OLUBUNMI OLADIPO ONI V CADBURY NIGERIA PLC

Issue:

At the High Court of Lagos State, Ikeja Judicial Division, the appellant in this appeal (as Claimant) took out a writ of Summons, accompanied by a Statement of Claim, against the respondent herein (as defendant). His claim before the said Court (hereinafter referred to as, the trial Court) was (on the face of it) for wrongful and unlawful termination of his of employment. For their hearing on the ultimate outcome of this case, the pleadings, his grouse against the respondent are set out hereunder: 5. The express terms of his contract of employment as executive director provide for the payment of salary 6.... 7. On 11th December, 2006, when the Claimant had been summoned to London by the principal Company (CSP) and remained there on their instructions, the defendant peremptorily repudiated the Claimant's contract of employment by a letter signed by one "Imo J. Itsueli, Chairman" purportedly on behalf of the defendant. (In passing, I note that the said letter was, subsequently admitted in evidence as exhibit C2). 8. The said letter was invalid and wrongful on its face for the following reasons (a) There was no or no valid meeting of the directors of the defendant at which the decision communicated on 11th December, 2006 was taken. (b)..... (c)No notice of the relevant board meeting was given to the claimant although he was at all times an extant member of the board of directors and legally entitled to such notice. (pages 5-6 of Volume 1 of the record, italics supplied for emphasis. Again, I note in passing that both the trial Court, at pages 1785-1785 of Vol 3 of the record were to hinge the logic of their reasoning on these crucial averments) In what, unarguably, must be seen as the confirmation of the said letter of December 11, 2006 as the cassus belli at the lower Court, the Claimant, first and foremost, beseeched that Court with a supplication for: 1. A Declaration that the purported dismissal of the Claimant by a letter dated 11th December, 2006 signed by Imo J. Itsueli (Chairman of the Board) is wrongful, unlawful and is a repudiatory breach of the Claimant's contract of employment. (page 17 of Vol 1 of the record; italics supplied. Again, I note in passing that the lower Court affirmed the trial Court's finding in favour of this limb of the Claimant's relief.) The defendant swiftly, reacted to the Claimants Summons in its Statement of Defence and Counter Claim of June 6, 2008; processes that were, subsequently, amended. In effect, the defendant joined issues with the Claimant in the Amended Statement of Defence and Amended Counter Claim. [pages 1350 of the record]. These processes prompted the Claimant's Reply and Defence to Counter Claim of September, 28, 2009. Although, in accordance with the prevailing Rules of the trial Court, four witnesses were listed; at the actual hearing, only the Claimant testified in proof of his case. He was designated CW1. On their part, the defendant marshalled one witness, DW1, in rebuttal of the Claimant's evidence in Court. In his spirited effort to establish the case he put forward in his pleadings, the Claimant adopted his three Statements on oath as his evidence in chief. A bundle of eighteen documents were, equally, tendered and admitted if evidence through him as exhibits, (page 1351 of the record). As indicated above, only one witness DWI was marshalled by the defendant. Sequel to the conclusion of the oral evidence, the trial Court suo moto enjoined counsel to address it on the pertinent question of its jurisdiction to entertain the matter, (page 1361 of the record). Although the said Court proceeded with the resolution of the case, its reasoning, (pages 1381- 1382 of Vol 2 of the record) affirmed by the lower Court) pages 1786 -1789 of Vol 3 of the record), engendered a fresh jurisdictional agitation before the Court, Paragraphs 18 -32 of the respondent's brief (pages 4-7, of the respondent's brief filed on May15, 2015). The trial Court, in its judgment of November 12, 2010, found in favour of the Claimant in respect of only the first and second reliefs. It had no difficulty in dismissing the defendant’s Counter Claim. While the defendant, whose Counter Claim was dismissed, appealed to the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division (hereinafter referred to as the lower Court) via its Notice of Appeal of January 25, 2011; the Claimant, whose claim partially succeeded, cross appealed to the lower Court by Notice of Cross Appeal of October 6, 2011 which was deemed properly filed and served on October 13, 2011. On the one hand, the lower Court dismissed the main appeal (that is, the defendant/appellant's appeal to it against the trial Court's dismissal of the Counter Claim on the ground that "there is every cogent reason for me to hold that the instant appeal is unmeritorious;" in consequence, affirming the trial Court's judgment in that regard). On the other hand, it (the lower Court) dismissed the cross Appeal [that is, the Claimant's appeal against the lower Court judgment refusing to favour him with relief three, four and five). It reasoned that "...the Cross Appellant can only claim as liquidated damages the three items mentioned in Clause 20 (exhibit C1) viz (i) 6 months' gross salary; (ii) accrued pension rights; and (iii) accrued but unpaid bonus entitlements, respectively, (pages 1808 - 1809, Vol 111 of the record.) Its further reasons for dismissing the Cross Appeal were that: "The Cross Appellant had not tendered in evidence the so called 'Agreement' referred to in exhibit C3 above or called any witness to rectify regarding the 'ruling rates', as at December 2006. Exhibit C3 is undoubtedly lacking in any probative value. Regarding the claim of interest, I think there is every reason for me to hold that it must also fail for having been raised the first time of appeal. The claim for interest was neither made in the writ of Summons nor in the Statement of Claim of the Cross Appellants. Undoubtedly, the principle is well settled that a claim for interest must not only merely be pleaded, but also proved..." (page 1809, Vol 111 of the record). Being dissatisfied with the respective outcomes of their Appeal and Cross Appeal, the parties repaired to this Court with their grievances against the judgments of the lower Court.