CASE TITLE: OKHILUA v. PHCN (2024) LPELR-62331(CA)
JUDGMENT DATE: 11TH JUNE, 2024
PRACTICE AREA: CIVIL PROCEDURE
LEAD JUDGMENT: LATEEF ADEBAYO GANIYU, J.C.A.
SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:
INTRODUCTION:
This appeal borders on Labour Law.
FACTS:
The judgment of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, Akure Judicial Division, delivered on 3rd day of June, 2014.
The Appellant in this appeal was an employee of the Respondent who joined the service of the Respondent as Officer IV (Accounts) in 1997 vide letter of offer of appointment with reference No. NEPA/26/0001/1769/97 and between 1997 and 2005 rose to the rank of Officer Il marketing grade level 08 in the Respondent’s company.
According to the Appellant, upon assumption of duty, he was posted to Akenzua District of the Respondent under the supervision of the Commercial Manager of Akenzua District, one Mr. L.O. Oshodi who requested him to be giving to him, daily gratification in the sum of N3,000.00 from all PHCN disconnection carried out on customers by the Appellant, the request that the Appellant considered to be unwholesome to him. Hence, the resolve by Mr. L.O. Oshodi to frustrate him at their place of work because according to the Appellant, the request is normal thing among the said Mr. L.O. Oshodi and his subordinates who had previously served under him. Therefore, friction ensued between the appellant and the said Mr. L.O. Oshodi, who used his superior position to that of the Appellant to cause a query dated 4th of April, 2005 on the allegation of non-delivery of eight (8 No) MD Bills and fraudulently forging signatures of customers to be served on the Appellant when he reported to duty on 6th April, 2005. Again, on 1/6/2015, another query was issued to the Appellant on allegations of general misconduct, fraudulent practices and illegal connection of electricity supply which prompted the lodging of a petition by one Mrs. Bose Ayu. Furthermore, the Appellant contended that on 4/7/2005 he was issued with an audit query bordering on an allegation of crime which he responded to on 10/8/2005.
Besides, the Appellant averred that he wrote a letter to the Corporate Headquarters, Abuja, on his purported dismissal which was acknowledged by the Respondent, and the Appellant’s letter was referred to the Chief Executive Officer, Benin Electricity Distribution Company for necessary action on the allegation raised in the said petition which was yet to be reinvestigated till date.
The Appellant contended that his dismissal carried out by Benin Zonal Office runs contrary to the rules and regulations guiding his conditions of service with the Respondent and was also denied his fundamental right to fair hearing.
Furthermore, the Appellant avers that on the 11th of July, 2007, through his solicitor, he caused to be issued and served a statutory pre-action notice of one month of intention to commence legal action against the Respondent and that upon receipt of the pre-action notice, the Respondent invited the Appellant for discussion which indeed took place and as a result of the discussion, the Appellant halted any plan to take action thereafter but the Respondent failed to take any step towards ameliorating the situation. Hence, the action taken before the trial Court.
On the other hand, the Respondent on her part as could be gleaned from her statement of defence contended that the Appellant was not entitled to the reliefs sought by him.
The trial Court, in its judgment found against the appellant, hence this appeal. The Respondent filed a preliminary objection challenging the competence of the appeal.
ISSUE(S) FOR DETERMINATION:
The grounds of the preliminary objection were:
1. That the originating process (i.e. the Appellant’s Amended Notice of Appeal) is incompetent, same having been signed for and on behalf of the law firm of JOHN E. OGHENEJOBO & CO. which is not counsel that was called to the Nigerian Bar.
2. The Respondent Power Holding Company of Nigeria (Benin Electricity Distribution Company) is not a juristic person.
On the merits, the appeal was considered on:
“Whether the lower Court was right in holding that the Appellant’s action is statute-barred and same was caught by the Public Officers Protection Act.”.
DECISION/HELD:
The preliminary objection was upheld. The appeal was held to be incompetent. On the merits, the appeal was dismissed.
RATIOS:
- ACTION- LEGAL PERSONALITY: Whether Power Holding Company of Nigeria (Benin Electricity Distribution Company) is a juristic personality that can sue and be sued
- LABOUR LAW- DISMISSAL OF AN EMPLOYEE: Instance(s) where it will be said that due process of law was followed in the dismissal of an employee
- LIMITATION LAW- LIMITATION PERIOD: Whether negotiation by parties can stop time from running
- PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE- PRELIMINARY OBJECTION: Whether a preliminary objection should be considered and determined first before dealing with the merits of an appeal
- PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE- PRELIMINARY OBJECTION: Effect of failure to file a reply to a preliminary objection
- PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE- SIGNING OF COURT PROCESS(ES): Proper person(s) to sign an originating process; instance where the signing of originating process will be deemed valid and competent
- PUBLIC OFFICER- PUBLIC OFFICERS PROTECTION ACT/LAW: Limitation period for bringing an action against a public officer; effect of failure to institute an action against a public officer within the limitation period
To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol
