AGADAS v. FMOH & ANOR
(2022)LCN/16077(CA)
In The Court Of Appeal
(BENIN JUDICIAL DIVISION)
On Thursday, January 27, 2022
CA/B/5/2011
Before Our Lordships:
Oyebisi Folayemi Omoleye Justice of the Court of Appeal
Biobele Abraham Georgewill Justice of the Court of Appeal
Frederick Oziakpono Oho Justice of the Court of Appeal
Between
DR. O. M. AGADAS APPELANT(S)
And
1. THE FEDERAL MINISTRY OF HEALTH 2. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION RESPONDENT(S)
RATIO
THE POSITION OF LAW WHERE AN EMPLOYEE COMPLAINS THAT HIS EMPLOYMENT HAS BEEN WRONGFULLY TERMINATED
The law is fairly settled that an employee who complains that his employment has been wrongfully terminated has the duty to prove by credible evidence placed before the Court the terms of his employment that had been breached by his employer. See Patrick V. River State Civil Service Commission (2007) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1022) 554 at p. 570, where it was held inter alia thus:
“It has been fairly established that where an employee complained that his employment has been wrongly terminated, he has the onus to place before the Court the terms that were breached by the employer. The law is that it is not the employer as a defendant in an action by the employee to prove any of those facts.”
See also Katto V. CBN (1999) 6 NWLR (Pt. 607) 390 at p. 408; Amodu V. Amode (1990) 5 NWLR (Pt. 150) 356 at p. 370; Lateef Adam V. Lagos State Property Development Corporation (2000) 5 NWLR (Pt. 656) 291 at p. 316.
To bring home the crucial position of the terms and conditions of employment in all cases in which wrongful termination from employment or retirement from service is alleged, in Okomu Oil Palm Co. Ltd V. Iserhierhien (2001) 6 NWLR (Pt. 710) 660 at p. 673, the Supreme Court had per Uwaigo JSC, stated inter alia thus:
“The question must be, in what manner or by what method would the Respondent in an action like this be expected to demonstrate that his employment was wrongfully terminated? It has been firmly established that when an employee complains that his employment has been wrongfully terminated, he has the onus (a) to place before the Court the terms of the contract of employment and (b) to prove in what manner the said terms were breached by the employer. It is not the duty of the employer as a Defendant in an action brought by the employee to prove any of these facts.”
See also Amodu V. Amode (1990) 5 NWLR (Pt. 150) 356 at p. 370, where the Supreme Court had per Agbaje JSC, stated inter alia thus:
“It appears clear to me that since it is the Plaintiff’s case that his dismissal by the defendant is not in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract of service between them, it is for the Plaintiff to plead and prove the conditions of service regulating the contract of service in question”.
It follows therefore, in employment cases, where it is alleged that there has occurred an unlawful termination of services or employment by an employer, “the term of the contract of service is the bedrock of the case.” Per Wali JSC, in Amodu V. Amode (1990) 5 NWLR (Pt. 150) 356 at p. 373.
Thus, unless and until the Appellant had crossed this rubicon by leading admissible evidence of the terms and conditions of his employment with his employers, who are not even parties to the Suit before the trial Court, of which none of the Exhibits A – G is one, to make out his claim at least on a prima facie basis, there was indeed no scintilla of onus on the Respondents to prove anything in their defence. See Jolayemi V. Alaoye (2004) 12 NWLR (Pt. 887) 322, where, Uwaifo JSC, had so succinctly put this position of law in its proper perspective thus:
“I realise that a Defendant need not prove anything if the Plaintiff has not succeeded in establishing his case at least prima facie, in order that the necessity of the Defendant to confront the case so made out may arise.” PER OMOLEYE, J.C.A.
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURTS CAN MAKE PRONOUNCEMENT ON ACADEMIC/HYPOTHETICAL ISSUES
The Courts are loath to and do not saddle themselves with the consideration of matters which though pending before them had become merely academic and therefore, of no utilitarian value to either of the parties. To embark on such an exercise, the jurisdiction of the Courts over matters which are no longer live and are best suited for the Faculties of Law in the several Universities scattered all over the Country, would clearly amount to nothing but sheer waste of the very precious and, if I may say scarce, judicial time. Thus, for a Court to continue to exercise its jurisdiction over matters pending before it, the matters must have in them issues which remain alive for determination and of utilitarian value to one or more of the parties. In Charles Oke & Anor.V. Dr. Rahman Mimiko & Ors. (2013) All FWLR (Pt. 693) 1853, the full Court of the Supreme Court per Muhammad JSC, had this to say on this issue:
“It is a principle of law long settled that the general attitude of the Courts of law is that they are loathe in making pronouncements on academic/hypothetical issues as it does not serve any useful purpose.”
See also the cases of: Uba Plc V. Dana Drugs Ltd (2018) LPELR -44103 (CA), per Georgewill, JCA; Action Congress v INEC (2007) LPELR – 8988 (CA); Mbachu V. Anambra – Imo River Basin Development Authority, Owerri (2006) All FWLR (Pt. 342) 1482 at p 1497. PER OMOLEYE, J.C.A.
OYEBISI FOLAYEMI OMOLEYE, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): On 30/1/2009, the trial Court Coram: M. B. Idris delivered its judgment dismissing the claims of the Appellant as Claimant in Suit No. FHC/B/CS/2001/2007: Dr. O. M. Agadas V. The Federal Ministry of Health & Anor. for lacking in merit.
The Appellant was dissatisfied with the said judgment and had appealed against it to this Court on four grounds vide his Notice of Appeal filed on 8/4/2009 on four grounds of appeal. The Record of Appeal was compiled and transmitted to this Court on 18/1/2011. The Appellant filed his brief on 6/6/2017 and upon service of the same on the Respondents, only the 1st Respondent filed its brief on 30/4/2017. At the hearing of the appeal on 2/11/2021, the parties and their counsel were absent despite the service of hearing notices on them through their respective counsel.
By an Originating Summons filed on 18/1/2007 before the trial Court, the Appellant as Claimant had submitted the following questions for determination, namely:
1. Whether by virtue of the findings and recommendations of the Expert Committee set up to look into the case of maternal death at the Federal Medical Centre, Asaba between the 26/5/2006 and 24/6/2006, the 1st Defendant had power to compulsorily retire or invariably dismiss the Plaintiff/Applicant from his employment at the Federal Medical Centre, Asaba, as contained in the 1st Defendant’s letter dated 18/10/2006 to the Chairman, Board of Management of the Centre?
2. Whether the 1st Defendant who is not a medical personnel or expert can procedurally and or legally ignore the findings and recommendations of an expert Panel it set up in that regard and without more, unilaterally determine the employment of the Plaintiff?
3. Whether the 1st Defendant has a discretionary power to exercise in the determination of the employment of the Plaintiff/Applicant in view of the fact that the Plaintiff/Applicant’s employment has a statutory flavor?
BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS
The Appellant was the Claimant before the Court below. He was initially offered a temporary appointment as an Obstetrics/Gynecologist at the Federal Medical Centre, Asaba, Delta State on 4/1/2000 and his appointment was subsequently confirmed. By 2006 he had risen to the position of Head of Clinical Services and Training as well as Chairman Medical Advisory Committee of the Federal Medical Centre, Asaba, Delta State. Sometime in mid 2006, several maternal deaths were recorded at the Medical Centre and one of them particularly attracted media attention because the deceased Patient was at that time related to a highly placed official in the Government of Delta State. As a result, the Medical Director of the Medical Centre took special interest and thereby forwarded a report of the incident to the Federal Minister of Health, the supervising Minister of the Medical Centre.
Consequently, the 1st Respondent set up a Five Man Committee to look into the circumstances that led to the maternal deaths and make appropriate recommendations. The Committee went to work. It interviewed several medical personnel of the Federal Medical Centre, including the Appellant. According to the Committee, the maternal death that attracted media attention was that of a 44 years old hypertensive and diabetic patient who died while undergoing a cesarean section to deliver a set of triplets under one Dr. Osayande, a Consultant at the Federal Medical Centre.
However, of all the three cases investigated by the Committee none involved the direct personal involvement of the Appellant as the operating medical personnel. At the completion of its assignment, the Committee submitted its report and recommendations to the 1st Respondent and as a follow up, the 1st Respondent consequently issued a letter dated the 4/10/2006 directing that the Appellant should be retired from the Public Service immediately. In response, the Appellant commenced the action the subject of this appeal by means of an Originating Summons to challenge his wrongful retirement.
The parties filed and exchanged affidavit and counter affidavit evidence and documentary Exhibits. The Appellant filed along with the Originating Summon an affidavit of twenty one paragraphs deposed to by one Christy Osaji, annexed to which were seven documents marked as Exhibits A – G respectively. In response, the 1st Respondent filed on 12/6/2007, a counter affidavit of six paragraphs deposed by one Augustine Ototobor of the Legal Unit of the Federal Ministry of Health. At the hearing before the trial Court, the parties relied on their affidavit and counter affidavit evidence and adopted their respective written addresses and the matter was adjourned for judgment. On 30/1/2009, the trial Court delivered its judgment, in which it dismissed the claims of the Appellant for lacking in merit, hence this appeal.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
The Appellant identified the following two issues for determination in his brief, namely:
(1) Whether the description of the Appellant as ‘Officer’ of the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation by the Office of the Head of the Federation in a letter dated 23/11/2006 or the reference to the purported retirement of the Appellant from the ‘Public Service’ of the Federation by the 1st Respondent/Minister of Health in the letter of 18/10/2006 are not admissions of the nature of the Appellant’s employment being that guided by the Public Service Rules?
(2) Whether the Federal Medical Centre, Asaba, which is a pilot stage teaching Hospital of the Federal Government, is not a Federal Government body or institution as contemplated in Section 15 of Part 11 of the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999?
The 1st Respondent identified the following two issues for determination in its brief, namely:
1. Whether the Appellant was entitled to relief for his wrongful termination of employment when he has failed to prove the same?
2. Whether the Federal Medical Centre, Asaba is a creation of Statute by virtue of admission of his Claim?
I have taken time to consider the averments in the pleadings of the parties and the evidence, both oral and documentary led by them as can be gleaned from the Record of Appeal. I have also considered the submissions of learned counsel to the parties in the light of the findings of facts and decisions reached in the judgment appealed against and I am of the view that the apt issues arising for determination are the two issues as formulated in the 1st Respondent’s brief. I will therefore adopt the said two issues but with slight modification. In considering these issues, the two issues as formulated by the Appellant shall also be duly considered.
ISSUE ONE
Whether the Appellant was entitled to relief for the alleged wrongful termination of his employment when he has failed to prove the same?
APPELLANT’S COUNSEL’S SUBMISSIONS
On his issue one, the learned counsel for the Appellant had submitted that by Exhibit F, a letter dated 18/10/2006, the 1st Respondent directed the Chairman of the Board of the Medical Centre, Asaba to retire the Appellant from the Public Service of the Federation and contended that the content of the letter amounts to an admission that the Appellant was employed in the Public Service of the Federation from where his purported retirement was being recommended and urged the Court to hold that in law in an action begun by means of an originating summons, the affidavit and documentary evidence are the materials to be considered by the Court and admissions made therein do not require further proof contrary to the perverse findings of the trial Court. Learned Counsel urged this Court to allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the trial Court and enter judgment for the Appellant on his claims against the Respondents. Counsel referred to Section 318(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and relied on the cases of: Ojukwu V. Onwudiwe (1984) 2 SC 15 at p. 18; Dalhatu V. A.G. Katsina State (2008) 9 WRN 107; Fabs Limited V. Ibiyeye (2008) 34 WRN 141.
It was also submitted that from the affidavit evidence before the trial Court it was clear and needed no further proof that the Appellant is an employee of the 1st Respondent, an agency of the Federal Government also covered under Part V of Section 4(v) of the Public Service Guidelines and contended that by the admission, the Appellant was relieved of the conditions and terms of service guiding him as a Public Servant. He urged this Court to hold that the trial Court was wrong when it held that the Appellant did not furnish the terms of his employment. He further urged this Court to allow the appeal, set aside the perverse judgment of the trial Court and enter judgment in favor of the Appellant on his claims against the Respondents
1ST RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL’S SUBMISSIONS
On issue one, learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent had submitted that the Appellant who claimed to have been employed and subsequently terminated by the Federal Medical Centre failed to make his alleged employer a party to his claims for wrongful retirement. He contended that in law the onus is on the Appellant to prove the term of his contract of service, including the conditions for his termination and or retirement from the service of the Federal Medical Centre. He therefore urged this Court to hold that on the evidence before the trial Court, the Appellant failed woefully to prove the terms and conditions of his employment and the trial Court was thus correct when it dismissed the Appellant’s claims for lacking in merit. This Court is therefore urged to dismiss the appeal and affirm the judgment of the trial Court. Learned Counsel relied on the cases of: Patrick V. River State Civil Service Commission (2007) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1022) 554 at p. 570; Katto V. CBN (1999) 6 NWLR (Pt. 607) 390 at p. 408.
It was also submitted that the Appellant was under a duty to prove the terms of his employment by placing the same before the Court to enable it determine whether his retirement was wrongful or not and contended that without these material facts the Appellant is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought against the Respondents as rightly found by the trial Court and therefore urged this Court to so hold and to also dismiss the appeal for lacking in merit. This Court was urged to affirm the correct judgment of the trial Court. Learned Counsel relied on the cases of: Amodu V. Amode (1990) 5 NWLR (Pt. 150) 356 at p. 370; Lateef Adam Vs Lagos State Property Development Corporation (2000) 5 NWLR (Pt. 656) 291@ p. 316.
RESOLUTION OF ISSUE ONE
Now, by the affidavit in support of the Originating Summons it was stated inter alia that the Appellant was initially offered a temporary appointment as an Obstetrician/Gynecologist at the Federal Medical Centre, Asaba on 4/1/2000 as in Exhibit A and on 21/6/2002, his appointment was confirmed as in Exhibit B. In the course of his diligent services, he was appointed as the Head of the Clinical Services and Training and Chairman Medical Advisory Committee, which said appointment was further approved in November 2005 as in Exhibit C.
However, between 26/5/2006 and 24/6/2006, the Appellant’s employer recorded four cases of maternal deaths and as a result of which occurrence, the Medical Director of the Centre made a report of the same to the Federal Ministry of Health with regard to the death of a 44 years old hypertensive and diabetic patient who died while undergoing a cesarean section performed by a consultant of the hospital, during which operation she was delivered of a set of triplets. This particular case attracted the attention of the Delta State Government and the media due to her relationship with a highly placed official of the State Government. Consequently, the 1st Respondent set up a Five Man Committee with one Professor E. E. J. Asuquo as Chairman and one Dr. Diran Kolajo as Secretary, to look into the death of the said woman and another three previous maternal deaths and make appropriate recommendations.
The said Committee during its assignment invited the Appellant for an interview as in Exhibit D, which is a copy of the proceedings with the Appellant at the session.
However, upon the completion of its assignment, the Committee headed by a seasoned Medical Expert came out with a report which contained its findings and recommendations as in Exhibit E. Thereafter the report was submitted to the 1st Defendant, who subsequently wrote to the Chairman of the Management Board of the Centre as in Exhibit F directing the immediate retirement of the Appellant from the Public Service, the services of his employers. However, the Board Chairman did not formally notify the Appellant in writing of the decision of the 1st Respondent to compulsorily retire him, even when the investigations by the Committee did not involve any professional negligence on his part in the performance of his duties at the Centre, which was confirmed by the Committee. He protested against his compulsory retirement after only six years in service and on 30/12/2006, his Solicitors also wrote to the 1st Respondent as in G.
On the part of the Respondent, by their counter affidavit, it was stated inter alia that the Appellant’s appointment had no statutory flavor and the Federal Medical Centre came into existence by Executive pronouncement that place them directly under the authority of the 1st Respondent to ensure their smooth running. It is within the authority and power of the 1st Respondent to determine the employment of the Appellant and others and that it need not be a medical personnel or expert before it can deal with the report of the Five Man Committee that was set up by it and which recommendations indicted the Appellant and four other management staff. He being the Head of Clinical Services and a Consultant takes full responsibility for whatever happens in the Clinic. That he had always delegated very serious cases to junior officers without any proper supervision and or monitoring by him and for which he was lawfully disengaged.
It was on the strength of the above facts, both affidavit and documentary as led by the parties that the trial Court had in its judgment delivered on 30/01/2009 dismissed the claims of the Appellant, holding and stating inter alia thus:
“It is therefore clear from the above paragraph of Exhibit A that the Plaintiff acceptance of the appointment was subject to the terms and conditions laid down for the Federal Medical Centre, Asaba. The question that follows naturally and logically is, what are the terms and conditions of the Plaintiff’s employment with the Federal Medical Centre, Asaba? I have carefully perused the whole of the Plaintiffs Supporting Affidavit, and nowhere in the said affidavit has the plaintiff stated what the terms and conditions of his employment were. The Plaintiff has also not attached as an exhibit before the Court the said terms and conditions of the Federal Medical Centre, Asaba. In the absence of these terms and conditions how can the Court determine whether by virtue of the findings and recommendations of the Expert Committee set up to look into the case of maternal death at the Federal Medical Centre, Asaba, the 1st defendant had the power to compulsorily retire or dismiss the plaintiff from his employment? It seems to me a fair conclusion to say that it is when it has been satisfactorily established that the terms of contract of employment that an employee was appointed under had been breached, and in what manner the said terms were breached by the employer that the question of his removal in compliance with the applicable terms, rules or laws can arise. The Plaintiff in this case has failed to place before this Court the terms of his contract of employment with the Federal Medical Centre, Asaba and to prove in what manner the said terms were breached. This Court cannot, and will not speculate… In the instant case, there is no evidence that the Plaintiff was employed by authority of the Federal Civil Service Commission or by the written direction of the Commission or by formal agreement between the plaintiff and the Federal Government or its appointed agents as provided in Rule 020101. Consequently, the plaintiff cannot claim that the Public Service Rules is applicable to regulate his appointment or dismissal…The Plaintiff himself has shown that he was employed by the Federal Medical Centre, Asaba which is not a party to this suit, yet he tried to rely on the Public Service Rules as the conditions regulating his employment. But he has failed totally to prove the terms of his contract of Service and that those terms required his employment could be terminated only in compliance with the Public Service Rules or that his conditions of employment are synonymous with the Public Service Rules.”
I have taken time to consider the affidavit and counter affidavit evidence of the parties, carefully going through the contents of Exhibits A – G relied upon by the Appellant in proof of his claims against the Respondents. It is true that the Appellant was offered a temporary appointment as Obstetrician/Gynecologist at the Federal Medical Centre, Asaba, Delta State. It is also true his appointment was confirmed and he was also further appointed by the Management Board as Head of Clinical Services and Training and Chairman, Medical Advisory Committee of the Centre.
Now, by paragraph 4 of Exhibit A, it is stated categorically as follows:
“4. Your appointment will take effect from the date on which you assume duty following your acceptance of this offer and will be subject to the terms and conditions laid down for the Federal Medical Centre Asaba … “
I have taken time to scrutinize the entire affidavit evidence as well as the documentary Exhibits relied upon by the Appellant as in the Record of Appeal, and curiously, not even a single fact was stated or placed before the trial Court as to the terms of the employment of the Appellant with his employers, the Federal Medical Centre, Asaba, Delta State, which incredulously was not even made a party by the Appellant.
The law is fairly settled that an employee who complains that his employment has been wrongfully terminated has the duty to prove by credible evidence placed before the Court the terms of his employment that had been breached by his employer. See Patrick V. River State Civil Service Commission (2007) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1022) 554 at p. 570, where it was held inter alia thus:
“It has been fairly established that where an employee complained that his employment has been wrongly terminated, he has the onus to place before the Court the terms that were breached by the employer. The law is that it is not the employer as a defendant in an action by the employee to prove any of those facts.”
See also Katto V. CBN (1999) 6 NWLR (Pt. 607) 390 at p. 408; Amodu V. Amode (1990) 5 NWLR (Pt. 150) 356 at p. 370; Lateef Adam V. Lagos State Property Development Corporation (2000) 5 NWLR (Pt. 656) 291 at p. 316.
To bring home the crucial position of the terms and conditions of employment in all cases in which wrongful termination from employment or retirement from service is alleged, in Okomu Oil Palm Co. Ltd V. Iserhierhien (2001) 6 NWLR (Pt. 710) 660 at p. 673, the Supreme Court had per Uwaigo JSC, stated inter alia thus:
“The question must be, in what manner or by what method would the Respondent in an action like this be expected to demonstrate that his employment was wrongfully terminated? It has been firmly established that when an employee complains that his employment has been wrongfully terminated, he has the onus (a) to place before the Court the terms of the contract of employment and (b) to prove in what manner the said terms were breached by the employer. It is not the duty of the employer as a Defendant in an action brought by the employee to prove any of these facts.”
See also Amodu V. Amode (1990) 5 NWLR (Pt. 150) 356 at p. 370, where the Supreme Court had per Agbaje JSC, stated inter alia thus:
“It appears clear to me that since it is the Plaintiff’s case that his dismissal by the defendant is not in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract of service between them, it is for the Plaintiff to plead and prove the conditions of service regulating the contract of service in question”.
It follows therefore, in employment cases, where it is alleged that there has occurred an unlawful termination of services or employment by an employer, “the term of the contract of service is the bedrock of the case.” Per Wali JSC, in Amodu V. Amode (1990) 5 NWLR (Pt. 150) 356 at p. 373.
Thus, unless and until the Appellant had crossed this rubicon by leading admissible evidence of the terms and conditions of his employment with his employers, who are not even parties to the Suit before the trial Court, of which none of the Exhibits A – G is one, to make out his claim at least on a prima facie basis, there was indeed no scintilla of onus on the Respondents to prove anything in their defence. See Jolayemi V. Alaoye (2004) 12 NWLR (Pt. 887) 322, where, Uwaifo JSC, had so succinctly put this position of law in its proper perspective thus:
“I realise that a Defendant need not prove anything if the Plaintiff has not succeeded in establishing his case at least prima facie, in order that the necessity of the Defendant to confront the case so made out may arise.”
In the circumstances therefore, issue one is hereby resolved against the Appellant and in favor of the Respondent.
ISSUE TWO
“Whether the Federal Medical Centre, Asaba is a creation of Statute?
Now, having held firmly that the Appellant failed to prove his claim of unlawful or wrongful retirement or termination of his services or employment by his employers, the Federal Medical Center Asaba, Delta State, or by any of the Respondents on record, issue two dealing with the status of the employers of the Appellant has become merely academic. The Courts are loath to and do not saddle themselves with the consideration of matters which though pending before them had become merely academic and therefore, of no utilitarian value to either of the parties. To embark on such an exercise, the jurisdiction of the Courts over matters which are no longer live and are best suited for the Faculties of Law in the several Universities scattered all over the Country, would clearly amount to nothing but sheer waste of the very precious and, if I may say scarce, judicial time. Thus, for a Court to continue to exercise its jurisdiction over matters pending before it, the matters must have in them issues which remain alive for determination and of utilitarian value to one or more of the parties. In Charles Oke & Anor.V. Dr. Rahman Mimiko & Ors. (2013) All FWLR (Pt. 693) 1853, the full Court of the Supreme Court per Muhammad JSC, had this to say on this issue:
“It is a principle of law long settled that the general attitude of the Courts of law is that they are loathe in making pronouncements on academic/hypothetical issues as it does not serve any useful purpose.”
See also the cases of: Uba Plc V. Dana Drugs Ltd (2018) LPELR -44103 (CA), per Georgewill, JCA; Action Congress v INEC (2007) LPELR – 8988 (CA); Mbachu V. Anambra – Imo River Basin Development Authority, Owerri (2006) All FWLR (Pt. 342) 1482 @ p 1497.
Consequent upon the resolution of issue one against the Appellant in favor of the 1st Respondent, it is clear that the appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, I hereby dismiss the appeal. The Judgment of the trial Court delivered on 30/1/2009 is hereby affirmed.
The parties shall bear their respective costs in the prosecution and defence of this appeal.
BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, J.C.A.: I have read in advance a draft of the leading judgment just delivered by my Lord Oyebisi Folayemi Omoleye JCA and I agree completely with the lucid reasoning and impeccable conclusions reached therein. Misjoinder of the primary employer of the Appellant, the Federal Medical Centre coupled with the failure to tender the terms of his employment rendered the clamour both incompetent for mis-joinder and lacking in merit for failure to disclose the terms of his employment without which it is impossible to determine whether or not his termination was wrongful. It is also preposterous for the Appellant to have commenced an action for wrongful termination by means of an Originating Summons. It ought rightly to have been commenced by means of Writ of Summons.
I therefore, agree with the leading judgment that the appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. I too hereby dismiss it.
FREDERICK OZIAKPONO OHO, J.C.A.: I read the draft of the judgment just delivered by my learned Brother, OYEBISI F. OMOLEYE- PJ, and I am in agreement with the reasoning and conclusions reached in disallowing the Appeal as lacking in merit. I subscribe to all other consequential orders made thereto.
Appearances:
Parties were not represented by Counsel despite service of hearing notices on them For Appellant(s)
Parties were not represented by Counsel despite service of hearing notices on them For Respondent(s)