An employee rightly dismissed for misconduct is not entitled to relief

ALHAJI RASAKI ABIOLA EKUNOLA v. CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA & ANOR

NIGER DELTA DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION v. CHRISBROWN INTERNATIONAL LIMITED; HADO NIGERIA LIMITED

COURT OF APPEAL (PORT HARCOURT DIVISION)

(TSAMIYA; EKO; FASANMI, JJ.CA)

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

(MUHAMMAD; CHUKWUMA-ENEH; GALADIMA; NGWUTA; ALAGOA, JJ.SC)

The Appellant was employed by the 1st Respondent until February 2000 when his employment was terminated for gross misconduct by a disciplinary committee headed by the 2nd Respondent who is a director of the 1st Respondent.

The 1st Respondent issued a query to the Appellant alleging fraud arising from his failing to render proper accounts of the distribution of diesel to the 1st Respondent’s other locations. The Appellant answered the query and was subsequently caused to appear before the 1st Respondent’s Central Disciplinary Committee.

The Appellant was consequently dismissed and filed an action to challenge his dismissal at the Federal High Court, Lagos claiming several reliefs against the Respondents.

The trial court dismissed the Appellant’s claims in their entirety.

The Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal which dismissed his appeal. Dissatisfied with the decision of the Court of Appeal, the Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court

The Appellant’s appeal to the Supreme Court was based on several grounds and several issues were raised for determination. The Respondents however filed a preliminary objection that resulted in all issues but one being discountenanced. The only issue remaining was:

“Whether the learned justices of the court below were right on the facts of the case when they held that ‘the complaint of lack of fair hearing by the trial Judge has not been made out and/or that the learned trial judge did not breach the principle of fair hearing in not calling upon counsel to address him on the two issues formulated suo motu’.”

The Supreme Court however went ahead to consider the facts of the case before affirming the decision of the Court of Appeal.

It was the Appellant’s position that the 2nd Respondent, who was a co-employee, was not the alter ego of the 1st Respondent and had no authority to query or constitute the disciplinary committee which subsequently dismissed him. He stated further that he ought to have been arraigned before a standing committee which would qualify as a tribunal. Therefore, he submitted that his dismissal was wrongful and that the lower court should have taken cognizance of this argument and find in his favour.

On the matter of the issues raised suo motu by the trial court, the Supreme Court held that the court properly exercised its discretion in that regard.

The Supreme Court noted that the real issue as between the Appellant and the 1st Respondent is that their relationship was at all material times a relationship of master/servant created by a contract of employment. The Court further noted that the necessary implication arising from the parties’ contractual relationship is one founded on Common Law and like all general contracts is determinable by either side in accordance with the terms of their contract.

On the allegation of lack of fair hearing, the Supreme Court found that the Appellant had been given an opportunity to exculpate himself from the allegations of fraud and was not denied fair hearing.

Further, in dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court, held as follows:

“One basic principle of master and servant relationship is that an employer can summarily dismiss/terminate the employment of his servant for gross misconduct. In the instant matter the 1st respondent reserves that power vis-a-vis the appellant as provided as per clause 6(4) and (5) of exhibit ‘D’.

…However, I must vouch here that this misconception of the 2nd respondent’s acting in place of the 1st respondent, a corporate entity, has pervaded the appellant’s case in this appeal; thus he has so engrossed himself in pursuing this line of argument that he has glossed over the pertinent law that the 1st respondent has to perform through its accredited officers as the 2nd respondent as one of the Directors in its services

…Having in this judgment discountenanced the denial of fair hearing in all its concomitants as raised by the appellant herein thus this matter falls to be considered on whether as per the exhibits and evidence on the record as accepted by the lower courts the appellant has been properly dismissed from his employment upon his gross misconduct – my answer is in the affirmative. Where his dismissal is founded on the allegation of gross misconduct the appellant is not entitled to any notice or salary in lieu of notice as clearly provided in exhibits ‘A’ and ‘D’. And it would be wrong in law to make any awards to him in these regards.

… The appellant has challenged the dismissal as being wrongful; this cannot be so on the peculiar facts of this case; it is clearly found that the appellant has grossly misconducted himself and has gotten what his gross misconduct deserves that is a summary dismissal. His dismissal even though without notice or any payment of salary in lieu of notice is not wrongful and cannot therefore in the circumstances constitute a breach of the conditions of his contract of employment.”

Counsel:

Johnson O. Esezoobo for the Appellant

Prince Aderemi Adekile for the Respondents

This summary is fully reported at (2013) 9 CLRN

info@clrnltd.com