Nature of an Employment Clothed with Statutory Flavor

CASE TITLE: OBAJE v. NAMA (2023) LPELR-61645 (SC)

JUDGMENT DATE: 15TH DECEMBER, 2023

PRACTICE AREA: LABOUR LAW

LEAD JUDGMENT: ADAMU JAURO, J.S.C.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION:

This appeal borders on Termination of Employment.

FACTS:

The appeal herein is against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Lagos Judicial Division, delivered on 18th January, 2013, wherein the Court affirmed the judgment of the Federal High Court, Lagos Division which dismissed the Appellant’s suit.

The facts leading to this appeal can be summarized as follows: The Appellant was an employee of the Respondent until May 10, 2005, when he was dismissed. Prior to that, he was initially employed by the Federal Ministry of Aviation on February 21, 1983, and was transferred to the Federal Civil Aviation Authority on September 19, 1991. The Appellant was then further transferred to the Respondent on January 27, 2000. On July 29, 2004, he received a query, Exhibit 5, from the Respondent.

The Appellant responded to the query via a reply dated August 3, 2004, Exhibit 6. The reply was, however, deemed unsatisfactory, and by a letter dated August 17, 2004 (Exhibit 7), he was suspended from work without pay and informed that a prima facie case of gross misconduct had been established against him and the matter was referred to the Respondent’s Disciplinary Committee. After appearing before the Disciplinary Committee, he was found culpable, and he was therefore dismissed via a letter dated May 10, 2005, Exhibit 8.

​Against this background, the Appellant instituted a suit at the Federal High Court, Lagos Division, challenging his dismissal. Pleadings were filed and exchanged between the parties, and the matter subsequently proceeded to trial, where the parties called a witness each, with the Appellant testifying for himself. The Appellant’s case as Plaintiff was that he did not absent himself from work on July 6, 2004, but only traveled to Abuja after the close of work on that day. He contended that he was entitled to three written warnings before disciplinary action could be taken against him, but he was not issued any such written warning. On its part, the Respondent maintained that it followed due process in dismissing the Appellant.

At the conclusion of the trial and after the adoption of final addresses by counsel, the trial Court reserved the matter for judgment. In its judgment, after summarizing the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the Court held that the Appellant was afforded a fair hearing by the Respondent and that there was no likelihood of bias in the hearing. The Court then dismissed the suit.

​Dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial Court, the Appellant appealed to the court of appeal, contending that the trial Court failed to evaluate the evidence led by the parties, that the Court failed to consider the issues placed before it, that the Court veered off course to consider issues not submitted to it and that the judgment of the trial Court was against the weight of evidence.

In its judgment, the Court of Appeal held that the trial Court could have done better with its evaluation of the evidence presented at trial and agreed that the issue of fair hearing that the trial Court focused on was not submitted to it by the parties. The Court however, held that the trial Court pronounced on the main issue, that is, whether the Appellant’s dismissal was in accordance with the Respondent’s Conditions of service; hence, it was held that no miscarriage of justice was occasioned. It was also held that the trial Court was right not to have interfered with the decision of the Respondent’s Disciplinary Committee. The Court further held that since the allegations leveled against the Appellant went beyond absenting himself from work, Section 3.4.5 A(iii) of Exhibit 9, which provides that he must have been absent for a week before disciplinary action can be taken against him, is not applicable.

​The Court of Appeal held that clause 3.4.2 of Exhibit 9 provides for punishment which may generally be imposed on an erring employee of the Respondent. The Court proceeded to hold that it was within the discretion of the Respondent to determine the gravity of the Appellant’s offense, and having decided that the same constituted gross misconduct, it warranted a dismissal. It was therefore held that the dismissal of the Appellant was not in contravention of the conditions of service.

The Appellant has further appealed to the Supreme Court via a Notice of Appeal.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:

The Court determined the appeal on the following issues:

i. “Whether the holding of the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal, that in spite of the brevity of the judgment of the learned trial Judge, the learned trial Judge considered what was relevant for judgment, did not occasion a miscarriage of justice in view of the non-evaluation of evidence adduced before the trial Court?

ii. Whether the holding of the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal that the Respondent followed due process in the dismissal of the Appellant from duty did not occasion a grave miscarriage of justice?

iii. Whether the holding of the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal that the judgment of the trial Court was not against the weight of evidence did not occasion a grave miscarriage of justice?”

DECISION/HELD:

In the final analysis, the appeal was dismissed.

RATIOS:

• APPEAL – INTERFERENCE WITH EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE – Instance(s) when an Appellate Court will/will not interfere with the evaluation of evidence of a Lower Court
• ACTION – CONSISTENCY IN PRESENTATION OF A CASE – Whether a party is permitted to approbate and reprobate at the same time
• EVIDENCE – WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE – What an appellant means when he complains that a judgment is against the weight of evidence
• EVIDENCE – BURDEN OF PROOF/ONUS OF PROOF – On whom lies the burden of proving miscarriage of justice
• LABOUR LAW – EMPLOYMENT WITH STATUTORY FLAVOUR – Nature of an employment clothed with statutory flavour
• COURT – DUTY OF COURT – Duty of a trial Court to consider/pronounce on all issues raised before it
• JUDGMENT AND ORDER – WRITING OF JUDGMENT – Whether there is a standard format of judgment writing; instance when an error in the style of judgment writing will not vitiate same
• JUSTICE – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – Circumstances that constitute/amount to miscarriage of justice
• EVIDENCE – BURDEN OF PROOF/ONUS OF PROOF – Whether he who asserts must prove

To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol