SUBMISSIONS
At the hearing of this appeal on March 13, 2018, Onyebuchi Ononye, learned counsel for the appellant, adopted the brief filed on October 14, 2015. In the said brief, he contended that the appellant was an employee of the respondent.
He gave an incomplete citation of The Black’s Law Dictionary (Ninth edition) for the definition of “Contract.” He equally referred to Section 9 of the Labour Act, Cap L1 Vol. 8, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 for the definition of “contract of employment.” In his submission, the cardinal point from the definition is that there has to be an agreement between the employer and the employee, the former offering a working opportunity and the latter willing, accepting and agreeing to work for the employer.
(a) A Declaration that the termination of the plaintiffs employment by the defendant is illegal, null and void and of no effect, the defendant having failed to comply with the staff condition of service by paying the plaintiff one month (sic) salary in lieu of service (sic, Notice);
(b) An Order for the defendant to pay the plaintiff all his salaries from December, 2003 and from 2004 to 2008, which is the sum of N17,057,967.00 (Seventeen Million, Fifty-Seven Thousand, Nine Hundred and Sixty-Seven Naira) and such other entitlements due to the plaintiff until judgment is delivered;
(c) An order that the plaintiff is entitled to 6263 unit shares of UBESOT as a staff of the defendant;
(d) N100,000,000 (One Hundred Million Naira) general damages for the plaintiffs unlawful dismissal.
Upon the eventual joinder of issues in the settled pleadings, the matter went to trial. The appellant, (as plaintiff) testified as the sole witness. He tendered nineteen exhibits, Exhibits P1-P19. On her part, the respondent, (as defendant), equally called only one witness who testified and tendered one exhibit, Exhibit D1. The High Court (hereinafter, simply, referred to as “the trial Court”) dismissed the plaintiff’s case, prompting the appellant’s appeal to the Court of Appeal, Enugu Division, (hereinafter simply referred to as “the lower Court”).
The lower Court allowed the appeal in part, holding that “all that the appellant is entitled to is one-month (sic) salary in lieu of Notice and any other entitlements legitimately due to him at the time of termination of his employment and nothing more.” Aggrieved, the appellant further appealed to this Court entreating it to determine the two issues he set out. However, at the hearing, he withdrew the second issue. Thus, the only extant issue for the determination of this appeal is the one framed thus:
Whether the appellant is not entitled to damages, the Court of Appeal having found that the employment of the appellant was wrongly terminated as the one month’s salary in lieu of Notice was not paid, the respondent having breached the terms of the Contract of Employment binding the two parties?
The respondent, on the other hand, framed a sole issue in these words:
Whether the measure of damages for alleged wrongful termination of employment or wrongful dismissal ought not to be the amount equivalent to the period of notice that the affected persons ought to be given as stipulated by the contract?
For the avoidance of any doubt, I shall adopt the appellant’s sole issue after all, it is his appeal. Thus, the issue for the determination of this appeal is that couched thus:
Whether the appellant is not entitled to damages, the Court of Appeal having found that the employment of the appellant was wrongly terminated as the one month’s salary in lieu of Notice was not paid, the respondent having breached the terms of the Contract of Employment binding the two parties?
ARGUMENTS ON THE SOLE ISSUE
APPELLANT’S SUBMISSIONS
At the hearing of this appeal on March 13, 2018, Onyebuchi Ononye, learned counsel for the appellant, adopted the brief filed on October 14, 2015. In the said brief, he contended that the appellant was an employee of the respondent.
He gave an incomplete citation of The Black’s Law Dictionary (Ninth edition) for the definition of “Contract.” He equally referred to Section 9 of the Labour Act, Cap L1 Vol. 8, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 for the definition of “contract of employment.” In his submission, the cardinal point from the definition is that there has to be an agreement between the employer and the employee, the former offering a working opportunity and the latter willing, accepting and agreeing to work for the employer.
…………………….B…………………….
Continue reading OBANYE v. UNION BANK OF NIGERIA PLC
You have read the opening. Unlock the full library once and it stays unlocked - one payment, no subscription, the same library as the app.
- All 725 Laws of the Federation, A to Z
- 916 full judgments and 269 case collections
- 8,046 legal principles and 124 rules of court
- 343 drafts, with the Draft Builder
- The Law Dictionary - 31,442 terms
- Law School notes and 2,082 MCQs
Every Act, case collection and principle beginning with A, B or C is free to read in full, without unlocking - the same boundary as the Android app.